Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Global Politics => Topic started by: FJAG on December 30, 2018, 12:18:49

Title: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on December 30, 2018, 12:18:49
Well, since I started last year's controversial thread, I might as well start this year's too, albeit two days early.

Here's the first post:

Quote
Retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal: President Donald Trump immoral, doesn't tell the truth

By Roey Hadar

The former top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, retired four-star Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, criticized President Donald Trump's behavior and handling of the presidency, saying the commander-in-chief is dishonest and immoral.

“I don’t think he tells the truth,” McChrystal said in an exclusive interview on “This Week” when asked by Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz if he believes the president is a liar.

“Is Trump immoral, in your view?” Raddatz asked.

“I think he is,” he said.

McChrystal said he couldn't tell any of Trump's supporters "that they are wrong," but added, "What I would ask every American to do is ... stand in front of that mirror and say, 'What are we about? Am I really willing to throw away or ignore some of the things that people do that are -- are pretty unacceptable normally just because they accomplish certain other things that we might like?'

"If we want to be governed by someone we wouldn't do a business deal with because their -- their background is so shady, if we're willing to do that, then that's in conflict with who I think we are. And so I think it's necessary at those times to take a stand."

. . .

See full article here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/retired-army-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-president-donald-trump/story?id=60065642 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/retired-army-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-president-donald-trump/story?id=60065642)

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on December 30, 2018, 12:54:55
President Donald Trump immoral, doesn't tell the truth
Slow news day.   ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on December 30, 2018, 13:55:40
I particularly enjoyed when he went to Iraq to meet the troops and then lied to their faces about their own pay raises. I don’t know if he just made numbers up on the spot or prepped the BS ahead of time, but it was pretty amazingly blatant.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on December 30, 2018, 14:47:05
I particularly enjoyed when he went to Iraq to meet the troops and then lied to their faces about their own pay raises. I don’t know if he just made numbers up on the spot or prepped the BS ahead of time, but it was pretty amazingly blatant.

Yeah.  I wish there was footage of the reaction when folks figured it out.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on December 30, 2018, 21:11:19
OMG

Quote
Graham: 'We're in a pause situation' on Syria after meeting with Trump

By Kevin Liptak and Devan Cole, CNN

Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham says President Donald Trump now understands what is at stake in Syria and has agreed to slowing, for now, his plans to immediately withdraw all US troops from Syria.

"After discussions with the President and (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph) Dunford, I never felt better about where we are headed. I think we're slowing things down in a smart way," the South Carolina Republican said, adding later: "I think we're in a pause situation where we are reevaluating what's the best way to achieve the President's objective of having people pay more and do more."

Graham said during the President's trip to Iraq, commanders on the ground informed Trump that ISIS is not "completely destroyed," which he said was an "eye-opening" experience for the commander in chief.

"The President assured me he is going to make sure he gets the job done, and I assured him that nobody has done more to defeat ISIS than he has. We are inside the 10-yard line," Graham told reporters at the White House, where he'd just come from lunch with the President.

Graham, who was a harsh critic of Trump's plans to bring home US troops from Syria when the decision was announced earlier in December, said he departed his meal Sunday feeling cheered.

. . .

See rest of article here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/30/politics/lindsey-graham-isis-syria-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/30/politics/lindsey-graham-isis-syria-trump/index.html)

Also here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-says-i-feel-pretty-good-about-syria-after-lunch-with-trump (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-says-i-feel-pretty-good-about-syria-after-lunch-with-trump)

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on December 31, 2018, 08:17:20
OMG

See rest of article here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/30/politics/lindsey-graham-isis-syria-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/30/politics/lindsey-graham-isis-syria-trump/index.html)

Also here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-says-i-feel-pretty-good-about-syria-after-lunch-with-trump (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-says-i-feel-pretty-good-about-syria-after-lunch-with-trump)

 :subbies:

I saw Sen. Graham's interview with Dana Bash before he went to that lunch with the POTUS.  I'm glad to see that even his supporters are trying to talk some sense to him.  If he does reverse his decision on Syria then maybe he still has some sense to listen to some people around him.  It confounds me though why Mattis wasn't one of them.

2019 is going to be one wild ride in DC this year...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on December 31, 2018, 17:53:54
Trump could single handedly create world peace while finishing a cure for cancer and his detractors would still condemn him.  :boring:

And after all the times, in just the last couple of years even, that CNN has been caught lying and defining fake news, that people still use them as a valid source to qualify their opinion.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on December 31, 2018, 18:02:05
Trump could single handedly create world peace while finishing a cure for cancer and his detractors would still condemn him.  :boring:

I wouldn’t put either claim past him at this point... in any case, the corollary is true too. It appears there’s not much he can do that will stop a lot of people from still leaping to his defense.

Anyway, so we’re keeping track, he lied to the troops’ faces about their own pay raises, fired Mattis, and now seems to be partly backtracking on the Syria withdrawal because, true to form, he has been winging foreign policy decisions again. Today on Twitter he even lied about being present in the Oval Office when he demonstrably wasn’t, of all things. Like, why lie about that? This guy is compulsively dishonest.

Also this week the rest of the Pacific Rim has contentedly carried on with TPP without him (outflanking him in redefining the international trade order- the US can say goodbye to a lot of food exports), Congress is joining Mexico in not paying for his wall, and he seems afraid to take ownership of the government shut down that a week or two about he bragged he’d be proud of... have I missed anything?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on December 31, 2018, 19:06:35
The more likely scenario is his detractors going after him for claiming that he cured cancer and achieved world peace with zero facts to back it up.  But his base will believe it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 01, 2019, 02:47:43
Trump could single handedly create world peace while finishing a cure for cancer and his detractors would still condemn him.  :boring:

And after all the times, in just the last couple of years even, that CNN has been caught lying and defining fake news, that people still use them as a valid source to qualify their opinion.

In the interest of fairnes, I simply ask for a shortlist of his accomplishments.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 01, 2019, 07:40:12
In the interest of fairnes, I simply ask for a shortlist of his accomplishments.

Well except for the screaming media and a lot of sad-sack Canadians, most normal Americans are very happy having jobs right now......drove through Michigan and you couldn't see the billboards for the 'help wanted' signs.  Now I make no claim that this is his doing, but if the job market sucked it sure would be his fault.

And hey,....whatever became of Black Lives Matter?  Oh yea, working people are happy people.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 01, 2019, 09:20:26
I clipped the attachment off social media about a week ago, as you can see it is dated 16 Dec 18; I don't follow the originator so one of the people I follow repeated it ...

I think it matters because as I, and some smart people, too, like Niall Ferguson and Stephen Harper, have been saying, Donald Trump is just the symptom of a deep malaise in American, and Western society. He could resign tomorrow and the angry, anti-globalization, anti-immigrant, protectionist, even isolationist movement would continue and even strengthen.

Put very simply, globalization left too many Americans and Brits and Canadians and, and, and underemployed and stripped of the dignity that a job provides. They lost too much from the globalization that ran, mainly unchecked, from about the mid 1960s until now ... I have used this (982) song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHnJp0oyOxs) as shorthand to explain what happened. It wasn't just China, it was also Japan and South Korea and others ... and it wasn't just cheap labour. The Asians didn't just work for less, they worked smarter for less. The fault wasn't just trade unions, as I have been saying for years, I'm a big fan of trade unions: they have done wonders for workers' rights, above all in health and safety issues, but trade unions are just as likely to have faulty leadership as are remote First Nations, the Canadian Forces and governments like those in Canada and the USA. In North America and Europe Trade Union leaders were, fairly consistently, after the 1950s, narrow minded and parochial and, with a few notable exceptions (including the Canadian Auto Workers), focused on the short term, the next quarter, rather than thinking strategically.

(Anecdotally, I was posted (early 1980s) to HQ AFCENT in Brunssum in the Netherlands. Our landscape was dotted with slag heaps, the remnants of the coal mines that had closed 20 years earlier (those mine closures had been one part of the impetus for moving AFCENT from France to the Netherlands, Charles de Gaulle was the other). Being the Netherlands, the slag heaps were covered with grass and trees and many were recreation facilities, but nothing could disguise the fact that South Limburg province had gone from being a rich province full of hard working miners to an economic backwater because the USA, Australia and neighbouring Germany were producing better (cleaner) coal for less per ton, after it was transported to the Ruhr or South Korea.)

I have written (https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/09/20/a-liberal-manifesto/) about what Professor Guy Standing of the University of London calls the precariat, which he describes as "the growing mass of Canadians who are in precarious work, precarious housing and hold precarious citizenship: the perpetual part-timers, the minimum-wagers, the temporary foreign workers, the grey-market domestics paid in cash, the young Canadians who will never have secure employment, the techno-impoverished  whose piecemeal work has no office and no end, the seniors who struggle with dwindling benefits, the indigenous people who are kept outside, the single mothers without support, the cash labourers who have no savings, the generation for whom a pension and a retirement is neither available nor desired … [and] … The precariat consists of millions of people struggling to come to terms with lives of unstable labour and unstable living, lacking an occupational identity or career. They rely on money wages, which are stagnant and volatile, putting them in constant fear of unsustainable debt. The politicians have ignored the precariat, which may account for 40 per cent of the adult population in Canada. In some countries, it is more; it is growing everywhere … [and, worse] … the precariat has been losing citizenship rights – civil, cultural, political, social and economic. As such, they are becoming supplicants: They must ask for favours and benefits, satisfy bureaucrats and depend on discretionary decisions that subject them to discomfort, indignity and even homelessness." That's the source of President Trump; they're his base; he is their creature, not they his. Donald Trump might drop dead today and they would still be here and their problems would still be festering sores on the body politic in America, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark and Estonia.

Donald Trump is not the problem, he is simply a symptom ~ a rather nasty, even dirty symptom, in my opinion, but that's all he is. If we want fewer Trumps and more traditional, classical liberalism then we need to address the concerns of the precariat.


Edited to correct an embarrassing grammar error.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 01, 2019, 09:29:00
I’m more than willing to give credit where credit is due.

He got rid of bumpstocks.  Not an easy thing when you consider the NRA lobby.  Not sure his base is happy about that though.

He passed a justice bill that got rid of the three strikes you are out law.  That law disproportionately affected the black community and saw people jailed for life’s over small crimes.

Also, it depends on your leanings but he pulled out of the Paris accord, removed some regulations in the energy sector to encourage growth and appointed two Supreme Court Justices that will have an impact for decades.

Giving him credit for the jobs and low unemployement is debatable.  The job market was on the rise before he took office and have continued the same trend since.  I give Trump no more credit for job creation than I give Trudeau for the same thing. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 01, 2019, 09:49:54
Giving him credit for the jobs and low unemployement is debatable.  The job market was on the rise before he took office and have continued the same trend since.  I give Trump no more credit for job creation than I give Trudeau for the same thing. 

I think we all know that our jobs are relying on that 75 cent dollar.......we ever go back to par, and tumbleweeds will be blowing across our business areas.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 01, 2019, 13:47:13
I think we all know that our jobs are relying on that 75 cent dollar.......we ever go back to par, and tumbleweeds will be blowing across our business areas.

Really?  Is that true?

Canada's dollar was essentially on par with the US dollar from 2007-2012.  During that time, unemployment in Canada fluctuated between 6 and 8.3 percent, with the high values being obvious results of the Great Recession of 2007-2009.  Canada's dollar is now .73 cents to the U.S. dollar, but the unemployment is Canada is now sitting at about 5.6 percent.  I don't see much disparity between unemployment rates in 2007 (6%) and 2018 (5.6%) despite the Canadian dollar being worth .27 cents less.

Here's the sources, for anyone who cares:

https://www.google.com/search?q=canadian+dollar+vs+us+dollar&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=canadian+dollar+vs+us+dollar&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6936j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.statista.com/statistics/578362/unemployment-rate-canada/

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 01, 2019, 13:56:23
most normal Americans are very happy having jobs right now......drove through Michigan and you couldn't see the billboards for the 'help wanted' signs.  Now I make no claim that this is his doing, but if the job market sucked it sure would be his fault.

what Professor Guy Standing of the University of London calls the precariat, which he describes as "the growing mass of Canadians who are in precarious work, precarious housing and hold precarious citizenship: the perpetual part-timers, the minimum-wagers, the temporary foreign workers, the grey-market domestics paid in cash, the young Canadians who will never have secure employment, the techno-impoverished  whose piecemeal work has no office and no end, the seniors who struggle with dwindling benefits, the indigenous people who are kept outside, the single mothers without support, the cash labourers who have no savings, the generation for whom a pension and a retirement is neither available nor desired … [and] … The precariat consists of millions of people struggling to come to terms with lives of unstable labour and unstable living, lacking an occupational identity or career. They rely on money wages, which are stagnant and volatile, putting them in constant fear of unsustainable debt.

Its interesting, because these represent two different viewpoints, or are they two sides of the same coin?  Bruce brings up a valid points on the historic strength of North American unemployment rates, low interest rates, and low unemployment rates should mean "things are good!" and people happy with the way things are going.  This is a message the current U.S. administration (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/04/trump-economy-performance-reality-midterm-election-vote-2018) and Canadian ministry (https://globalnews.ca/news/4795676/justin-trudeau-liberals-credit-canada-economy-jobs/) have pushed out in recently as a sign of their good stewardship.  At the same time Edward speaks to the types of jobs that are out there to keep unemployment low are "less stable" than jobs we traditionally equate with the working class, providing less benefits and stability, and thus creating more anxiety in the median of a population that sees its relative wealth level shrinking in comparison to the top 10% or 1% of earners in a country.

We get news of GM shutting down factories and on the same day see that unemployment is at rates not seen since the early 1960s.  Which is it?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 01, 2019, 13:57:26
You don't think a 27% increase in the cost of manufacturing something here will further drive what little is left down south?  Then you have become insulated from the real world.....it's easy to do with those of us whom have Govt. jobs.

EDIT: saw your post above and I think it proves my point a little.  I've been lucky to have my employment with a Govt. for 40 years now.  My friends who have 'normal' jobs, if you will, do not feel anything like I do.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 01, 2019, 14:39:23
You don't think a 27% increase in the cost of manufacturing something here will further drive what little is left down south?  Then you have become insulated from the real world.....it's easy to do with those of us whom have Govt. jobs.

So, you and I both have government jobs, and yet somehow I am insulated from the real world and you are not.  Spare the ad hominem.

I'm not looking at what I think, I'm looking at what objective, historical data shows us to be true.  You said Canadian unemployment will rise if the the Canadian dollar goes to par with the US Dollar.  12 years ago, the currencies were on par, and the unemployment rates were similar.  Why is historical data not supporting your conclusion?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 01, 2019, 14:50:30
No,...I'm insulated also.  I'm looking forward to my pension soon, and yet I had a visit this week from an old school buddy who works construction out on Vancouver Island, and his concern is IF he will be able to save enough to walk someday.  How can I know what he is feeling every freakin' day?

Historical data is a sweet wonderful thing for historians and not very accurate for predicting the future.  So, are you saying that, based on your historical data, our businesses could take a 27% hit right now?  Like bet your life savings on it sure?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 01, 2019, 15:22:54
I don't think the data, however optimistic, matters to the precariat, who, I suspect, are the core of President Trump's supporters. My guess (I cannot overemphasize that that's all it is) is that the precariat, which is predominately male and has less than a college/university education and either had or has parents who had good, solid, high paying industrial jobs in the 1970s and '80s, doesn't care about facts ... they know what they feel, and they feel a huge loss of both hope and dignity. I have written, several times, about the dignity deficit (https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2017/02/25/the-dignity-deficit/), and why I (and Stephen Harper, think it might propel Donald Trump to a second term in 2020 (https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/09/25/a-trade-war-to-combat-the-dignity-deficit/).

Go look at that 'tweet' I attached to my earlier post: the people who voted for Trump and will vote for him or his surrogate again, in 2020 and in 2024 and beyond, don't care about the data because it doesn't address their issues, their feelings.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on January 01, 2019, 15:27:39

Go look at that 'tweet' I attached to my earlier post: the people who voted for Trump and will vote for him or his surrogate again, in 2020 and in 2024 and beyond, don't care about the data because it doesn't address their issues, their feelings.

I agree, and it seems ironic that if one was to dive into the cesspool of social media comments, the "right" commonly bash the "left" about only going on feelings, not facts.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 01, 2019, 15:28:50
I'm looking forward to my pension soon, and yet I had a visit this week from an old school buddy who works construction out on Vancouver Island, and his concern is IF he will be able to save enough to walk someday.  How can I know what he is feeling every freakin' day?

So, we're talking defined benefits plans and the certainty they bring.  That's a bit different than understanding how the exchange rate will affect the unemployment rate in Canada.

Quote
Historical data is a sweet wonderful thing for historians and not very accurate for predicting the future.

Is it?  Care to back that assertion up with anything?

Quote
So, are you saying that, based on your historical data, our businesses could take a 27% hit right now?

How is a change in exchange rate = a 27% hit?

What I am saying is that Canada's unemployment rate has been fine in the past when the dollar was on par or worth more than the US dollar.  This was the case in 2007 when the Canadian dollar was on par and the unemployment rate was 6%.  When you dig into the data, you find that this was also the case in 1988, when the unemployment rate was just below 8% and the Canadian dollar was 25 cents up on the US dollar, in 1973 when the unemployment rate was below 6% (like it is now) and the Canadian dollar was worth the same as the US Dollar, or in 1962, when the lowest rate of Canadian unemployment was measured (2.9%) and the Canadian dollar was 6-8 cents more than the U.S. dollar.

All that is to say is that the link between Canadian unemployment rates and USD-CAD exchange rates are not intertwined in some sort of causal relationship.  There is some correlation between what they represent due to the size of the export market the US economy represents for us, but there are a host of other factors as well.  A simple scan of historical data demonstrates this, and I'm willing to bet more money on that than I am on your hunch based on your construction worker buddy's fear of a lack of a pension.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 01, 2019, 15:36:14
I don't think the data, however optimistic, matters to the precariat, who, I suspect, are the core of President Trump's supporters.

There is also the fact that the "precariat" aren't focused on the economic questions right now - hot economy or not, they probably grinding out some lower-level job with no benefits anyways.  Immigration and migration, social policy, and race relations seem to be issues that are prevalent in the news cycles and that the Trump administration is using buttress "The Base" against "The Elites" in the swamp.  I suspect the "precariat" sees these as bigger threats to America.  Here is an interesting take on things. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 01, 2019, 15:39:14
How is a change in exchange rate = a 27% hit?

Because right now when Hammond Manufacturing makes a transformer to sell in the US they are paying their employee's 74 cents in the currency they are selling into.  Factor in our higher electricity, heating, taxes, and then make that a dollar for a dollar and it's tumbleweeds.....
I can't put up links with the intranet I'm using, but a quick search of "how does a low Canadian dollar effect manufacturing" pretty much confirmed that train of thought from several media outlets.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 01, 2019, 16:56:45
Right, but (1) Hammond Manufacturing is not the sole representative of Canada's export economy and (2) while price increase due to currency conversion can reduce the demand for products, it is not the only determinant of demand.  Americans will still by Canadian goods if the cost rises.  How much is another question worth exploring.  But I bet it is not "tumbleweeds" for the Canadian economy.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 01, 2019, 17:49:14
There is also the fact that the "precariat" aren't focused on the economic questions right now - hot economy or not, they probably grinding out some lower-level job with no benefits anyways.  Immigration and migration, social policy, and race relations seem to be issues that are prevalent in the news cycles and that the Trump administration is using buttress "The Base" against "The Elites" in the swamp.  I suspect the "precariat" sees these as bigger threats to America.  Here is an interesting take on things. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/)


Thanks for that link. It's well worth a read. The key take-away is Professor Stanley's contention that fascists (and, almost certainly Trump supporters, too) think that the corruption that matters is that of "purity" and of "the traditional order." The precariat, which some observers think may account for up to 40% of the non-professional labour force, of the 'working class' and 'lower middle class,' in other words, and the traditional order both got swept aside in the 1990s and 2000s by the latest wave of globalization.

President Trump heard and understood their angst and promised to do something about it; that's why he's POTUS and Hillary Clinton is a historical footnote.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 01, 2019, 18:18:16
The key take-away is Professor Stanley's contention that fascists (and, almost certainly Trump supporters, too) think that the corruption that matters is that of "purity" and of "the traditional order." The precariat, which some observers think may account for up to 40% of the non-professional labour force, of the 'working class' and 'lower middle class,' in other words, and the traditional order both got swept aside in the 1990s and 2000s by the latest wave of globalization.

In spite of the fact the Republicans have lost the popular vote in every presidential election, except one, since the 1980's, it seems quite possible they will get back in,

QUOTE

A bipartisan report indicates that changes in voter demographics since the 2016 election could impact the results of the 2020 election. African Americans, Hispanics, Asians/others, and "whites with a college degree" are expected to all increase their percentage of national eligible voters by 2020, while "whites without a college degree" will decrease. This shift is potentially an advantage for the Democratic nominee, however due to geographical differences, this could still lead to President Trump (or a different Republican nominee) winning the Electoral College while still losing the popular vote, possibly by an even larger margin than in 2016.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/demographic-shifts-show-2020-presidential-race-could-be-close-n868146

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on January 01, 2019, 18:31:53

Thanks for that link. It's well worth a read. The key take-away is Professor Stanley's contention that fascists (and, almost certainly Trump supporters, too) think that the corruption that matters is that of "purity" and of "the traditional order." The precariat, which some observers think may account for up to 40% of the non-professional labour force, of the 'working class' and 'lower middle class,' in other words, and the traditional order both got swept aside in the 1990s and 2000s by the latest wave of globalization.

President Trump heard and understood their angst and promised to do something about it; that's why he's POTUS and Hillary Clinton is a historical footnote.

But doesn't that fly in the face of Dr Standing's definition of the precariat as set out in his article https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-new-class-canada-neglects-the-precariat-at-its-peril/article24944758/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-new-class-canada-neglects-the-precariat-at-its-peril/article24944758/) where he defines it to be a new class of:

Quote
the growing mass of Canadians who are in precarious work, precarious housing and hold precarious citizenship: the perpetual part-timers, the minimum-wagers, the temporary foreign workers, the grey-market domestics paid in cash, the young Canadians who will never have secure employment, the techno-impoverished whose piecemeal work has no office and no end, the seniors who struggle with dwindling benefits, the indigenous people who are kept outside, the single mothers without support, the cash labourers who have no savings, the generation for whom a pension and a retirement is neither available nor desired.

By my reckoning (and the reading of a few Dickensian novels) this underclass is not new but has been a with us for centuries if not time immemorial.

I take it from the Beinart article that Infanteer cites that the foundation of Trump support comes from are those who are angered by the "corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order." which in effect is one of a social order based on gender and tradition (i.e. religious) and racial class lines. While there is undoubtedly a partial overlap of the precariat and the Beinart groups, I think it is the Beinart group that fuels the core of Trump's support. The precariat itself strikes me much more as a group that ought to gravitate to socialism.

 :subbies:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 01, 2019, 19:19:58
FJAG: I think you're right about the precariat having been with us almost forever, but I recommend Stephen Harper's new book, 'Right Here, Right Now,' in which he posits that this, recent, eruption of precariat outrage is the result of them being able to identify a source of their problems ... now I think they have acquired the wrong target, but it doesn't matter what I think (or what Stephen Harper thinks, either), they have decided that the liberal world order that has been around for 75ish years is to blame and they have the bit between their teeth.

(Parenthetically, see also Niall Ferguson's thesis that the early 21st century is not like the 1930s or any other modern age ... rather it is like the early Reformation era when the printing press was new; the spread and flow of 'information' is unprecedented; that's why the precariat can identify their villain.)

I also think this generation of the precariat is larger, and, especially, proportionately larger here in North America and in Western Europe, than in the past and that makes a huge difference ... please imagine President Trump saying huge ... yuge or something.
 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 01, 2019, 19:39:39
...
I take it from the Beinart article that Infanteer cites that the foundation of Trump support comes from are those who are angered by the "corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order." which in effect is one of a social order based on gender and tradition (i.e. religious) and racial class lines. While there is undoubtedly a partial overlap of the precariat and the Beinart groups, I think it is the Beinart group that fuels the core of Trump's support. The precariat itself strikes me much more as a group that ought to gravitate to socialism.

 :subbies:


That's why I recommend the Stephen Harper book: he thinks there is a huge overlap, if they are not one in the same. His prescription is that a principled (classical liberal) conservative party must reach out to the precariat (he doesn't use that term) with new programmes, policies and promises ~ he thinks that the problem is much bigger than just jobs ... it goes to that dignity deficit thing which is about social structures, law and order and jobs. He wants to keep globalization and free trade and so on but he says that we need to fix the precariat concurrently with repairing the damage the Trump Party is doing to the world order.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 01, 2019, 22:00:27
I find it kind of hilarious how people believe the multi millions of people who voted for Trump are all a bunch of red neck neanderthals. We sit across our border looking down our nose at the POTUS that won, as fair and square as possible.

So much smarter aren't we Canadians. Countless hours spent cursing his very existence, all his failed policies, his tweets his spelling mistakes, his grammar, his actions and mannerisms. So much smarter than the millions of people that voted for him. Nobody says anything about being one of the only Presidents to be keeping all of his election promises.

So smart, as a matter of fact, that it's all about Trump.

Where is all the research and angst for our own situation. Our PM is turning our country inside out, people on the verge of poverty, others already destitute. Jobs disappearing, stagnant economy, trade agreements in shambles. We are in a total chaos as trudeau gives our country away. Where are all those, smarter than any American, Canadians? Lots of time to slam a foreign power and head of state, but none to talk about the ruination of their own country. Perhaps it's that loyalty to trudeau that allows them to throw rocks over the fence with an air of hypocracy that can only be smelled by those not enthralled with him.

Yep, a real smart bunch.

Perhaps they feel if they make Trump the devil incarnate, it'll make trudeau somewhat palatable while their heads are in the sand. Canadians that talk down to Americans are not as smart as they think they are. I'm sure there are plenty amongst those millions of Americans, that are professionals in their fields, that could shred every amateur opinion on this thread.


Trump 2020.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on January 01, 2019, 22:51:36
Okay. Hands up everybody who didn't see this coming.

Quote
Trump attacks McChrystal after retired general called Trump immoral
By Caroline Kelly

In one of his first tweets of the new year, President Donald Trump attacked retired four-star Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal after he criticized the President on Sunday.

"'General' McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama," Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover!"

Trump was retweeting a post from Fox News' Laura Ingraham sharing a story headlined "Media Didn't Like McChrystal Until He Started Bashing Trump."

The commander in chief's name-calling comes after McChrystal said during an interview Sunday that Trump was dishonest and immoral.

"I don't think he tells the truth," McChrystal told ABC's Martha Raddatz on "This Week." When asked if he thought Trump was immoral, McChrystal responded, "I think he is."

. . .

See rest of article here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/01/politics/trump-tweet-mcchrystal/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/01/politics/trump-tweet-mcchrystal/index.html)

 :stirpot:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 02, 2019, 09:15:44
Mitt Romney’s op ed in the Washington Post is making the rounds today.  Could there be a challenge from within the GOP?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.1e3a486d5b3f
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 02, 2019, 09:55:32
An earlier post stated the $0.73 Cdn dollar. That's not how currency exchange works.

Right now the Cdn dollar is $0.73256. To purchase one USD is $1.36527. Currency exchange through the TD Bank is $1.4005 (which charges a commission to do the exchange). If you or a business are exchange large amounts the commission rate goes down.

The point is it is costing at least $0.37 Cdn extra to buy one USD, not the $0.27 it appears to be.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 02, 2019, 14:38:00
I find it kind of hilarious how people believe the multi millions of people who voted for Trump are all a bunch of red neck neanderthals.

There were five posts by Edward Campbell, four by myself, and one by FJAG.  Nowhere did anyone say "red neck neanderthals," or insinuate the same, so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.  Rather, the discussion was on the value perception of voters supporting leaders with platforms like the current President.

Quote
Where is all the research and angst for our own situation.

Why don't you start a thread about the Liberal Party of Canada and its base in the politics thread then?  I'm sure you'll get some informed responses to satiate your curiosity.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 02, 2019, 19:37:15
At last, some in-depth geo-political analysis, rooted in a deep understanding of history:

Quote
Trump’s bizarre history lesson on the Soviet Union, Russia and Afghanistan

By Aaron Blake
January 2 at 5:08 PM

President Trump said a lot of strange, untrue things after Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting. But the most bizarre snippet might have been his “history” lesson on the Soviet Union.

Trump, who has assured us he is the foremost expert on many topics for which he has no formal education or training, gave his own version of why the USSR collapsed. And to be clear, it is his own version.

Here’s what he said:

“Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia, because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan. Russia. … The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is, it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt; they went into being called Russia again, as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, a lot of these places you’re reading about now are no longer part of Russia, because of Afghanistan.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/02/trumps-bizarre-history-lesson-soviet-union-russia-afghanistan/?utm_term=.e22b734fa5a4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/02/trumps-bizarre-history-lesson-soviet-union-russia-afghanistan/?utm_term=.e22b734fa5a4)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 02, 2019, 20:11:34
There were five posts by Edward Campbell, four by myself, and one by FJAG.  Nowhere did anyone say "red neck neanderthals," or insinuate the same, so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up.  Rather, the discussion was on the value perception of voters supporting leaders with platforms like the current President.

Why don't you start a thread about the Liberal Party of Canada and its base in the politics thread then?  I'm sure you'll get some informed responses to satiate your curiosity.

You don't get to rewrite your binned post to me, to remove your contravention of the rules, and expect an answer. That a bit over the top, even for you. As I stated in my earlier response to you.There was no mention made of members, threads or forums. It was a general statement of some Canadians attitudes.

As far as who is discussing what, no rule says we have to maintain a continuity of flow about an element of discussion. Tangents, opinions on other subjects can be started at any time. As are many of the one liners that have a tendency to appear from individuals.

I'm way ahead of you on a separate thread. Just tring to decide how I want to describe our PM and his trusty bunch of supporters.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: BeyondTheNow on January 02, 2019, 20:54:42
I'm way ahead of you on a separate thread. Just tring to decide how I want to describe our PM and his trusty bunch of supporters.

I’m trusting all is solved then.

Everyone carry on with discussion without the needless bickering and accusation-throwing, or leave the discussion. It’s that simple.

Staff
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 02, 2019, 22:28:28
Regardless of anyone’s political leanings, The POTUS is about to have a rougher ride starting tomorrow.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on January 02, 2019, 23:48:08
Regardless of anyone’s political leanings, The POTUS is about to have a rougher ride starting tomorrow.

He sure is. Are we taking bets on whether he can get legislation passed to implement the USMCA trade deal?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 03, 2019, 10:24:01
WARNING:  I'm about to say something positive about Trump. :o  (It's a stretch, but it's the best I can do)

Are we taking bets....
The only gambling I'm concerned about with the US Presidency is the hand-wringing (either gleefully or dismayed) surrounding the growing theme of "inevitable" impeachment. 

Personally, I see Pence's Presidency as a horrific COA -- the erratic worldview we already see coming from the White House would have a newfound underpinning of competence.  Unfortunately for Americans, the focus would shift from destabilizing the international system to a more domestic agenda, with his extremist evangelical beliefs openly targeting religious and sexual freedoms.  If in doubt, look at his writings during his time hosting talk shows, or his legislation (often overturned as unconstitutional) as Indiana governor.  A Pence Presidency could not help but widen the chasm in an increasingly fractured, dysfunctional America.

So while there is varying degrees of evidence that Trump is: misogynistic; racist; sociopathic; likely illiterate; emotionally insecure; and frankly, not the brightest crayon in the box..... he's not the worst option.



Correction.... because I do dumb things on occasion.  ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 03, 2019, 10:28:18
Sorry for the nitpick, Journeyman,

I believe Mike Pence was governor of a neighbouring state: Indiana.

If in doubt, look at his writings during his time hosting talk shows, or his legislation (often overturned as unconstitutional) as Illinois governor. 

So while there is varying degrees of evidence that Trump is: misogynistic; racist; sociopathic; likely illiterate; emotionally insecure; and frankly, not the brightest crayon in the box..... he's not the worst option.

I can't see Pence able to get the base riled up at MAGA rallies the way Trump does.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 03, 2019, 10:44:05
Sorry for the nitpick, Journeyman,

I believe Mike Pence was governor of a neighbouring state: Indiana.

 :bowdown:    The nitpick is completely justified! 


I was thinking of his abysmal response to the 2009 East  Chicago toxic lead/arsenic contamination disaster...conflating 'Chicago' and "Illinois.'  ~d'oh~ :facepalm: 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on January 03, 2019, 12:42:41
Regardless of anyone’s political leanings, The POTUS is about to have a rougher ride starting tomorrow.

Of course. Soon after the swearing in and control of committees is complete the process of obtaining Trump's tax returns will begin. When they get them expect them to be dumped on the desk of the Washington Post soon after. But getting the tax returns could be a good thing, everybody knows you put all your illegal activities on schedule "666".
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 03, 2019, 13:22:03
Soon after the swearing in and control of committees is complete the process of obtaining Trump's tax returns will begin.

Promises made,

11 May 2016

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/730500562022760448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E730500562022760448&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2017%2F04%2F17%2Fnews%2Fdonald-trump-tax-returns%2Findex.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on January 03, 2019, 13:26:33
Promises made,

11 May 2016

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/730500562022760448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E730500562022760448&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2017%2F04%2F17%2Fnews%2Fdonald-trump-tax-returns%2Findex.html

Do you have direct knowledge that the audit is complete?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 03, 2019, 13:44:43
Do you have direct knowledge that the audit is complete?

I just know what I read in the papers,

QUOTE

There is no law that stops a person from releasing tax returns while under audit.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 03, 2019, 14:05:50
Of course. Soon after the swearing in and control of committees is complete the process of obtaining Trump's tax returns will begin. When they get them expect them to be dumped on the desk of the Washington Post soon after. But getting the tax returns could be a good thing, everybody knows you put all your illegal activities on schedule "666".

My guess and it is only that, is that he has not paid a dime in income tax.  But it will all be legal.  It may also reveal a lot of offshore holdings.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on January 03, 2019, 20:51:25
My guess and it is only that, is that he has not paid a dime in income tax.  But it will all be legal.  It may also reveal a lot of offshore holdings.

Considering what the a New York Times investigation found that is not a stretch:

 Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 03, 2019, 21:54:38
I just know what I read in the papers,

QUOTE

There is no law that stops a person from releasing tax returns while under audit.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

END QUOTE

There is federal law saying he 'shall' turn them over if they ask. He can refuse, go to court and if he loses, a small group of scrutineers will then get to look at them. A small group. If he just turns them over, the democrats will have them broadcast around the world in minutes. Even if the court decides in the dems favour, the IRS is under no obligation to drop everything and do a search and deliver. Heck, there might even be an election before they get around to it.

They say they are looking for conflicts of interest, although they have failed to state exactly what they are looking for. I'm guessing it's just a nosey fishing expedition and it tweaks Trump's nose.

Trump never said the audit prevented him from turning them over, but he did say his lawyers recommended not doing it during an audit. That makes perfect sense to me. If trained, professional IRS auditors, possibly have trouble navigating it, or need clarification on something. imagine if a bunch of bumbling, no nothing politicians get there hands on it. Better to have the professionals finish the job and remove all the false flags the dems are going to try read into it.

I see they also want to audit the Trump Foundation. I'd say sure, why not? Right after they are done investigating the Clinton and Obama Foundatioms.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 03, 2019, 22:22:21
An audit was essentially done.  The Trump foundation was forced to dissolve and pay back some money.  Happened just before Christmas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/nyregion/ny-ag-underwood-trump-foundation.html


The Clinton foundation is also under the microscope and being investigated by the FBI.  was reported last year around this time but I do not know where it stands at this point.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 03, 2019, 22:32:05
From a historical - not a legal - perspective.  President Nixon released his tax returns in December 1973, while under audit.

QUOTE

At the time, the 37th president was embroiled in the Watergate scandal, and questions were being raised about whether something also was amiss with his tax filings.

Reports had surfaced that Nixon had been paying a small amount of federal tax for several years, Joseph J. Thorndike, a historian at Tax Analysts told us in August. To quell lingering concerns, Nixon released tax returns to the public as well as to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Nixon was under an IRS audit at the time, Thorndike told us.

In an April 2016 blog post, Thorndike wrote that the IRS audit found Nixon owed almost $500,000 in unpaid taxes and interest.

"Nixon released his returns even though he was under audit. Ultimately, the audit didn’t go well for him-- it was unpleasant, embarrassing, and ultimately very expensive," Thorndike wrote. "But it was also necessary, given the persistent questions about Nixon’s returns."

Thorndike says Nixon’s disclosure started a tradition where presidents and candidates seeking the highest office release their returns to the public. His successor, President Gerald Ford, didn’t make his returns public, although he did release a summary of his returns. Every president since Jimmy Carter has made their tax forms public.
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/oct/05/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-correctly-notes-richard-nixon-released-t/

END QUOTE









Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 04, 2019, 16:08:33
The Democrats are not holding back lol.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-move-to-eliminate-electoral-college-limit-presidential-pardon-power-and-more-in-first-days-back

Not sure what the likelihood of those things are of getting any further than the floor of the congress...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 04, 2019, 16:40:06
I suspect the likelihood is not very high.

However, you have to love the fact that in the US, the legislative branch knows it is independent from the executive and, regardless of party's position, the elected legislators take their role and personal independence  seriously and do try to move things the way either they promised to do to get elected or that they are asked by their constituency.

I would like to see our own Canadian duly elected officials act on their own actual role as "check and balance" of the executive power (the Queen and her government - which, BTW does NOT include the "backbenchers" of the same affiliation as the PM) and accordingly, exercise their freedom to speak or introduce legislation in Parliament regardless of the views/thoughts/inclination of HM's Government, instead of simply kowtowing to the PMO's wishes all the time.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on January 04, 2019, 17:13:58
I suspect the likelihood is not very high.

However, you have to love the fact that in the US, the legislative branch knows it is independent from the executive and, regardless of party's position, the elected legislators take their role and personal independence  seriously and do try to move things the way either they promised to do to get elected or that they are asked by their constituency.

I would like to see our own Canadian duly elected officials act on their own actual role as "check and balance" of the executive power (the Queen and her government - which, BTW does NOT include the "backbenchers" of the same affiliation as the PM) and accordingly, exercise their freedom to speak or introduce legislation in Parliament regardless of the views/thoughts/inclination of HM's Government, instead of simply kowtowing to the PMO's wishes all the time.

The US legislature's independence from the executive does not equal being independent of their respective parties. Theoretically if the house and senate majorities are of the same party as the executive it works effectively the same as here when you have a majority government. The PMO's and cabinet's control here is a bit more apparent than the pull that a president and his cabinet have over their own party's legislators and is effected more through the house and senate leaders behind closed doors. It takes a very strong legislator who's prepared to lose the next election in order to buck his party's line even down there. Just see what's happening in the GOP right now.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 04, 2019, 18:07:52
Quote
House Dems move to eliminate Electoral College
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-move-to-eliminate-electoral-college-limit-presidential-pardon-power-and-more-in-first-days-back

I don't see any advantage for Republicans having presidential elections decided by the Popular Vote.

Republicans won the presidential popular vote in 1988 and 2004.

Democrats won the presidential popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016.




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 04, 2019, 19:42:14
>At the same time Edward speaks to the types of jobs that are out there to keep unemployment low are "less stable" than jobs we traditionally equate with the working class, providing less benefits and stability

Based on my own family history, I suppose that "jobs we traditionally equate with the working class" have traditionally been unstable and provided little to no benefits.  What we observed for about 60 years in the past century was an exception.  I doubt Trump actually has a solution to re-setting those conditions.  But, as noted above, he at least promised to try; and, if he despises or merely has no regard for the working class, he at least manages to hide it better than many prominent Democrats.

I also suppose that the "changing world order" is not driven by the negative forces often cited (racism, nativism, etc).  Those are effects and parasites, not causes.  The problem might simply be that the establishments nearly everywhere have failed to do more than protect themselves and their privileges.  For example: Terry Glavin in Macleans, on Bolsonaro in Brazil (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-path-to-power/).  Although Trump is privileged and the establishment has worked well for him, he found a path to power by at least seeming to be not another condescending smug member of the we-know-whats-best-and-we-deserve-to-rule (-and-to-live-well-while-doing-it) clique.  If the newly-"independent" legislative branch (always seems to coincide with a president of the other party) spends two years muck-raking and improving nothing except reassuring the 25% that they are righteous, I expect Trump to be re-elected and Democrats to lose the House.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on January 04, 2019, 23:44:01
Sigh

Quote
Trump defends Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan

By Zachary Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN)During his freewheeling, 90-minute cabinet meeting Wednesday, President Donald Trump briefly argued that the Soviet Union "was right" to invade Afghanistan in 1979 because "terrorists were going into Russia," a head-scratching aside that was widely criticized as historically inaccurate.

"Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan. Russia. So you take a look at other countries. Pakistan is there. They should be fighting," Trump said.

"But Russia should be fighting. The reason Russia was in, in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union," he added.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board reacted strongly to Trump's comments in an op-ed Friday: "Right to be there? We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with three divisions in December 1979 to prop up a fellow communist government."

The Soviet Union, which was comprised of Russia and several now independent Eastern European and Asian nations, did in fact invade Afghanistan amid Cold War tensions with the US.

But Trump's assertion that Russia was "right to be there" conflicts with the fact that the US strongly opposed the invasion and supported the guerilla insurgency that ultimately forced the Soviets to leave in 1988.

His claim that the incursion was a response to "terrorists going into Russia" also diverges with what the US believed, that it was part of the Soviet effort to spread communism.

The Kremlin's bloody nine-year campaign to support the Marxist government in Kabul cost the lives of more than 14,000 troops and hit the Soviet economy before its 100,000-strong army was forced into a humiliating withdrawal.

While the Soviet economy did ultimately collapse, it did not go bankrupt, contrary to Trump's claim. Additionally, that collapse was not solely caused by the invasion into Afghanistan but rather a myriad of factors, including systemic issues within the Soviet Union's communist economy.

. . .

See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/trump-cabinet-meeting-afghanistan-soviet-union/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/trump-cabinet-meeting-afghanistan-soviet-union/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 04, 2019, 23:46:02
>At the same time Edward speaks to the types of jobs that are out there to keep unemployment low are "less stable" than jobs we traditionally equate with the working class, providing less benefits and stability

Based on my own family history, I suppose that "jobs we traditionally equate with the working class" have traditionally been unstable and provided little to no benefits.  What we observed for about 60 years in the past century was an exception.  I doubt Trump actually has a solution to re-setting those conditions.  But, as noted above, he at least promised to try; and, if he despises or merely has no regard for the working class, he at least manages to hide it better than many prominent Democrats.

I also suppose that the "changing world order" is not driven by the negative forces often cited (racism, nativism, etc).  Those are effects and parasites, not causes.  The problem might simply be that the establishments nearly everywhere have failed to do more than protect themselves and their privileges.  For example: Terry Glavin in Macleans, on Bolsonaro in Brazil (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-path-to-power/).  Although Trump is privileged and the establishment has worked well for him, he found a path to power by at least seeming to be not another condescending smug member of the we-know-whats-best-and-we-deserve-to-rule (-and-to-live-well-while-doing-it) clique.  If the newly-"independent" legislative branch (always seems to coincide with a president of the other party) spends two years muck-raking and improving nothing except reassuring the 25% that they are righteous, I expect Trump to be re-elected and Democrats to lose the House.

There's a bottle of your favourite in your future if your soothsaying powers are true.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: dapaterson on January 05, 2019, 12:27:52
A treatise on the transformation of work in America over the past half century is online at Quartz: https://qz.com/1510405/gms-layoffs-can-be-traced-to-its-quest-to-turn-people-into-machines/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on January 05, 2019, 12:43:56
See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/trump-cabinet-meeting-afghanistan-soviet-union/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/trump-cabinet-meeting-afghanistan-soviet-union/index.html)
All in line with the latest proposed narrative (https://wapo.st/2QqPoZo) ...
Quote
... (In November 2018), Russian lawmakers took another big step ... by approving a draft resolution that seeks to justify the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. The formal vote on the measure — proposed jointly by lawmakers from the United Russia and Communist parties — will be held before the 30th anniversary of the withdrawal of Soviet troops on Feb. 15. Hailing the decision, Communist lawmaker Nikolai Kharitonov called it a victory for “historical truth.”

The real historical truth — without quotation marks — was made public with the partial declassification of Soviet archives after 1991. The decision to invade Afghanistan was taken by the Politburo in December 1979; the measure was euphemistically titled “On the situation in ‘A.’ ” The first contingent of the USSR’s 40th Army crossed the Amu Darya River into Afghanistan on Dec. 25. Two days later, the Afghan dictator Hafizullah Amin – whose request for assistance served as the pretext for the invasion — was murdered by Soviet special forces in Tajbeg Palace.

(...)

“I am proud of that exile in Gorky, it was an award for me,” (Andrei) Sakharov said at the session of the Congress of People’s Deputies — the Soviet Union’s first semi-freely elected parliament — in June 1989. “The war in Afghanistan was a criminal gamble.” In December of that year, the Congress of People’s Deputies passed a resolution of “moral and political condemnation” of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was signed by Mikhail Gorbachev, in his capacity as chairman of the Supreme Soviet, on December 24.

It is that statement that Russia’s legislature, the Duma, is now preparing to declare null and void. The draft resolution holds that the 1989 condemnation went against “historical justice,” and that Soviet military action in Afghanistan was conducted “in full accordance with the norms of international law.” ...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on January 05, 2019, 13:12:38
Add to that the following article (incidentally Glavin has a touch with turning a phrase):

Quote
The terrifying depths of Donald Trump’s ignorance, in a single quote
The president’s recent claim that the Soviets were ‘right’ to invade Afghanistan is worse than idiotic—it’s downright frightening
by Terry Glavin Jan 3, 2019

It’s been two years since a reality-television mogul, billionaire real estate grifter and sleazy beauty-pageant impresario who somehow ended up on the Republican ticket in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, failed to win the popular vote but fluked his way into the White House anyhow by means of an antique back-door anomaly peculiar to the American political system known as the Electoral College.

We’re now at the half-way mark of Donald Trump’s term in the White House, and the relentless hum of his casual imbecilities, obscenities, banalities and outright fabrications has become so routine to the world’s daily dread that it is now just background noise in the ever-louder bedlam of America’s dystopian, freak-show political culture.

And yet, now and again, just when you think the president has scraped his fingers raw in the muck at the bottom of stupidity’s deep barrel, the man somehow manages to out-beclown himself. Such was the case this week, in a ramble of fatuous illiteracy that should drive home the point, to all of us, that the Office of the President of the United States of America is currently occupied by a genuinely dangerous maniac.

At a press briefing at the end of a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump sat at a long table with a huge faux Game of Thrones television-series poster, featuring an image of himself taking up the whole thing, splayed out on the table in front of him.

In the course of contradicting himself—or maybe not, it’s hard to say—on the matter of if and when he intends to withdraw U.S. troops from the 79-member anti-ISIS coalition (“Syria was lost long ago … we’re talking about sand and death”), Trump muttered something about Iranian forces in Syria being at liberty to do as they please. “They can do what they want there, frankly,” he said. Unsurprisingly, upon hearing the news of what certainly sounded like an abrupt and dramatic shift in U.S. policy, Israeli officials were reported to be in shock.

But then the subject turned to Afghanistan, and Trump’s fervent wish to withdraw American troops from the 39-nation military coalition there—down from 59 nations, at its height—which is currently battling a resurgent Taliban that has been emboldened by American dithering generally, and specifically by Trump’s oft-repeated intent to get shut of Afghanistan and walk away from the place altogether.

Trump mocked India—a highly-valued friend of Afghanistan and contributor of $3 billion in infrastructure and community-development funding—with a weird reference to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “constantly telling me he built a library in Afghanistan.” Officials in Modi’s office say nobody knows what the hell Trump was talking about. Then Trump complained that Pakistan—a duplicitous enemy of Afghan sovereignty and a notoriously persistent haven-provider and incubator of Taliban terrorism—isn’t making a sufficient military commitment to Afghanistan. Which made absolutely no sense.

But then Trump went right off the deep end with a disquisition on the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and his remarks betrayed a perilous, gawping ignorance of the very reason why Afghanistan became such a lawless hellhole in the first place—which is how it came to pass that al-Qaeda found sanctuary there with the deranged Pakistani subsidiary that came to be called the Taliban, which is how al-Qaeda managed to plan and organize the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001—which is the very reason the American troops that Trump keeps saying he wants to bring home are still there at all.

“Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia, because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan,” Trump began. “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is, it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt; they went into being called Russia again, as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, a lot of these places you’re reading about now are no longer part of Russia, because of Afghanistan.”

. . .

See rest of article here: https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-terrifying-depths-of-donald-trumps-ignorance-in-a-single-quote/ (https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-terrifying-depths-of-donald-trumps-ignorance-in-a-single-quote/)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 10, 2019, 10:43:07
Given all this wall talk, I hadn't considered that Texans might not actually want a wall, at least not on their properties...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/texas-landowners-prepare-for-wall-fight-trump-to-visit-border-1.4972686

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article152402734.html

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-border-communities-cringe-as-Trump-sounds-13518898.php



Given the sanctity of individual property rights in the US and Texas in particular I can see this as yet another obstacle to the POTUS' plan.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 10, 2019, 13:45:59
On the other hand, a number of ranchers, a few weeks ago, invited the feds onto their land that runs next to the border property. They're tired of watching groups wander through their property and sniffing around the homestead.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 10, 2019, 13:56:57
On the other hand, a number of ranchers, a few weeks ago, invited the feds onto their land that runs next to the border property. They're tired of watching groups wander through their property and sniffing around the homestead.

 On a radio station this morning, that is usually against anything Mr. Trump, they were discussing how it does seem the farther you live away from 'the wall", the more outraged you are about "the wall".
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 10, 2019, 15:53:37
For reference to the discussion, regarding proximity to Mexico,

QUOTE

Pew Research Center

March 8, 2017

In Republicans’ views of a border wall, proximity to Mexico matters

Republicans overwhelmingly favor the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. But Republicans who live closer to the border are less likely to support the wall than are those who live farther away.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/in-republicans-views-of-a-border-wall-proximity-to-mexico-matters/

END QUOTE
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 10, 2019, 19:10:16
From involved farmers
https://www.agweb.com/article/arizona-ranchers-share-experience-with-border-security/

Arizona Ranchers Share Experience with Border Security

     

Note: The original version of this story ran online and in Drovers magazine during March 2018. The story has been updated to reflect recent debate on funding for a border wall.

 

The U.S. border with Mexico spans 1,954 miles, and ranchers are on the front lines for most of it.

For the past few decades, border enforcement and security has increased to halt illegal immigration and drug smuggling. In 1989, construction on the first major border fence began in San Diego, stretching 46 miles east.

President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 on Oct. 26, 2006, adding nearly 700 miles of fencing structures and more enforcement officials.

More recently President Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of border security, much of it hinging on building a wall. From the start of his presidency, funding for a border wall has been under scrutiny. The debate finally reached its boiling point on Dec. 21, 2018, when Trump opted out of signing a bill that would fund the government because it lacked $5.7 billion to pay for a border wall.

During the standoff between Trump and Congress that has seen the government enter its second longest shutdown, the debate has only intensified.

During his first primetime address from the Oval Office on Jan. 15, President Trump shared stories of how illegal immigration and drug smuggling have impacted the lives of American citizens.

“To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose


More at link.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on January 10, 2019, 20:54:28
On a separate tack (not to divert the conversation, sorry- there just tends to be much happening concurrently with this presidency), Cohen has agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee in February. Hold on to your butts... This will get ugly from both ends of the political spectrum.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cohen-congress-testimony-date-1.4973622
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on January 11, 2019, 15:41:48
On a separate tack (not to divert the conversation, sorry- there just tends to be much happening concurrently with this presidency), Cohen has agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee in February. Hold on to your butts... This will get ugly from both ends of the political spectrum.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cohen-congress-testimony-date-1.4973622

The committee has it's own YouTube channel. It seems to be filled with reports from MSNBC.
https://www.youtube.com/user/OversightDems/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/OversightDems/videos)
One video is titled "We Must Act on Trump Russia Ties"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-fzCbrxukU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-fzCbrxukU)
I really trust these people to get to the truth, really I do. By the way, that video is directly linked from the official committee site.
https://oversight.house.gov/ (https://oversight.house.gov/)
Yes, the republicans have a committee page as well with a scattering of news reports. But the majority is committee hearings videos.
https://www.youtube.com/user/oversightandreform/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/oversightandreform/videos)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 12, 2019, 18:09:55
Conrad Black is always worth the read - not because he is always right, but because he is a good writer and raises things worth considering.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-americas-resurgence-is-reshaping-the-world

I've bulletized his points:
Quote
  • the economy of the United States is astoundingly strong: full employment, an expanding work force, negligible inflation and about three per cent economic growth.  And it is a broad economic recovery, not based on service industries as in the United Kingdom (where London handles most of Europe’s financial industry, while most of British industry has fled), and not based largely on the fluctuating resources markets as has often been Canada’s experience.
  • In the eight years of president Obama, the United States lost 219,000 manufacturing jobs; in the two years of Trump, the country has added 477,000 manufacturing jobs.
  • It is clear that China is feeling the heat of American tariffs. The United States will not be the world’s premier chump anymore....The most enthusiastic support the United States is receiving in its trade stance with China is from China’s neighbours, from India to Japan. Of course China is the world’s second-greatest power and must be treated with respect, but that does not mean the shameless grovelling of Trump’s predecessors, paying court to Beijing like lackeys kowtowing to the emperors of the Middle Kingdom.
  • Foreigners then supplied 10 per cent of America’s oil, a figure that rose to 60 per cent under president Obama, and no one has done anything about it, until the past two years, when oil production has been sharply increased and reliance on oil imports has been sharply cut, on its inexorable way to zero.

Any criticism of the Trump Administration has to address the points raised by Mr Black.  What is also worth considering is how much is directly due to the administration's policies, and how much is due to trends over the last decade.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 13, 2019, 12:00:08
Conrad Black is always worth the read

Agree. 

In this instance, he's guilty of the same sin as some level, in only looking at one aspect of governance;  for some, it's Trump's behaviour, for Black it's only economics (except for a 1-2 paragraph sidebar on EU bureaucracy. 

I would like to hear his views on the aspect that he dismisses in his second paragraph: "A casual sampler of the Canadian, and even the American, media, might think that the United States was so far along in its decline that the entire process of government and normal public discourse had broken down in that country."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 13, 2019, 13:12:25
In this instance, he's guilty of the same sin as some level, in only looking at one aspect of governance;  for some, it's Trump's behaviour, for Black it's only economics (except for a 1-2 paragraph sidebar on EU bureaucracy.

Although this should be the case, we know it's not and Black might be looking at really counts.  "It's the economy, stupid!" worked for Bill Clinton for a reason, despite the fact that his behaviour was also poor.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 13, 2019, 16:52:07
Although this should be the case, we know it's not and Black might be looking at really counts.  "It's the economy, stupid!" worked for Bill Clinton for a reason, despite the fact that his behaviour was also poor.
Really counts to who?  Sadly, I suspect that the electorate may be more influenced by late night talk-show hosts and Fox and Friends than by any sort of rational argument.
    :dunno:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 13, 2019, 17:54:42
Really counts to who?

Counts to the voters who are willing to hold their noses at personal conduct if a strong economy is evident.  Add them to "the base" and there is a strong potential for second term in 2020, if history is a guide, and if the Ocasio-Cortez/Rashida Tlaib wing of the Democratic Party pushes them further to the identity politics left....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on January 13, 2019, 18:54:27
Interesting piece, albeit three months old, that points out that the US economy may noy be as rosy as some people think.
 
Quote
Robert Reich: The truth about the Trump economy

The trade wars are about to take a toll on ordinary workers.

Robert Reich
October 20, 2018 6:00PM (UTC)

I keep hearing that although Trump is a scoundrel or worse, at least he’s presiding over a great economy.

As White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow recently put it, “The single biggest story this year is an economic boom that is durable and lasting.”

Really? Look closely at the living standards of most Americans, and you get a very different picture.

Yes, the stock market has boomed since Trump became president. But it’s looking increasingly wobbly as Trump’s trade wars take a toll.

Over 80 percent of the stock market is owned by the richest 10 percent of Americans anyway, so most Americans never got much out of Trump’s market boom to begin with.

The trade wars are about to take a toll on ordinary workers. Trump’s steel tariffs have cost Ford $1 billion so far, for example, forcing the automaker to plan mass layoffs.

What about economic growth? Data from the Commerce Department shows the economy at full speed, 4.2 percent growth for the second quarter.

But very little of that growth is trickling down to average Americans. Adjusted for inflation, hourly wages aren’t much higher now than they were forty years ago.

Trump slashed taxes on the wealthy and promised everyone else a $4,000 wage boost. But the boost never happened. That’s a big reason why Republicans aren’t campaigning on their tax cut, which is just about their only legislative accomplishment.

Trump and congressional Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage, stuck at $7.25 an hour. Trump’s Labor Department is also repealing a rule that increased the number of workers entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime.

Yes, unemployment is down to 3.7 percent. But jobs are less secure than ever. Contract workers – who aren’t eligible for family or medical leave, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, or worker’s compensation – are now doing one out of every five jobs in America.

Trump’s Labor Department has invited more companies to reclassify employees as contract workers. Its new rule undoes the California Supreme Court’s recent decision requiring that most workers be presumed employees unless proven otherwise. (Given California’s size, that decision had nationwide effect.)

Meanwhile, housing costs are skyrocketing, with Americans now paying a third or more of their paychecks in rent or mortgages.

Trump’s response? Drastic cuts in low-income housing. His Secretary of Housing and Urban Development also wants to triple the rent paid by poor households in subsidized housing.

Healthcare costs continues to rise faster than inflation. Trump’s response? Undermine the Affordable Care Act. Over the past two years, some 4 million people have lost healthcare coverage, according to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund.

Pharmaceutical costs are also out of control. Trump’s response? Allow the biggest pharmacist, CVS, to merge with the one of the biggest health insurers, Aetna — creating a behemoth with the power to raise prices even further.

The cost of college continues to soar. Trump’s response? Make it easier for for-profit colleges to defraud students. His Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is eliminating regulations that had required for-profit colleges to prove they provide gainful employment to the students they enroll.

Commuting to and from work is becoming harder, as roads and bridges become more congested, and subways and trains older and less reliable. Trump’s response? Nothing. Although he promised to spend $1.5 trillion to repair America’s crumbling infrastructure, his $1.5 trillion tax cut for big corporations and the wealthy used up the money.

Climate change is undermining the standard of living of ordinary Americans, as more are hit with floods, mudslides, tornados, draughts, and wildfires. Even those who have so far avoided direct hits will be paying more for insurance – or having a harder time getting it. People living on flood plains, or in trailers, or without home insurance, are paying the highest price.

Trump’s response? Allow more carbon into the atmosphere and make climate change even worse.

Too often, discussions about “the economy” focus on overall statistics about growth, the stock market, and unemployment.

But most Americans don’t live in that economy. They live in a personal economy that has more to do with wages, job security, commutes to and from work, and the costs of housing, healthcare, drugs, education, and home insurance.

These are the things that hit closest home. They comprise the typical American’s standard of living.

Instead of an “economic boom,” most Americans are experiencing declines in all these dimensions of their lives.

Trump isn’t solely responsible. Some of these trends predated his presidency. But he hasn’t done anything to reverse them.

If anything, he’s made them far worse.

Robert Reich

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written 15 books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's also co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism."

 Article Link (https://www.salon.com/2018/10/20/the-truth-about-the-trump-economy_partner/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 14, 2019, 09:55:16
Counts to the voters who are willing to hold their noses at personal conduct if a strong economy is evident.  Add them to "the base" and there is a strong potential for second term in 2020, if history is a guide, and if the Ocasio-Cortez/Rashida Tlaib wing of the Democratic Party pushes them further to the identity politics left....
Again, I agree. 

Recently, in both US and Canadian politics though, there appears to be a growing trend of 'moderate centrists' shrugging in despair at the choices of political 'leadership' offered and not bothering to vote, rather than holding noses.    :dunno:

As for Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and their ilk, it's like the Dems have consciously decided that "oh look, the electorate are  all mindless knuckle-draggers;  let's go out-ignorant Trump!"  :brickwall:


EDIT:  Going to be even more  preachy here (with an added touch of Godwin   ;)  )

The overwhelming evidence (yes, even if you're capable of nothing more in-depth than Fox headlines) demonstrates consistently that Trump is an abysmal human being.  Pick a perspective:  his treatment of anyone not white, Anglo, male;  his compulsive lying;  his constant bullying and abusive rhetoric....and his official policies based on any of these.  Such behaviours we would  should  find unacceptable in a child,  yet Trump's "base" (however defined) sees as praiseworthy, while others are seeking to justify turning a blind eye to them.

Either Trump's Presidency, writ large, is morally bankrupt, intellectually vacuous, and damaging to international stability... or meh  the economy's better.  Yes, Hitler got a grip on the post-Weimar Republic economy (I warned you, I was going there).  Would anyone argue "well sure, he's an abhorrent human being, but look at our GDP!" *

What I'm arguing is that ethical beliefs should not be negotiable


* No, I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler!!
(And I'm not arguing where Trump would go, given ol' Adolph's unrestrained powers  :Tin-Foil-Hat:  )
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 14, 2019, 12:32:17
  Pick a perspective:  his treatment of anyone not white, Anglo, male; 

You are the guy who always wants proof.......lets see it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 14, 2019, 13:21:39
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

It's Wikipedia so you'll need to verify the sources but this is a list similar to what the NY times published (sorry has a pay wall) and others.  Too many actually.

Of note though is Trump's judicial law reforms that removed the 3 strikes you are out laws.  Those laws disproportionately affected the black community and is seen by all sides as a triumph for minorities.  So maybe he isn't a racist per se but says racist things?   :dunno:

A lot of polls seem to indicate that the black community sees him as a racist or at least enabling racism.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 14, 2019, 13:22:37
You are the guy who always wants proof.......lets see it.
Sometimes the blatantly obvious is....well, blatantly obvious, but here's a step in the right direction for you...

Treatment of anyone not white: Google Charlottesville, Elizabeth Warren, "African countries/shitholes"

Anglo: Google Puerto Rico, Latino immigrants

Male: Google "grab *****," Trump sexism tracker

Compulsive lying: Google NRDC Trump Lies,  Factcheck.org/Donald Trump

Bullying and abusive rhetoric:  Seriously?  Pick any day Trump tweets.


Enjoy  :salute:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 14, 2019, 13:47:54
Wow.....slim pickin's.   I meant real evidence,...you know like committing a racist act, or even saying something racist.  REAL racism, not just what you wish racism to be.

And PLEASE, you've never called some country a '*******"???  Some are.....and some are worse then that.  Maybe some of us like a leader who tells it like it is.  And I'm certainly not saying he's most of those things you said, heck I wouldn't buy him a beer, but there's a whole lot of bullshit getting spewed from all over.  One thing I do know, for someone as famous as he was, there were almost ZERO stain of racism, in fact quite the opposite, until he became the leader of a national party.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 14, 2019, 13:57:10
  One thing I do know, for someone as famous as he was, there were almost ZERO stain of racism, in fact quite the opposite, until he became the leader of a national party.

Um..not quite.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-racist-meme/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 14, 2019, 14:11:24
Um..not quite.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-racist-meme/

That's it??  I had ONE PERSON at my work put in more stuff on me in the last 7 years, in his desire to get me fired, then is in that page. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 14, 2019, 14:29:42
That's it??  I had ONE PERSON at my work put in more stuff on me in the last 7 years, in his desire to get me fired, then is in that page.

No I provided more above.  Make your own call I could care less. What someone has accused you of is immaterial to this conversation or to what you asked for from Journeyman.

This SNOPES link was in reference to your comment: "One thing I do know, for someone as famous as he was, there were almost ZERO stain of racism, in fact quite the opposite, until he became the leader of a national party."

Which is false as I have provided you with enough sources to show that.

If you want to refute this please provide your evidence and sources.  You haven't but you seem good at asking others to do so.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 14, 2019, 14:47:46
I didn't make the accusations.....and just asked for proof.  You gave some links and I read them.....like I said, pretty slim pickin's to hang somebody on, but carry on....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on January 14, 2019, 18:11:34

If you want to refute this please provide your evidence and sources.  You haven't but you seem good at asking others to do so.

You have to prove guilt, not innocence.  An accusation does not mean it happened.   

   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 14, 2019, 20:40:05
As to lies, he's the only recent politician to be keeping his campaign promises.

As I said earlier, Trump's lies haven't killed thousands of allied soldiers and civilians world wide, like Bush, Clinton and Obama.

Obama lied constantly and still does.

"Sometimes the blatantly obvious is....well, blatantly obvious." - JM

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 15, 2019, 19:01:20
Wow.....slim pickin's.   I meant real evidence...
Well, for full disclosure, that was just a quick sample off of the top of my head;  I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else -- as noted, a direction pointer for anyone who cared to read for themselves. 

At the end of the day, anyone who expects to be spoon-fed their 'facts' deserves whatever they end up swallowing ... whether it comes from a Clinton or a Trump.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Baden Guy on January 15, 2019, 19:27:22
Well, for full disclosure, that was just a quick sample off of the top of my head;  I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else -- as noted, a direction pointer for anyone who cared to read for themselves. 

At the end of the day, anyone who expects to be spoon-fed their 'facts' deserves whatever they end up swallowing ... whether it comes from a Clinton or a Trump.

Or an autocrat !  ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 16, 2019, 03:43:55
>Trump's Presidency

There are two parts composing "Trump's Presidency" that must be evaluated independently: what Trump says, and what the executive branch does.  Some voters care more about the former, and some care more about the latter.  The former is too scattershot, self-contradictory (over time), and riddled with ignorance and falsehood for any piece of it to be taken at face value; to be taken as a representation of whatever might be Trump's true beliefs rather than his assessment of what he thinks the people being directly addressed want to hear; or whatever might serve to self-promote at that particular instant in time.

Several Bill Clinton supporters admitted after his presidency was concluded that they shelved their ethical concerns at the time because political exigencies superceded ethics.  I suppose it's baked into human nature.

Trump has simply dialed up to 11 everything that was already playing, and fewer conservatives are willing to self-immolate and yield to Democrats only to watch them play the ends-justify-means game as usual - rules for thee, but not for me.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Furniture on January 17, 2019, 03:10:47
No I provided more above.  Make your own call I could care less. What someone has accused you of is immaterial to this conversation or to what you asked for from Journeyman.

This SNOPES link was in reference to your comment: "One thing I do know, for someone as famous as he was, there were almost ZERO stain of racism, in fact quite the opposite, until he became the leader of a national party."

Which is false as I have provided you with enough sources to show that.

If you want to refute this please provide your evidence and sources.  You haven't but you seem good at asking others to do so.

You chose to emphasise the part of his quote that makes your point strongest while ignoring the word that comes directly before.

After decades of being in the public eye, three accusations is pretty weak evidence of a pattern of racism. If the accusation was leveled at almost anyone else most people would agree that three accusations is weak, but add the Trump effect and now it's proof he was always the devil.

I have no doubt he's a cheat, liar, and all around horrible person, but lets be clear he wasn't the devil incarnate until he was running against the media picked winner.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Furniture on January 17, 2019, 03:13:09
Well, for full disclosure, that was just a quick sample off of the top of my head;  I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else -- as noted, a direction pointer for anyone who cared to read for themselves. 

At the end of the day, anyone who expects to be spoon-fed their 'facts' deserves whatever they end up swallowing ... whether it comes from a Clinton or a Trump.

If this was a pro-Trump thread and someone posted that argument as proof Trump is good you would rightly call them out for not supporting their claim.

You can't be the "prove it" guy and not prove your own allegations.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 17, 2019, 07:56:25
Quote from: Brad Sallows
fewer conservatives are willing to self-immolate and yield to Democrats only to watch them play the ends-justify-means game as usual - rules for thee, but not for me.

Great observation.

Quote from: Furniture
but lets be clear he wasn't the devil incarnate until he was running against the media picked winner.

Another great observation. I think this is the core of the whole Trump is racist mantra.

My young children told me Trump is racist. Found that amusing considering I've never mentioned his name, or any politics, in my house. I asked what he said that was racist and they didn't know. "He just is".  It's funny (to me) but the thing is a lot of Americans (and Canadians) appear to be in the same boat. There's videos of protests and interviews and such of people asking anti-Trump protesters what Trump said that's racist, and they can't articulate an answer except for "He just is".

Honestly maybe he actually is racist. I wouldn't put it past him. But when you look at the accusations of racism that surfaced before, as Furniture points out, he ran against the media picked winner, there isn't exactly an abundance of cut and dry examples.

From the start the media has accused him of racism, without any real proof or examples, and people have not only lapped it up but regurgitated it. From American adults to Canadian children.

Trump is racist because Harper is racist and Scheer is racist and the next conservative and republican candidates are racist too- whoever they may be.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 17, 2019, 11:06:18
I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else -- as noted, a direction pointer for anyone who cared to read for themselves. 

Considering the Democrats got 60,727,598 votes, and the Republicans got 50,983,895 votes ( 1 ), in the election two months ago, I imagine strategists from both parties are studying the demographics ( 2 ), and what they may indicate for the next election,

Black: 9% voted Republican

Jewish: 17% voted Republican

Asian: 23% voted Republican

Hispanic: 29% voted Republican

Women: 40% voted Republican

Source:

( 1 ) Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true

( 2 ) Pew Research Center
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/08/the-2018-midterm-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on January 17, 2019, 11:29:43
Or an autocrat !  ;)
Or a Russian troll bot.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on January 17, 2019, 12:48:50
.....prove your own allegations.
Really? Why?   :pop:

I mean, I can certainly understand why Trump supporters need two standards of 'discussion,'  where only one side is expected to read widely, assess, and justify, yet something like this  goes unanswered without an eyebrow raised.
Quote
Trump could single handedly create world peace while finishing a cure for cancer and his detractors would still condemn him.  :boring:

And after all the times, in just the last couple of years even, that CNN has been caught lying and defining fake news, that people still use them as a valid source to qualify their opinion.

In the interest of fairness, I simply ask for a shortlist of his accomplishments.
:crickets:

However, it's a rhetorical point.  It comes down to "if you believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." 

My failed 2019 resolution was to avoid these threads;  I'll try again.  :salute:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 17, 2019, 13:36:32
Really? Why?   :pop:

I mean, I can certainly understand why Trump supporters need two standards of 'discussion,'  where only one side is expected to read widely, assess, and justify, yet something like this  goes unanswered without an eyebrow raised. :crickets:

However, it's a rhetorical point.  It comes down to "if you believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." 

My failed 2019 resolution was to avoid these threads;  I'll try again.  :salute:

Indeed and well said.

I posted a wiki page on a list of racist things and comments that Donald Trump is reported to have said and done over the years. No one here refuted any of it.  Just dismissed it.

I posted a SNOPES article debunking the claim that Trump was never accused of saying anything racist until he became a candidate for president.  Demonstrably false.  Now the statement was "almost zero".  Non quantitative or at least very vague.  What is almost zero?  Once, twice?  three times?  If someone says that guy says racist things...how many times does it take to qualify? Again, dismissed outright and not provided with any rebuttal other than personal opinion. 

Do I think the POTUS is a racist?  No I actually do not and I've shown here at least one thing that leads me to believe he isn't.  I can name a few others as well but that is beyond the point.  I do believe he has said racist things.  There is enough to go on for that.  I think he says racist things because he knows racists will vote for him .  In fact he says various things tailored to the crowd he's trying to convince for whatever support he will get.  He's an opportunist.

As mentioned, he lies, says terrible things etc.  It's a means to an end.

One thing though is that he is doing his best to keep his word on his promises.  I will give him full credit for that.  Like the shutdown being on him.  He said he would, proudly.  And he is wearing it whether he still wants to or not.     
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on January 17, 2019, 22:00:18
Great article at the BBC about the current President.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634

This bit pretty much sums the to-and-fro of this thread up.

Quote
Tax reform. Two Supreme Court nominees safely installed on the bench. The travel ban. The bonfire of federal regulations. Criminal justice reform. Legislative action aimed at ameliorating the opioid crisis. Nato members ponying up more cash. Annual wage growth is at a nine-year high. 2018 was the best year for job creation since 2015. Many of his campaign pledges, such as the renegotiation of Nafta and the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, have been kept. Promise made, promise kept is one of his boasts that regularly rings true.

Often, though, he blunts the impact of authentic good news with inflated claims. US Steel is not opening up six new plants. He is not the author of the biggest tax cut in American history. Besides, the trade war has penalised US manufacturers and farmers, and in 2018 the stock market suffered its worst year since the 2008 financial meltdown.
.....
Nor have we ever witnessed a US leader who has so flagrantly flouted the normal rules of presidential behaviour. The playground nicknames. The Twitter tirades. The ugly slurs - "horseface" for Stormy Daniels, a former porn star with whom he was once apparently intimate. In response to indictments in the Mueller probe, he has sometimes sounded more like the boss of a crime family. "A rat" is how he described his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, deploying the lingua franca of the Mafioso.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 18, 2019, 08:33:23
Great article at the BBC about the current President.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634

Interesting article.
Quote
Last year, a poll of nearly 200 political science scholars, which has routinely placed Republicans higher than Democrats, ranked him 44th out of the 44 men who have occupied the post (for those wondering why Trump is the 45th president, Grover Cleveland served twice).

Though the president has likened himself to Abraham Lincoln, who posterity has deemed to be greatest of all presidents, this survey judged him to be the worst of the worst. Even the conservative scholars, who identified themselves as Republicans, placed him 40th.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on January 18, 2019, 10:36:58
Well, all of the others are past presidents. He isn’t finished his work yet. :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on January 18, 2019, 11:28:49

I'll take ignorant+effective over polite+ineffective every day.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on January 18, 2019, 11:52:36
Great article at the BBC about the current President.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634

This bit pretty much sums the to-and-fro of this thread up.

The article gives him perhaps excessively early plaudits on NAFTA. He hasn't gotten it through Congress yet and it's very possible he may not. He negotiated a draft deal, but that's not the same as ratification and legislative enablement. He is one of the co-equal branches of government. He does not govern by diktat; he has to get his major policy wishes through the two houses of Congress, who are the elected representatives of the people. If he can pull that off, *then* he deserves credit for a major trade deal. Concurrently, he pulled the US out of at least one other major trade bloc expecting that deal to necessarily then die, but instead the rest of us the countries involved sidestepped him and carried on... Not a particularly astute move.

Other promises have very clearly *not* been kept. "We're gonna built a wall and Mexico will pay for it"... Well, no, no they won't. Nor, apparently, will Congress, so you get to own a prolonged shutdown that mere weeks ago you boasted you would be proud of. He promised to end Birthright Citizenship, one of his more constitutionally concerning promises. That has not progress and can safely be considered 'broken' with the Democrats in control of the House. He promised massive infrastructure investment that has not happened. He promised to cancel all federal funding for Sanctuary Cities- broken. A ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections- No move. Renegotiating the Iran deal - Nada. Mass deportation of Syrian refugees- Broken. Mandatory minimum sentences for people caught entering the US illegally- broken (utterly impractical anyway). Releasing his tax returns- broken, he's even walked back on the 'after the audit' promise. Fortunately some of his dumber promises are 'broken' too- meddling with vaccine schedules to avoid autism, eliminating the federal debt in eight years, a wholesale ban on Muslims entering the US... He has promised a lot of stuff, some of it pretty eyebrow raising.

The BBC is also greatly underselling just how blatantly and frequently he outright lies or fabricates stuff. Not slight exaggerations, but really stupidly blatant stuff. That's been covered at length here so I won't waste anyone's time with yet more specific examples, but the 'so what?' is it makes him so damned unreliable and unpredictable for political and diplomatic allies. Add that to his penchant for doing whatever the hell he wants, and he has problems. More than ever right now he needs to be able to be perceived by his party's Senate as someone who can be worked with... He's not doing a particularly good job of that, and his intransigence is only going to increasingly cause issues for Republican senators who may be politically vulnerable in 2020. The longer this shutdown drags on, the more he risks facing his own senate sending playing 'legislative chicken' and putting the ball in his court to actually veto appropriations bills that a *lot* of Americans are dependent upon and that the entirety of congress may get to the point of passing out of frustration. Worst case for him would be to continue the tantrum and eventually face a veto override. That can no longer be discounted as a possibility.

Politically he's pretty much 'all in' on that damned wall. And the only real 'win' for him is a complete win. Anything less than what he has repeatedly demanded at this point and he will suffer for it. He's pushed this too long and too far for a subsequent compromise to win him any points with anyone.

Another missed federal paycheck in a week... Pressure will amp up, and he's going to be seeing more and more pushback soon. He's facing legal action for trying to order back to work employees who cannot possibly fall under the provisions allowing for unpaid work to protect live and property, because the disruptions are starting to bite. He will probably lose at least some of those legal actions- and that's only going to get worse and some problems take days or weeks to manifest as work doesn't get done.

For better or worse he said in no uncertain terms that he owns this shutdown and is proud of it. He doesn't get to walk it back, not now. How he lies in this bed he made will be interesting.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 18, 2019, 11:55:45
It's ironic that in his tit for tat fight with Pelosi, that by cancelling her 7 day trip he is actually keeping her in DC to casual him more headaches.

Given Cohen's latest reveals a 7 day break from her would have been better lol.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 18, 2019, 20:58:35
For better or worse he said in no uncertain terms that he owns this shutdown and is proud of it. He doesn't get to walk it back, not now. How he lies in this bed he made will be interesting.

Funniest thing I've heard about the shutdown from US political satirists, and leaving all politics aside, is this:

"President Trump has painted himself into a corner, which is a pretty amazing achievement for someone who works in an office that is oval!".

 ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 21, 2019, 21:25:55

Normally, I would let this be. However, one individual, journeyman, seemingly, wont rest until I've replied to PPCLI Guy. jm is on my Ignore List, as I am on his. I have others on the list also. I don’t typically read or respond to people on my Ignore list. I saw jm's response, about me, in a quote. That’s how it was noticed. However, it must be really important to him, because he typically, dismisses or ridicules just about everything I write. I’ll do it this once then.

So the original request, to my statement that Trump has accomplished a number of good things, to which:

In the interest of fairnes, I simply ask for a shortlist of his accomplishments.
Not answered because it was not seen, due to the Ignore List format.

I mean, I can certainly understand why Trump supporters need two standards of 'discussion,'  where only one side is expected to read widely, assess, and justify, yet something like this (the question raised by PPCLI Guy) goes unanswered without an eyebrow raised. :crickets:

I’m at a loss as to what is so critical and earth shattering for me failing to answer a question? Like I say, the individual, implying I should do so, does not take me seriously anyway. So what is the point? He ignores questions regularly.

Anyway, for PPCLI Guy, in answer to his question, a direction pointer. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/here-it-is-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-the-two-years-since-his-historic-2016-election-win/

These next words might seem familiar to some. The tense has been changed, as well as some sources. But taken as a whole, they reflect what journeyman has written himself, when he was queried for answers and research, by others. Fits my situation for a response back to him, I think. No sense me wordsmithing anything, when such great pearls of wisdom already exist.

‘but for full disclosure, this is just a quick sample off of the top of my head;  I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else – but, here it is, a direction pointer for anyone who cares to read for themselves. 

At the end of the day, anyone who expects to be spoon-fed their 'facts' deserves whatever they end up swallowing ... whether it comes from a Clinton or an
*Obama, CNN or BuzzFeed*.’[/b]

*- added by me

Apologies to PPCLI Guy for missing your question. crap happens.

Tanks – to journeyman, for providing me a stock answer next time you need something.
I think it works pretty good.

If anyone would like to copy it and use it when being badgered for an answer, or whatever you think it fits, feel free to use it.

Please understand, if I have you on ignore, I likely won't be responding to you. It is a set feature on this forum and is being used for exactly what it was intended for, by the owner. That doesn't mean I won't see what you've written, but it's a mighty good guess I won't.

Cheers
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 21, 2019, 22:54:00
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/here-it-is-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-the-two-years-since-his-historic-2016-election-win/

I don't read that website. But, I have read of it,

Quote
The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[2][3] news and opinion website. It has been described as a fake news website.[4]

False stories and conspiracy theories

The Gateway Pundit is known as a source of viral falsehoods and hoaxes.[14][15][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit#False_stories_and_conspiracy_theories

I read the BBC article Infanteer posted,

Great article at the BBC about the current President.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634

Quote
Last year, a poll of nearly 200 political science scholars, which has routinely placed Republicans higher than Democrats, ranked him 44th out of the 44 men who have occupied the post (for those wondering why Trump is the 45th president, Grover Cleveland served twice).

Though the president has likened himself to Abraham Lincoln, who posterity has deemed to be greatest of all presidents, this survey judged him to be the worst of the worst. Even the conservative scholars, who identified themselves as Republicans, placed him 40th.

It's up to the American voters to decide,

Democrats got 60,727,598 votes, and the Republicans got 50,983,895 votes ( 1 ), in the election two months ago,

Source:

( 1 ) Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true





Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 21, 2019, 23:16:26
I don't read that website. But, I have read of it,


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/

just in case anyone was wondering...

No wonder Trump has a base, judging by the number of people that read that...stuff.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 22, 2019, 03:47:03
I don't read that website. But, I have read of it,

I read the BBC article Infanteer posted,

It's up to the American voters to decide,

"It's up to the American voters to decide"

I agree with you 100%. The link wasn't put there for your approval. It, was put there in response to someone's question.

As quite clearly stated, it, was put there as a starting point for you to follow if you really cared to. A starting point, not research.

I don't care if you agree with it, or you think something you read is more agreeable to your stance, or easier to agree with someone else's research instead of your own.

I reread your post, a couple of times. I didn't see a discussion worth pursuing or a salient point in there. Was there one? We're seldom on the same page, so perhaps Im missing something. Or were you just being contrary because it's me?  Doesn't matter. It wasnt even an opinion, but you know what they say about opinions anyway. Right?

Wow, I didn't think I'd have to refer back to journeymans (edited by me) prose so quickly.

‘but for full disclosure, this is just a quick sample off of the top of my head;  I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else – but, here it is, a direction pointer for anyone who cares to read for themselves.

At the end of the day, anyone who expects to be spoon-fed their 'facts' deserves whatever they end up swallowing ... whether it comes from a Clinton or an *Obama, CNN or BuzzFeed*.’[/b]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/

just in case anyone was wondering...

No wonder Trump has a base, judging by the number of people that read that...stuff.

Pretty ditto to my above.response.

I was asked to point out some good stuff. I gave you the first thing that popped up in my search, to point you in direction of the conversation.
Not to do your research, provide you talking points, nor do I even have to condider it part of my overall stance. It's what it was and nothing more.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 22, 2019, 11:58:52
I was asked to point out some good stuff. I gave you the first thing that popped up in my search, to point you in direction of the conversation.
Not to do your research, provide you talking points, nor do I even have to condider it part of my overall stance. It's what it was and nothing more.

I always research.  Having facts and sources helps cement your argument. Because the internet isn't always the truth. In truth I wasn't responding to you.  I was responding to mariomike and people here at large about the source used.  In my opinion a very bad source to use to support any argument.  I don't really care why you provided it.  But I care if the source is bad and posted why it is bad.  A few posts before I listed some of the good things I think Trump has done but my info came from more reputable sources (again mileage may vary on what people think is a reputable source.)

Like anti-vaccers providing sources from Jenny Mccarthy on the science of vaccines.  Just because it might be the first thing that pops up in a search does not make it right or even real.  You get what you pay for but some of us will check the facts.  Facts matter.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 22, 2019, 13:09:17
So, facts from your sources, following your stance are ok, but anything from anyone else, not in agreement, not so much. Got it.

Why change the discussion then? This status quo follows every political thread on this forum.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 22, 2019, 13:44:39
So, facts from your sources, following your stance are ok, but anything from anyone else, not in agreement, not so much. Got it.

Why change the discussion then? This status quo follows every political thread on this forum.

I didn't say that.  Feel free to dispute my sources or not.  I disputed yours with a info as to why it isn't reputable.  I didn't just brush it off.  I read the BBC article that Infanteer posted.  A good source and a good article in my opinion.  It does run counter to what I might think but it is well written with good arguments. 

You said that you do not even consider it as part of your overall stance.  not sure why it would upset you then that someone would check the facts.  For someone who laments the MSM for not properly fact checking, you sure do get upset when people here try to.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 22, 2019, 14:39:04
A shopping list of things that have been done doesn't leave much room to worry about bias.  The only real bias is the listing of "accomplishments" that are largely outside the control of the president (ie. they are either "coincidences" or only very lightly affected by executive decisions) and you should be able to decide that for yourself without wasting bandwidth in fact-check and credibility wars.

This past weekend showed that many of the "non-questionable" sources have severe problems with accuracy and credibility too.  You have to read something to judge it, and you have to read widely enough to confirm whether it is the marginal or mainstream media that have it right.

Even the most mainstream sources are subject to my 1/3 rule: 1/3 of any given article will be misleading or flat-out wrong.  (I should probably update that to a 1/2 rule, because the standards of today's journalists are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 22, 2019, 16:34:34
A shopping list of things that have been done doesn't leave much room to worry about bias.  The only real bias is the listing of "accomplishments" that are largely outside the control of the president (ie. they are either "coincidences" or only very lightly affected by executive decisions) and you should be able to decide that for yourself without wasting bandwidth in fact-check and credibility wars.

This past weekend showed that many of the "non-questionable" sources have severe problems with accuracy and credibility too.  You have to read something to judge it, and you have to read widely enough to confirm whether it is the marginal or mainstream media that have it right.

Even the most mainstream sources are subject to my 1/3 rule: 1/3 of any given article will be misleading or flat-out wrong.  (I should probably update that to a 1/2 rule, because the standards of today's journalists are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.)

Absolutely which is why I try to get various sources to form an opinion.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 22, 2019, 17:46:12
So, facts from your sources, following your stance are ok, but anything from anyone else, not in agreement, not so much. Got it.

Why change the discussion then? This status quo follows every political thread on this forum.

Facts ought not to be dependent on source.  They are what they are - or at least they used to be.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 22, 2019, 17:59:42
I didn't say that.  Feel free to dispute my sources or not.  I disputed yours with a info as to why it isn't reputable.  I didn't just brush it off.  I read the BBC article that Infanteer posted.  A good source and a good article in my opinion.  It does run counter to what I might think but it is well written with good arguments. 

You said that you do not even consider it as part of your overall stance.  not sure why it would upset you then that someone would check the facts.  For someone who laments the MSM for not properly fact checking, you sure do get upset when people here try to.

You seem confused as to my stance. I'm far from upset. I'm just realistic. My answer to the original question was not meant as research. I stated that. jm appeared to have desperate need for an answer, so I provided one. I really wasn't interested in answering nor was I interested in spending time researching for someone else. They got an answer. Doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with it, it's pedigree or it's subject matter. Like I said, it is what it is. Simply, anyone asking the initial question, is just as capable of doing their own 15 second search. When you're too lazy to search yourself, don't ask someone to do it for you. If you do, don't be a putz and question the answers you get back. Go ahead and disagree, but go figure it out for yourself. If the question is only worth a penny, I don't spend a dollar answering it.  Caveat emptor, that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying. You get what you pay for. You don't hand a bucket of paint to a stranger off the internet, ask them to paint your house for nothing, then complain about the result.

In the long run, no one is entitled to demand an answer from anyone here. If you get one, it's because someone decided to answer you. Not because they have to.

This board has an Ignore List function. It was installed and the parameters set by the owner of this private site. If a member wishes to utilize it, that is their decision. They are under no obligation to even acknowledge the people on their list. So if you don't get an answer, to a question you asked, perhaps no is really interested or you're on someone's list.

Pretty simple huh? Hope that helps explain it all for a final time and the thread can move on.

Cheers
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 22, 2019, 18:28:32
Facts ought not to be dependent on source.  They are what they are - or at least they used to be.

 I agree. But short of dragging Pelosi or Trump in here to answer for themselves, we are dependent on what we are being told. Now something like the economy, if you have the financial background to understand it, has lots of hard fact not put into the MSM reporting. An economist would be able to extrapolate from government reports, banks, etc on which to base their theories. Most though don't have that level of understanding. They are left with the MSM, in large part, to draw their conclusions. The MSM, here and in the US are pretty hard wired in their stances and you'd be hard pressed to find one reporting from the point of fact and not their political affiliation. At east in my experience

Those MSM outlets, for better or worse, have aligned themselves and their editorial direction with one party or another. Few outlets, worldwide, treat politics purely on fact and most cater to the lowest common denominator. Similar to the reporting on the Covington student controversy. Initial reports, purposely selected clips and soundbites used to sensationalize the story, making the students seem like white supremacists. The actual, over an hour long video with sound, show something quite the opposite. Yet there are still outlets running the original, false story. There are very few, middle of the road, news on fact not fantasy outlets out there. Most fall one side or the other, quite obviously. The weirder the name, Brietbart, Mother Jones or BuzzFeed for example, the further out on the wings they seem to get. However, you can't discount them completely. The get it right once in awhile.

Perhaps it's time to draw up a list of what is acceptable to members as fact based news outlets. I would suspect when talking of Canada or the States, we'll need to look offshore for unbiased reporting.

Why is that?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on January 22, 2019, 20:22:58

Perhaps it's time to draw up a list of what is acceptable to members as fact based news outlets. I would suspect when talking of Canada or the States, we'll need to look offshore for unbiased reporting.

Why is that?

You may find this site/chart of interest for some insight into the respective quality and bias of quite a variety of outlets. They’ve been tweaking and revising this for a few years now.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 22, 2019, 23:15:22
Quote from: Brihard
They’ve been tweaking and revising this for a few years now.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com

It looks like they've overlooked updating CNN's position for the last few years   ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 22, 2019, 23:41:23
Saw this in today's news,

Politico

Trump says he told Sarah Sanders 'not to bother' with press briefings.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/22/trump-press-briefings-1117946
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 23, 2019, 00:05:36
You may find this site/chart of interest for some insight into the respective quality and bias of quite a variety of outlets. They’ve been tweaking and revising this for a few years now.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com

Tanks Bri. I'll definitely check it out.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 23, 2019, 01:19:17
You seem confused as to my stance. I'm far from upset. I'm just realistic. My answer to the original question was not meant as research. I stated that. jm appeared to have desperate need for an answer, so I provided one. I really wasn't interested in answering nor was I interested in spending time researching for someone else. They got an answer. Doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with it, it's pedigree or it's subject matter. Like I said, it is what it is. Simply, anyone asking the initial question, is just as capable of doing their own 15 second search. When you're too lazy to search yourself, don't ask someone to do it for you. If you do, don't be a putz and question the answers you get back. Go ahead and disagree, but go figure it out for yourself. If the question is only worth a penny, I don't spend a dollar answering it.  Caveat emptor, that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying. You get what you pay for. You don't hand a bucket of paint to a stranger off the internet, ask them to paint your house for nothing, then complain about the result.

In the long run, no one is entitled to demand an answer from anyone here. If you get one, it's because someone decided to answer you. Not because they have to.

This board has an Ignore List function. It was installed and the parameters set by the owner of this private site. If a member wishes to utilize it, that is their decision. They are under no obligation to even acknowledge the people on their list. So if you don't get an answer, to a question you asked, perhaps no is really interested or you're on someone's list.

Pretty simple huh? Hope that helps explain it all for a final time and the thread can move on.

Cheers

Fair enough and point taken.  I won’t derail any longer.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 24, 2019, 12:12:05
Seems that some people over at Fox agree that Pelosi seems to be winning this shutdown fight...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-trumps-trump
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on January 24, 2019, 15:19:24
I always enjoy reading Neil MacDonald, even if I don't always agree with him. His opinion piece today is well worth the read. He clearly enjoys stirring the pot from time to time.

Donald Trump is the best president the left has ever had (https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/donald-trump-left-1.4989948)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on January 24, 2019, 17:00:05
I think i will post that one at rabble.ca ...  :nod:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 24, 2019, 17:02:59
I think i will post that one at rabble.ca ...  :nod:

Hard to tell who will be more offended, lol, the left or the right...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 24, 2019, 18:09:19
Seems that some people over at Fox agree that Pelosi seems to be winning this shutdown fight...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-trumps-trump

In my opinion, and that's all it is, Fox tries to be balanced. They have both left and right commentary, although , many just trash them as an alternative right news agency, without really watching them or knowing anything about the station. Usually, people who put stock in anything CNN says.

Even their own journalists, right and left, go after each other on and off air

At the end of the day, when it  comes to journalism, the actual truth is what becomes the lowest common denominator and they will attempt to sensationalize whatever sells the story, but you have to be so first with the hit piece, your story and stature, as a journalist, dies. As a result, much false info hits first, the damage is done and by the time it's corrected, the authors have already moved on to the next manufactured crisis and it becomes just so many bad memes on crackbook. One only needs look at the fiasco, created by journalists, of the Covington students and a lying, native activist. Last night CTV, was still running the original story, even though the students were vindicated the next day. Is it any wonder people are grasping at straws to find the truth? Lots have just come to the conclusion the main stream press, print and electronic, have become payed interlocutors for special interests.

Just a short comment on the shutdown. Solutions are being forwarded, some good, some bad. Some are just ludicrois stonewalling. Nobody is a winner. No Pelosi Trump's Trump or vice versa. No one is dealing. They are at a stalemate. Someone needs to back down to move forward. I have my opinions as to who put it off the rails, but I'll wait on that for now.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on January 24, 2019, 19:00:57
I peruse the Fox News and cnn websites daily among others and I try to get my info from different sources. 

I like Chris Wallace on Fox.  I try to avoid Hannity, Carlson and Fox and friends.  Well i do read their stuff at times but i end up rolling my eyes.  But in fairness, i also roll my eyes when Don lemon come so on CNN, I can only take so much of him.  But I like King and Como.  Como is upfront about his positions but he normally backs up what he says and brings on people with opposing views and give some them their air time to defend or criticise.  king is a numbers and facts guy.

I also enjoy the panels on CBC and CTV.  The debates open up various points of view to consider.

Side note Fox News site has great coverage of historical discoveries and anything shark related.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 24, 2019, 19:47:49
I like the panels on TVO. I do like how Steve Pakin runs them. Plus the Agenda. Sometimes I get absolutely infuriated with some of the guests, but there's normally a good cross section of debaters and Pakin is a good umpire.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Chris Pook on January 31, 2019, 17:04:17
Quote
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that while Democrats are adamantly opposed to extending the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, they're open to new fencing and other barriers as part of ongoing talks to prevent another government shutdown.

“There's not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing in the Capitol.

Quote
Wall comes from Latin vallum meaning "...an earthen wall or rampart set with palisades, a row or line of stakes, a wall, a rampart, fortification..." while the Latin word murus means a defensive stone wall.[1] English uses the same word to mean an external wall and the internal sides of a room, but this is not universal. Many languages distinguish between the two. In German, some of this distinction can be seen between Wand and Mauer, in Spanish between pared and muro.

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

Quote
A fence is a structure that encloses an area, typically outdoors, and is usually constructed from posts that are connected by boards, wire, rails or netting.[1] A fence differs from a wall in not having a solid foundation along its whole length.[2]

Alternatives to fencing include a ditch (sometimes filled with water, forming a moat).

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

Quote
A barrier is something such as a fence or wall that is put in place to prevent people from moving easily from one area to another.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/barrier

Here's another one for free

Quote
A palisade—sometimes called a stakewall or a paling—is typically a fence or wall made from iron or wooden stakes, or tree trunks and used as a defensive structure or enclosure.

And then there is this

Quote
dyke in British 1
or dike (daɪk  )
noun
1.
an embankment constructed to prevent flooding, keep out the sea, etc
2.
a ditch or watercourse
3.
a bank made of earth excavated for and placed alongside a ditch
4. Scottish
a wall, esp a dry-stone wall
5.
a barrier or obstruction

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dyke

Here's Offa's Dyke.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4545/38384426846_0afa6db645_b.jpg)

And here, the Danes just called their barrier - The Works.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Danevirke%2C_Danmarks_forsvarsverk_mot_Syd_%281%29.JPG/1280px-Danevirke%2C_Danmarks_forsvarsverk_mot_Syd_%281%29.JPG)

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

In defence of the country - a 2000 mile long linear fortification comprising ditch, berm, (sheuch and dyke gin ye prefer) vallum, palisades and ports constructed of rammed earth, steel and barbed wire.  You decide if that is fence or a wall.  It is certainly a barrier.

Words and splitting redhead, blonde and brunette.








Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on January 31, 2019, 17:30:25
I'd vote for a moat. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: cavalryman on January 31, 2019, 17:53:42
I'd vote for a moat.
Patrolled by sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads

 :D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 31, 2019, 18:01:06
Denmark's building a newer wall, mainly to keep German pigs out.

There's a message in there somewhere, I think :)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/29/denmark-building-border-wall-stop-spread-african-swine-fever/2715792002/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Chris Pook on January 31, 2019, 18:30:33
Denmark's building a newer wall, mainly to keep German pigs out.

There's a message in there somewhere, I think :)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/29/denmark-building-border-wall-stop-spread-african-swine-fever/2715792002/

The Germans over-ran the last one in 1864.  The result of poor maintenance.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on January 31, 2019, 18:55:58
From the OP,
Quote
"There's not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing in the Capitol.

Before the election,
Quote
Mexico will pay for the wall!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/771294347501461504


In today's news,

Quote
CBS
January 31, 2019
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-daily-caller-interview-paul-ryan-border-wall-mueller-investigation-2019-01-31/
President Trump said in an interview published Wednesday night that former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., reneged on a deal to fund the border wall while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 16, 2019, 16:25:13
It's nice to see the NEA used for domestic purposes.

Quote
President Trump declared a national emergency to free up funds to build a wall without congressional approval on Friday, adding that other presidents have called national emergencies on other topics "many times before." The National Emergencies Act of 1975 allows the president to declare a national emergency, but he must outline the specific emergency powers he is using under existing statutes.

According to the Brennan Center, there have been 58 national emergencies called by presidents since 1979. Thirty-one of those national emergencies are still in effect.

Here is a list of when national emergencies have been used, and what their purpose was:
President Jimmy Carter

    Nov. 14, 1979 (still in effect): A national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which froze Iran's assets in the United States;
    April 17, 1980: Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued.

President Ronald Reagan

More at Link - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on February 16, 2019, 16:40:21
It's nice to see the NEA used for domestic purposes.

More at Link - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/

So first he promised Mexico would pay for the wall. That failure was as obvious as it was inevitable. Then he tried to push congress to pay for a wall, and he failed at that too. Then he let the government shut down to hold congress hostage. That failed too, and he caved and allowed a bill to pass to restore funding. Then congress brought forward a border security bill that offered even less than he had previously been offered, and which places considerable checks and balances on the construction of any physical barriers. That bill passed and comes way short of anything he asked for.

So now after his repeated failures to achieve one of his marquee campaign pledges - including when his party controlled both houses of congress, albeit without a supermajority - he has decided to use use arbitrary executive authorities not intended for circumstances like this to circumvent the will of congress including his own party's controlled senate. He's going to attempt to purloin billions of dollars from other purposes under the guise of a fictitious national emergency, despite illegal immigration being lower than in any of the past several presidencies, despite his own admission that he literally doesn't 'need' to do this, and despite the concerns of his own party about the precedent this sets for a potential future Democrat president to declare similar 'emergencies' over gun violence, health care, etc. His own party doesn't want him doing this because of the Pandora's box it opens in terms of executive overreach.

I don't see how this is laudable or a win. He's trying to grab more power for the executive branch in defiance of the legislative... And he's probably going to end up getting stopped by the judicial- another inevitable and likely embarrassing failure as he approaches the next presidential election. Simply put he tried to demand what he wanted, and Pelosi beat him. He failed and now he's thrashing about looking for another way even though Congress has firmly told him 'no'.

His petulance is not serving himself nor his party well.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 16, 2019, 16:49:42
He's not really grabbing more power; that ship sailed long ago.  This article is worth reading (https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-and-isnt-big-deal-trumps-executive-actions-related-border) to understand, as it is titled "What Is and Isn’t a Big Deal".  The interesting part is the author's case that the "big deal" isn't the reach of executive authority; it's the openness and candour.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on February 16, 2019, 16:56:27
He's not really grabbing more power; that ship sailed long ago.  This article is worth reading (https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-and-isnt-big-deal-trumps-executive-actions-related-border) to understand, as it is titled "What Is and Isn’t a Big Deal".  The interesting part is the author's case that the "big deal" isn't the reach of executive authority; it's the openness and candour.

An excellent read, thank you- well worth reading and digesting in its entirety for why this matters.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on February 16, 2019, 18:03:56

If the democrats ever win the house it will be interesting when they declare climate change a “national emergency”.  They will certainly try given the precedent set here.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Old Sweat on February 16, 2019, 18:28:12
Here is a somewhat surprising development. Ann Coulter, a right wing commentator who can take vitriolic attacks to a new height, claims the only emergency is that Trump is an idiot. The president responded in kind.

Ann Coulter slams back at Trump: The only emergency is our 'idiot' president
 HuffPost US
MARY PAPENFUSS
Feb 16th 2019 12:20PM

Ann Coulter cranked up her battle with Donald Trump again Friday with another broadside about his border wall tactics. The conservative commentator declared that the “only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

Trump scrambled earlier Friday to distance himself from her and her vitriolic comments about him, claiming in a Rose Garden address Friday, to everyone’s surprise: “Ann Coulter, I don’t know her. I hardly know her. I haven’t spoken to her in way over a year.”

In the announcement of his national emergency declaration to divert funding for the wall, he added that Coulter had “gone off the reservation” in her increasingly harsh criticism of him.

“Thank God [Trump has] relieved me of any responsibility for what he’s been doing,” Coulter said on KABC-AM’s “Morning Drive” program in Los Angeles on Friday, just minutes after Trump’s comments. “That was the biggest favor anyone could do me today.”

The Mexican border wall was “the promise he made every single day at every single speech. Forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave,” she added. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

Coulter, a onetime major Trump backer who wrote the book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome, is convinced the president’s declaration of a national emergency is a “scam,” and that he’ll never build the cement wall he vowed to erect.

Trump also tried to distance himself from Fox News host Sean Hannity and from criticism that he is Trump’s shadow president. Hannity had been urging Trump to declare a national emergency to begin building the border wall.

“Sean Hannity has been a terrific, terrific supporter of what I do,” Trump said, but he insisted that right-wing pundits “don’t decide policy.”

As for Coulter’s apparently former influence, MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle said just last month that Trump wouldn’t budge on his commitment to the border wall because right-wing pundits like Coulter would rile up his base.

He doesn’t want to be called a “fraud and a weenie” by Coulter, Ruhle declared.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on February 16, 2019, 18:37:10
He failed and now he's thrashing about looking for another way even though Congress has firmly told him 'no'.

There is always a Tweet,
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/535441553079431168

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 17, 2019, 00:29:04
Wow, crazy train or what?

Given the times the Act was used previously and what it was used for, especially by Obama, Trump didn't even get his toe wet. This is so much posturing by his opponents it's near laughable

We'll see how the SCOTUS handles it. Maybe RBG will even make an appearance for the vote. If anyone can find her.

I'll leave it until it goes through all it's liberal incantations in the 9th Circuit (probably) and ends up in the Supreme Court. More astute minds than ours are at work on it.

He can still get to work with what he's got, until the decision comes in. Matter of fact, they're building right now and have been, under the existing funding.

Talking promises? Pelosi promised him, not $1.00. He got over a billion and avoided a shutdown. People that talk cement over steel, walls over barriers, or pelosi's robot dogs, are blowing hot air and trying to make a point out of nothing. Grasping at straws, well, because Trump, right? Let's not forget, almost every democrat voted to put up 350 miles of wall, under Obama. Trump is asking for less than 300. What has changed? Well, Trump put a massive crimp in their plans when he won and they are just petty and vindictive. That's all there really is to all of it. He's upsetting their carefully planned, decades old applecart and they don't like it.

The wall is already being extended and that is all that matters right now. Let the politicians move on to the next manufactured crisis, while work continues.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on February 17, 2019, 09:05:10
For reference to the discussion,

Quote
Feb 15, 2019

AP fact check: Trump makes faulty claims in declaring emergency

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern border while acknowledging that rapid construction of a wall is not a necessity, but rather his preference. In justifying the extraordinary step, he brushed aside his administration’s conclusions that drugs come into the country primarily at official points of entry, not over remote territory that a barrier could seal off.

There’s nothing common about a president taking command of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress to pay for a campaign promise.

“It’s extremely rare for a president to declare a national emergency in a bid to fund domestic construction projects, particularly one that Congress has explicitly refused to fund,” said Andrew Boyle, an attorney in the national security program at the center. “The ones that former presidents declared are of a different sort.”

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Trump said, raising questions about why he sees an emergency unfolding today. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

Trump also claimed progress on wall construction that hasn’t occurred.

He’s built no new miles of wall. His new construction to date has replaced existing barriers.

But past declarations did not involve the unilateral spending of substantial sums of money that Congress — which holds the power of the purse — did not approve.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says illicit drugs come into the country mainly at entry ports. The agency said in a 2018 report that the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. at official crossings. They also use buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing smuggling methods that would not be choked off by a border wall.

That's the condensed version. Full article here,
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-makes-faulty-claims-in-declaring-emergency

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 17, 2019, 09:39:51
Here is a somewhat surprising development. Ann Coulter, a right wing commentator who can take vitriolic attacks to a new height, claims the only emergency is that Trump is an idiot. The president responded in kind.

And this time, he'd be right.  ;D

I once bought a book by Coulter (Yes, I admit my sin freely - It was "Godless, The Church of Liberalism") just to see what all the fuss about her was. I found it the worse of low, dirty, ignorant speech from trash-talk shows on US radio. She can't even write properly, it was devoid of any rational thought, there were no premises of any kind demonstrated, only the unilateral statement, by fiat, that her view was right and everybody not thinking the same way was an imbecile (or much worse insult).

Truly, she is a very, very dispensable part of any attempt at useful discussion of issues in the US. Why she attracts so much attention is beyond me.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on February 17, 2019, 11:52:17
Given the times the Act was used previously and what it was used for, especially by Obama, Trump didn't even get his toe wet. This is so much posturing by his opponents it's near laughable

The facts do not support that. Other than your well known dislike for Obama and all things Democrat, what do you feel stands out about his use of the National Emergencies Act? How is Trump's use of it in this current situation not immediately apparent to you as the significant exceptionality that it is? It's immediately apparent you didn't do your homework here. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/

The NEA was passed in 1975. There have been 58 national emergencies declared by presidents. 31 are still in effect. Nearly all are what we would generally refer to as 'sanctions', with a number also used to extend certain arms export control regulations that expired.

Jimmy Carter: 2. Both to do with Iran; both essentially sanctions/assets freezes.
Ronald Reagan:  6. All to do with export controls or sanctions, e.g. South Africa, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama.
George H W Bush: 5. Export control or sanctions x 4 (Haiti, FRY, Iraq), and one to do with biological and chemical weapons proliferation.
Bill Clinton: 17. Nearly all were economic sanctions against governments, parties or persons, and a couple were export control related.
George Bush: 13. Nearly all are the familiar sanctions or exports controls. One of course is the national emergency following 9/11, and one created legal protections for the Development Fund for Iraq which was created the same day.
Barack Obama: 12. 11 were sanctions targeted at individuals involved in conflicts or arms proliferation (e.g., Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Russia, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela, Burundi) or posing other threats the to U.S. (one against transnational criminal actors, one against actors involved in malicious cyber activities), and finally there was one early in his term that was declaring a national state of emergency in response to the H1N1 flu pandemic. That one simply allowed hospitals to be granted waivers to move patients around to accommodate H1N1 fly patients.
Donald Trump: 4 so far. Two are normal targeted sanctions (Nicaragua and Myanmar), and one is pre-emptive, allowing for economic sanctions against identified actors involved in attacking the integrity of America's elections. And then, last but certianly not least, we have the border wall declaration.

So- Obama's use of the NEA was consistent with the presidents prior to him, and he declared fewer than his immediate predecessors. With one exception all were conventional use of the NEA for economic sanctions, a use that Trump has since continued. Of the 11 Obama executive orders invoking the NEA for sanctions, ten are still in effect. One he rescinded himself due to material changes in the Enriched Uranium controls agreement with Russia. His use of the NEA for the swine flu pandemic is something I think we'd probably all find reasonable under the circumstances and given the very limited scope of the actions permitted by the executive order. I certainly see nothing here that would give any validity to your quip about 'especially by Obama'.

Trump has been in office for just under 25 months, and has issued 4 executive orders invoking the NEA, so it appears he is on track for a similar if not greater number of NEAs to Obama, but in either case the current pace would be roughly consistent with Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

Notably, none of the National Emergencies declared by any prior presidents under the legislation had anything remotely resembling the massive spending component of Trump's border wall fake emergency. Not once has it been utilized to accomplish such an end run around congress in the face of the president's failure to achieve a legislative objective. The only one that had a significant domestic impact was the emergency declared after 9/11, which allowed for call-ups of retirees or the National Guard, apportioning of some military funding, and appointing senior officers. But it certainly was nothing like what Trump is doing here.

Trump's use of the NEA here is exceptional and unprecedented. It has not been used for anything close to this before. He himself has admitted he doesn't need to do that and that it's merely an expediency. What he is using it to try to do is something he has already tried to accomplish and failed through the legitimate mechanisms of Congress, which must be involved in approving major government spending.

At this point he's desperately trying to crack open Pandora's box, against the wishes of many in his own party who don't want to see this precedent set lest it be used against them in future. Hopefully the courts will sit on the lid of the box with enough weight to keep it shut.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 17, 2019, 14:26:28
Jonathan Turley writing at The Hill (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/430335-why-trump-will-win-the-wall-fight) takes a different view - that Trump is likely to win.

Note also that the NEA is being used only to acquire part of the funding - less than $2B.  If Trump has access to up to $8B (per Turley), then the $5.7B target is achievable without the NEA invocation (if it is overturned or overridden by Congress).

The problem with trying to argue from past uses of the NEA is that it is the National Emergencies Act, not the National Sanction Act.  What presidents chose to use it for in the past does not set limits, and is pretty much irrelevant.  Congress has a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in its use of funds, and the courts have a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in the exercise of executive power and of not wanting to get involved in extent-of-authority squabbles between the president and Congress.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on February 17, 2019, 14:33:02
The facts do not support that. Other than your well known dislike for Obama and all things Democrat, what do you feel stands out about his use of the National Emergencies Act? How is Trump's use of it in this current situation not immediately apparent to you as the significant exceptionality that it is? It's immediately apparent you didn't do your homework here.

To add to idea that President Trump's use of the NEA is unprecedented, and not just a wet toe, there is also the fact that the he claimed that such actions were unconstitutional and impeachable. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw15hW9wt3c&feature=youtu.be)  He took to twitter to lambast his predecessor (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/535441553079431168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E535441553079431168&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Ftrump-2014-tweet-obama-executive-action-hypocrisy-2019-2) for subverting the constitution due to a failure to negotiate with Congress.

For a guy who claimed he was coming to drain the swamp, and campaigned against getting around checks and balances through executive overreach, the deeds sure don't match the previous words.  The irony of this is so rich that it is being noted by conservative organizations (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/430271-business-conservative-groups-slam-trumps-national-emergency-declaration) and has turned cheerleader Ann Coulter against him (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/16/ann-coulter-donald-trump-national-emergency-order/2890714002/).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Good2Golf on February 17, 2019, 19:11:10
...Congress has a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in its use of funds, and the courts have a record of allowing the executive branch wide latitude in the exercise of executive power and of not wanting to get involved in extent-of-authority squabbles between the president and Congress.

The problem with trying to argue Congress’ past support of Presidents’ uses of NEA funds, and the USSC’s wide latitude to previous POTUS’ use of NEA-related executive powers in the past is that neither are bound to continue to do so, and is pretty much irrelevant.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 17, 2019, 19:59:57
The point (from others - including lawyers - writing the articles) isn't that Congress will tend to be bound by its past (of course it won't; it changes direction radically with each transfer between parties).  The point is that the courts will look at Congress's record and the courts' own records.  And the (US) courts do tend to be conservative when it comes to changing direction or stepping in between the executive and legislative branches, and that is not irrelevant.

It's not coincidental that so many of the arguments against Trump's "emergency" are emphasizing customary practice, not statutory law.  A lot of the commentators have conceded that what he did is not likely to be found to be illegal.  To paraphrase, the law may not be on their side, which is why so many of them are pounding the tables.

Everyone is free to be as flippant as they choose.  Trump likely gets $6B (more than the $5.7B) even without the "emergency" declaration, and he may very well get that too.  I don't mean this as a good thing - I'm squarely with all the (conservative) commentators who aren't reflexive Trump supporters who believe this is just another unfortunate extension of executive power.  If the courts don't shut down the appeal-to-emergency, he "wins".  If the courts do shut it down, then - per the earlier article I cited - maybe he still "wins" (by circuitously bringing about a legal finding that restrains future executive overreach; certainly the libertarian/small government people would be happy with that).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on February 17, 2019, 20:16:45
This timeline of the "emergency" may be of interest to the discussion,

Quote
First, he did not address the issue when the Republican Party held majorities in both the House and Senate, when, for example, he had the ability to push through measures on reconciliation.

Second, he rejected a deal for US$25 billion in border security in exchange for legalisation of "dreamers," which doesn't sound like the sort of thing you'd do in a real emergency.

Third, he signed a continuing resolution that kept the US government running until December 8, 2018. Again, you wouldn't agree to that in the face of a real emergency.

Fourth, Congress passed another continuing resolution to keep the government open until December 21, 2018.

Fifth, the president provoked a 35-day shutdown that ended with a three-week continuing resolution. Again, this doesn't give off an emergency "vibe."

Sixth, as appropriators negotiate, the president repeatedly threatens to use emergency powers until Congress gives him what he wants. The critical precondition for an emergency declaration is lack of congressional compliance.

Seventh, appropriators reach an agreement - and Trump signs it.

Eighth, there is no report or analysis demonstrating why Congress' response is inadequate. Instead, Trump declares an emergency on the same day as the signing, a transparent effort to eclipse his utter failure to deliver on a campaign promise.

Ninth, at a bizarre Rose Garden press conference on Friday, Trump declared, "I didn't need to do this. ... I just want to do it faster." It is difficult to imagine a more damaging confession that the emergency is figment of Trump's frail ego and thirst to avoid disappointing his base.

Tenth, Trump tells a set of ridiculous lies to justify his border wall. For example, he denies replete evidence from his own administration that the vast amount of illegal drugs come through ports of entry and claims that El Paso had an epidemic crime rate before barriers were built. (But now that the city has barriers and is so safe, why the need for the concrete wall?)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/110662798/how-donald-trump-screwed-up-his-emergency-declaration-in-10-easy-steps

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 17, 2019, 21:38:20
Yes; except for the EverTrumpers, people have long concluded that no emergency exists in the conventional meaning of the word, and that Trump's own actions and words negate his claim that an emergent situation exists.

That's what worries many people: that presidential use of the NEA might in future be limited by explicit definitions of what are and are not emergencies.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Colin P on February 17, 2019, 22:49:34
11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency? Trying to fix immigration while leaving the border porous, is a bit like replacing the drywall before repairing the leaky roof. Reduce the leaks, then you can deal with some of the internal issues.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Colin P on February 17, 2019, 22:52:39
With the abundance of politicians and lawyers in the US, there is always the Vlad method.

(http://www.medievalists.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Impalings-of-Vlad-the-Impaler.jpg)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 17, 2019, 23:35:19
With the abundance of politicians and lawyers in the US, there is always the Vlad method.

(http://www.medievalists.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Impalings-of-Vlad-the-Impaler.jpg)

Don’t tempt us.... 😉
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on February 17, 2019, 23:53:37
He had this to say,

Quote
AP: Obviously, that’s going to come in a week where you’re going to be running up against the deadline for keeping the government open. If you get a bill on your desk that does not include funding for the wall, will you sign it?

TRUMP: I don’t know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I’ve always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college — but it’s a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security. Now, it just came out that they’re 73 percent down. ... That’s a tremendous achievement. ... Look at this, in 100 days, that down to the lowest in 17 years and it’s going lower. Now, people aren’t coming because they know they’re not going to get through, and there isn’t crime. You know the migration up to the border is horrible for women, you know that? (Unintelligible.) Now, much of that’s stopped because they can’t get through.
 

Transcript of AP interview with President Trump.

The Associated Press April 23, 2017.
https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 18, 2019, 00:05:13
>11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency?

A conventional understanding of "emergency" will generally touch on at least these two points: something that has occurred suddenly, and that requires immediate action.  What to do with illegals, refugees, immigration policy, and border enforcement is decidedly a problem, but it's hard to fit it to any reasonable definition of "emergency".
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on February 18, 2019, 01:01:48
11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency? Trying to fix immigration while leaving the border porous, is a bit like replacing the drywall before repairing the leaky roof. Reduce the leaks, then you can deal with some of the internal issues.

Emergency - A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emergency (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emergency)

Those 11 million and 700,000 are there now and have been for decades. The wall won't make them go away.

The numbers coming in now are the lowest in a long, long time and the wall will have questionable effect. If you want to study walls study Hadrian's, Berlin's and China's (now that was a wall) and see just how well those turned out.

I don't begrudge any country the right to control it's borders but for two years now the GOP House and Senate didn't see enough of an issue with illegals to fund the wall (To be more particular, the Republicans had a majority in both the House and Senate from 1995-2007 & 2015-last November). They saw no "emergency" worth putting seven or eight billion dollars into especially when their presidential candidate in 2016 promised his base vehemently hundreds of times that Mexico would pay for it.

That's the disconnect between a real emergency - one that everyone can see clearly and unite behind - and a phony emergency which demands money from the state just to semi-fulfil an electoral promise that everyone (except maybe his base) could clearly see could never be kept in the first place. Mexico could never be made to pay.

The fact of the matter is that Trump's base should be up in arms about the fact that they had been blatantly duped by their champion who is now reaching into their pockets to try to build a legacy that he can put another Trump logo onto.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 18, 2019, 01:45:00
Do the democrats have an actual good reason to oppose raising a wall or are they against it because Trump wants it?

What's the actual problem with walls?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on February 18, 2019, 11:06:07
Do the democrats have an actual good reason to oppose raising a wall or are they against it because Trump wants it?

What's the actual problem with walls?

Well depending on where you stand it is for a variety of reasons. 

Walls aren't the be all end all that Trump thinks it is.  So some would prefer something more comprehensive and are not opposed to wall per se, just Donald Trumps version of it. Trump used the wall as a populist campaign promise that his base could easily identify and see and understand despite evidence that shows that wall will be largely ineffective at stopping whatever it is they perceive.  A few months ago a horde of immigrants made their way ready to invade.  Or so it was claimed. But they were stopped.  No wall but hey they got lucky I guess.

The democrats don't trust the POTUS and why should they?  He's lied quite a bit and changed his mind when Sean Hannity says so.

Is it politics?  Of course but it is much more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/democrats-border-security-wall.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18177566/democrats-trump-wall-shutdown

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/424242-feehery-why-democrats-oppose-the-wall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-were-for-a-wall-before-they-were-against-it/2019/01/10/9d114048-14f1-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.cd3baadcd603

The links above show a few of the views as to why the democrats sort of oppose the wall.

As to what the problem with walls are well...there is a whole list as to why the wall Trump wants won't change much except perception that he actually did something. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Colin P on February 18, 2019, 11:22:24
>11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency?

A conventional understanding of "emergency" will generally touch on at least these two points: something that has occurred suddenly, and that requires immediate action.  What to do with illegals, refugees, immigration policy, and border enforcement is decidedly a problem, but it's hard to fit it to any reasonable definition of "emergency".

I have seen "emergencies" result from decades of neglect in a variety of areas. There is a substantial lobby that does not want a change in immigration status for a number of reasons, including votes, illegals creating a downward pressure on wages, easily exploited workforce. The immigration problem in the US is a crisis, slow moving as it may be, but it is still a crisis. making the border harder to cross is needed, along with several other things including some form of amnesty for long term illegals who are otherwise exemplary citizens and better guest worker program.     
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on February 18, 2019, 19:24:15
I have seen "emergencies" result from decades of neglect in a variety of areas.

I have seen "emergencies" too. But, it's pretty hard to take them seriously when the originator tells you, "I didn't need to do this."

In case anyone missed it,
Quote
Fox News Sunday presenter Chris Wallace forced Stephen Miller to acknowledge that the US President’s declaration was unprecedented, as the senior aide repeatedly attempted to avoid the issue.

“Answer my question, can you name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the President has then invoked national powers to get the money anyway?” asked Wallace.

“Well, this current situation —” Mr Miller began.

“Just yes or no, sir,” Wallace interrupted.

“No,” answered Mr Miller,
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/i-didnt-need-to-do-this-how-trump-may-have-sabotaged-himself-over-national-emergency/news-story/16a3be0f04963521dd0041de52d7b524


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 18, 2019, 19:49:35
>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 18, 2019, 20:32:00
>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?

Made up, biased journalistic bafflegab? :dunno: Kinda like the phrase 'islamaphobia'.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on February 18, 2019, 21:43:42
>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?

Apparently there are three types.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3a.asp

Also see this link for a more political science definition of national power.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/national-power-meaning-nature-dimensions-and-methods/48477

Chris Wallace didn’t just invent the word or the concept and aptly used it in context.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on February 18, 2019, 22:00:18
Made up, biased journalistic bafflegab? :dunno: Kinda like the phrase 'islamaphobia'.

Nope. It’s a real term. See post above this one.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 18, 2019, 23:16:29
It's a real term, but neither of the two definitions cited above fits very well, as something that can be "invoked".  I can only assume it was intended to mean "powers under the NEA".
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on February 19, 2019, 00:40:28
“National powers” in the US context refers to those powers that constitutionally reside at the National or federal level, versus delegates to or reserved for the states. Declaration of a national emergency is an example of such a national power. It’s an inherent concept in US federalism where the constitutional devolution of authority leaves a lot to the states, where federal or national power being an exception rather than the rule.

In this case, he’s simply highlighting how a national or federal level power, and in this case one held by the executive branch, is being used in an unprecedented manner to do an end run around Congress, which constitutionally is supposed to hold the purse strings.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Chris Pook on February 19, 2019, 21:22:46
From RealClearPolitics

Quote
How Congress Could Rein In the Supreme Court Ian Millhiser, American Prospect

Quote
Congress actually has a lot of mostly unused power to rein in the Roberts Court by clarifying the intent of the law.

https://prospect.org/article/not-so-supreme

Most remarkable!

Apparently, in the absence of judges making up the law and, instead, adhering to the law as it is written, laws may have to be made by Congress instead.  Who da thunk it?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on February 24, 2019, 09:08:58
Quote
Trade Chief Dumbs Down Contract Term After Donald Trump Doesn’t Get It

Robert Lighthizer says exact same document will now be called a “trade agreement” because president isn’t tracking “memorandum of understanding.”

By Mary Papenfuss

America’s lead trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, had an awkward encounter with Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday as he tried to calmly school the president on legal terminology in front of reporters and a chuckling representative from China.

Lighthizer finally stopped trying, and instead deftly switched the term for the same document when he realized he wasn’t making any headway with the president.

It started when Trump was asked by a reporter what period of time “memorandums of understanding” being worked out on trade with China would last.

Trump shot back: “I don’t like MOUs because they don’t mean anything.”

Lighthizer calmly corrected the president, and turned to explain to reporters in the room: “An MOU is a contract. It’s the way trade agreements are generally [established]. It’s an actual contract between the two parties. A memo of understanding is a binding agreement.” He added: “It’s detailed, it covers everything. ... It’s a legal term; it’s a contract.”

“I disagree,” said a scowling Trump, causing top Chinese negotiator Vice Premier Liu He to laugh. “A memorandum of understanding is exactly that: It’s a memorandum of what our understanding is,” he added, circling his hands in the air. “How long will that take to put into a ... contract?”

In a flash, Lighthizer switched gears without breaking a sweat: “From now on we’re not using ‘memorandum of understanding’ anymore (causing several people  in the room to laugh). We’re going to use the term ‘trade agreement.’ We’ll have the same document; it’s going to be called a trade agreement. We’re never going to have an MOU again.”

“Good,” said Trump.

Nuff said. Check it out in the video above.

See here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/robert-lighthizer-trump-trade-terminology-memo_n_5c724378e4b03cfdaa55f93d (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/robert-lighthizer-trump-trade-terminology-memo_n_5c724378e4b03cfdaa55f93d)

Just as an aside there is a difference to some extent between MOUs in private industry and those in government and intergovernment relations.

Quote
In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection.[6] In practice and in spite of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs' insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy', MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e., a treaty), one needs to examine the parties’ intent as well as the signatories' position (e.g., Minister of Foreign Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. The International Court of Justice has provided some insight into the determination of the legal status of a document in the landmark case of Qatar v. Bahrain, 1 July 1994.[7]

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

The problem here is that the President has not read the agreement to determine the language and intent while Lightizer clearly has. The fact that the two disagree publicly over interpretation, meaning and legal intent of a critical trade document is very telling and potentially disastrous. Hat's off to Lightizer - my guess is things were thrown around in his office after he got back and that much Bourbon was consumed.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 24, 2019, 09:29:15
How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

I wonder, for instance, if the understands that, as of right now (even though he has completely moved on from the topic for months), his USMCA is not in force at all and that we are all still operating under NAFTA.  ;)

Edit to remove ad hominem comment.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on February 24, 2019, 12:01:38
How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

I wonder, for instance, if the understands that, as of right now (even though he has completely moved on from the topic for months), his USMCA is not in force at all and that we are all still operating under NAFTA.  ;)

I suspect he may not truly grasp that. He stated i early December that they're now beginning the process of ratifying USMCA and withdrawing from NAFTA in the U.S. Not much heard on that since. He's going to have to get it through Congress, and Congress is a whole lot less friendly now. He may face significant struggles there.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 24, 2019, 14:40:15
How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

Still smarter then what we got.....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: PPCLI Guy on February 24, 2019, 16:34:49
Still smarter then what we got.....

Not from what I have seen, read, or for that matter heard from those in the room occasionally with either of the parties.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 24, 2019, 16:45:04
And obviously, ours is the sharpest dresser ...  :whistle:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Colin P on February 25, 2019, 11:29:49
Likely the misunderstanding is peoples frames of reference, for the Trade Chief, an MOU is a legal contract, for DT it's an non-binding agreement to act in a certain way. Likely as DT life has been all business, a contract is something he understands clearly. In my world MoU's are often not worth the paper they are written on, the ones between departments don't seem particularly effective, so I am generally biased against them myself. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on February 25, 2019, 12:39:55
Sure. 

But when his trade rep tried to clear it up he doubled down and made himself look like buffoon.

He could have just deferred to him and let it be and question him after or seek clarification. 

He's his own worst enemy.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 25, 2019, 14:00:00
Do the democrats have an actual good reason to oppose raising a wall or are they against it because Trump wants it?

What's the actual problem with walls?

I've seen a few cogent arguments against it.  The most obvious one is the cost and scope; it's $25-30B dollars, and would somehow need to extend over 2000 miles, through deserts, mountains, and canyons (including the grand canyon).  Even if you build it, there are areas where you just can't put a wall, so it will be full of gaps.  This is a massive project that will likely spiral way above the cost estimates and will consume a huge amount of steel, concrete and other resources. Most of it is very remote, so the logistics of getting the materials in place and building it is pretty staggering.

There is also the effectiveness of building a wall with no patrols. Unless you actively monitor the entire length, there is nothing stopping anyone from going over/under/through the wall. If you are actively monitoring the wall, why not just actively monitor the border?  I think one of the Democrat proposals had an increase into the budget for the border patrol for that reason, and there is no reason you couldn't put in remote sensors, UAV drones etc at a fraction of the price.

There is also the environmental impacts.  You would cut a lot of territory in half messing with animal migration, cause big erosion problems, and mess up the drainage patterns. Concrete releases a whack of CO2 during production, and they may need to have some kind of on site production for final assembly, so you will crap up huge swaths of the local area when you are building it. So you hit on a whole whack of environmental concerns there, including global warming.

The last big one is that to get this done, there is a lot of privately owned land that needs to be appropriated.  Aside from the wall itself, there is some kind of standoff distance, so there are a number of citizens living in the middle of nowhere that will suddenly have their house seized by the government.

That's aside from the fact that the US Gov own stats show most drugs come in via ports, illegal migration has been dropping for years, and that they know where they have walls, they are still being bypassed by the cartels smuggling operations.  Stories about the tunnels etc pop up once in a while, and those busts happen because they invest in a bunch of other technologies and do a lot of intelligence work.

TL:DR; walls cost a lot of money and will have big impact on environment and people. Technology to get same effect much cheaper and works better. This is unnecessary project with dubious value.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on February 25, 2019, 14:15:28
This is unnecessary project with dubious value.

For reference to the discussion,

Quote
February 25, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 60 former senior U.S. national security officials on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, saying there was “no factual basis” to circumvent Congress to build his long-promised border wall.
https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1QE242


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 25, 2019, 19:14:14
Had a hard time finding a reasonably non partisan article, but the NG article below highlights the topic (most stuff is hyperpartisan).

Another article pointed out that climate change is a national security issue (see California on fire, flooding, hurricanes etc), but takes a bit more vision than what the 15 second news clips allow for.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/how-trump-us-mexico-border-wall-could-impact-environment-wildlife-water/ (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/how-trump-us-mexico-border-wall-could-impact-environment-wildlife-water/)

Personally think that the economic stratification of the US is starting to reach pre-French revolutionary levels, so they'd be better off addressing poverty in a more meaningful way with that money before a civil war breaks out. But I guess if you are looking for bread and circuses to distract the public from the fact that your entire administration has a higher turnover than McD's, and multiple federal/state level criminal investigations on the go, this is a pretty good distraction tool that can be used to fire up your base and otherwise get the opposition to look elsewhere.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on March 06, 2019, 13:03:51
So how's your trade deficit program working out for you, Mr President? Not so well I guess:

Quote
The US trade deficit has hit a 10-year high, it was revealed on Wednesday in a government announcement, as Donald Trump’s trade wars appeared to be backfiring.

The deficit jumped nearly 19% in December, pushing the trade imbalance for all of 2018 to widen to a decade-long high of $621bn.

The commerce department said the gap between what the US sells and what it buys from other countries rose to $59.8bn in December from $50.3bn in November.

Donald Trump imposed tariffs last year on foreign steel, aluminum and Chinese products in the belief that these import taxes would ultimately reduce the trade imbalance.

But the trade gap on goods surged to record highs last year with China ($419.2bn), Mexico ($81.5bn) and the European Union ($169.3bn).
December’s trade imbalance worsened because US imports rose 2.1%, while exports to other countries fell 1.9%.

The president has previously called the trade gap “unsustainable”. Trump is trying to reach a new trade deal with China and hopes to strike an agreement with President Xi Jinping in the coming weeks, but the stakes could not be higher. Trump asked China to abolish tariffs on US agricultural products earlier this month. He said trade talks were “moving along nicely”.

The US trade deficit in 2018 widened to its highest level since 2008, at $621bn. The imbalance with China widened to a record gap. And the US registered the largest trade deficit in goods in its history, growing by 10% to more than $891bn last year.

Early comments by economists and other observers on social media included remarks such as this one by commenter Catherine Rampell, who tweeted: “Trump is obsessed with trade deficits, (incorrectly) believing them a measure of who’s winning and who’s losing. Well, by his own measure, we must be ‘losing’ more: U.S. just posted its biggest merchandise trade deficit ever, $891.2 billion.”

She added that it was unusual for deficits to be so high when unemployment in the US is so low.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/06/us-trade-deficit-hits-10-year-high-as-trump-trade-wars-backfire (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/06/us-trade-deficit-hits-10-year-high-as-trump-trade-wars-backfire)

 :pop:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 06, 2019, 18:03:00
So people are buying less from America, but America is importing more than ever (at a higher price, because of all the tariffs).

Wonder how much their exports are being impacted by the counter-tariffs; it will have a big impact on their competitiveness, but also because the US made it an 'us vs them', I think a lot of consumers have deliberately started to avoid 'made in the US' products. Not sure if that same mentality trickles up to corporations, but I suspect when you are a govt controlled corporation in China, that probably is relevant.  Not that they have that kind of granularity, but guessing the lag between this spike and the tariffs starting may be related to the normal lag in the time taken to find alternate suppliers for your supply chains, so only likely to grow as the longer lead industries switch over.

Winning bigly!
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 07, 2019, 13:23:46
Half the picture.  If the US isn't exporting as much, the question to be answered is whether that production has gone away or shifted to domestic consumption.  Given the jobs numbers, I'd guess the latter.  Trump may very well not realize this (more domestic consumption of domestically-produced goods, with Americans continuing to enjoy high consumption of imports) is a good thing for him overall.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on March 08, 2019, 11:12:55
Half the picture.  If the US isn't exporting as much, the question to be answered is whether that production has gone away or shifted to domestic consumption.  Given the jobs numbers, I'd guess the latter.  Trump may very well not realize this (more domestic consumption of domestically-produced goods, with Americans continuing to enjoy high consumption of imports) is a good thing for him overall.

The job numbers failed to materialize this last month. Instead of the predicted 150,000 only 20,000 were added. More importantly while I don't begrudge the fact that job growth has been occurring during the Trump presidency, it had already been well established during the Obama years. Job growth has been ongoing for over 101 continuous months and was established during the midst of the Obama administration after the great crash during the Bush years.

I think credit should be given where it is due. Trump tends to ignore what his predecessor has done and grabs credit for everything. I think that the jury is still very much out on what the actual long term effects of the Trump administration will be.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/economy/jobs-report-february/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/economy/jobs-report-february/index.html)

Here's one view on the tariffs:

Quote
Ohio State University professor Ned Hill published a comprehensive report this week on how tariffs have played out in the Buckeye State. The takeaway: Most of the new investments that steel producers have made since the tariffs went into effect probably would have happened anyway, because of the strong economy. For many more companies, tariffs have just meant increased costs, which they've mostly been able to pass on to customers. Tariffs have raised prices for consumers across the country.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/economy/trump-tariffs-ohio/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/economy/trump-tariffs-ohio/index.html)

And here's one outfall of loosening the oversight on education facilities:

Quote
When the Education Department approved a proposal by Dream Center, a Christian nonprofit with no experience in higher education, to buy a troubled chain of for-profit colleges, skeptics warned that the charity was unlikely to pull off the turnaround it promised.

What they didn’t foresee was just how quickly and catastrophically it would fail.

Barely a year after the takeover, dozens of Dream Center campuses are nearly out of money and may close as soon as Friday. More than a dozen others have been sold in the hope they can survive.

The affected schools — Argosy University, South University and the Art Institutes — have about 26,000 students in programs spanning associate degrees in dental hygiene and doctoral programs in law and psychology. Fourteen campuses, mostly Art Institute locations, have a new owner after a hastily arranged transfer involving private equity executives. More than 40 others are under the control of a court-appointed receiver who has accused school officials of trying to keep the doors open by taking millions of dollars earmarked for students.

The problems, arising amid the Trump administration’s broad efforts to deregulate the for-profit college industry, began almost immediately after Dream Center acquired the schools in 2017. The charity, started 25 years ago and affiliated with a Pentecostal megachurch in Los Angeles, has a nationwide network of outreach programs for problems like homelessness and domestic violence and said it planned to use the schools to fund its expansion.

Now its students — many with credits that cannot be easily transferred — are stuck in a meltdown. On Wednesday, members of the faculty at Argosy’s Chicago and Northern Virginia campuses told students that they had been fired and instructed to remove their belongings. In Phoenix, an unpaid landlord locked students out of their classrooms. In California, a dean advised students two months away from graduation not to invite family to attend from out of town.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/business/argosy-college-art-insititutes-south-university.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/business/argosy-college-art-insititutes-south-university.html)

We can probably argue until the cows come home about what effect this presidency is having on the overall health of the US but we really won't know until we're further downstream and the data can be properly analyzed - - and then half of us won't believe the data anyway regardless of what it is.

 :worms:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on March 08, 2019, 11:27:45
We have privately owned, for profit colleges in Ontario. I won’t comment on their standards, but they are for the most part solvent and many are thriving. If one was to add in a religious affiliation to them, some might do better as long as they don’t piss off the OHRC.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 08, 2019, 11:50:00
For more learned individuals than I to determine if it is an economic warning sign.
But, for what it is worth to the discussion, this got my attention,

Quote
CBS News
February 13, 2019

Record 7 million Americans are 90 days behind on car loan payments, N.Y. Fed report says

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, there are now 1 million more people behind on payments by three months than there were in 2010 when delinquency rates were at their worst.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-loan-delinquencies-record-7-million-americans-behind-on-car-loan-payments-red-report-says/







Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 08, 2019, 14:10:54
For more learned individuals than I to determine if it is an economic warning sign.
But, for what it is worth to the discussion, this got my attention,
I wonder how many of those people are living beyond their means. Like the pte I'm trying to help who has a wife with no job (she can't stand working and taking orders) a 1 year old child and just bought a $60,000 truck.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 08, 2019, 14:30:39
That could explain a lot. Young people borrowing for cars they can't afford.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 08, 2019, 15:45:31
None of which has anything to do with Trump. You can't blame him for people's lack of financial acumen.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 08, 2019, 16:11:29
You can't blame him for people's lack of financial acumen.

I didn't blame him,

For more learned individuals than I to determine if it is an economic warning sign.
But, for what it is worth to the discussion, this got my attention,

In case it is an economic warning sign,

Quote
Forbes
Feb 13, 2019

Economists at the Fed expressed alarm with the new numbers. "In fact, 2018 marked the highest level in the nineteen-year history of the loan origination data, with $584 billion in new auto loans and leases appearing on credit reports, up in nominal terms from 2017’s $569 billion," economists wrote in a blog post accompanying the study.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiley5/2019/02/13/americas-debt-debacle-why-are-so-many-consumers-behind-on-their-auto-loans/#51e8a61937f8
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 09, 2019, 11:10:27
Just an CBC article to "prove" the US economy is not great.

For more learned individuals than I to determine if it is an economic warning sign.
But, for what it is worth to the discussion, this got my attention,

Statistically, that represents 2.14 % of the population of the USA or 2.82% of the adults in the USA. Not counting 9-23 million illegals.

Canada could has the same percentage.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/debt-car-loans-long-term-1.4863737

Long-term loans: The fuel that's powering Canadian car sales
- 23 Oct 18
      Canadians are 5 times more likely than Americans are to take out a long-term car loan

More than half of all new car loans are currently financed for  84 months — seven years — or longer. Industry standard used to be to amortize car loans over 60 months

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/debt-income-1.4448098

Canadians owe $1.71 for every dollar of disposable income they have — a new record high - Dec 17

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oecd-debt-1.4415860

Canadian households lead the world in terms of debt: OECD - Nov 17


So, what's your point.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 09, 2019, 11:31:49
So, what's your point.

So, what's your point?

I just know what I read in the papers,
Quote
Financial Post

DETROIT — Borrowers are behind in their auto loan payments in numbers not seen since delinquencies peaked at the end of 2010, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

More than 7 million Americans were 90 or more days behind on their car loans at the end of last year, 1 million more than eight years ago, according to a report from the bank. That’s a potential sign of trouble for the auto industry and perhaps the broader economy.
https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/ny-fed-auto-loan-delinquencies-at-highest-point-since-2010





Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 09, 2019, 11:35:10
My point is that it is a news item that has nothing to do with The US Presidency 2019.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 09, 2019, 11:41:24
My point is that it is a news item that has nothing to do with The US Presidency 2019.

Exactly, but it's still all Trump's fault. Everything is, right?

I'm waiting for people to start blaming him for the measles outbreaks.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 09, 2019, 11:45:04
My point is that it is a news item that has nothing to do with The US Presidency 2019.

Mea culpa. I thought the US economy was relevant.

Exactly, but it's still all Trump's fault.

Your words. Not mine.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 09, 2019, 11:50:49
Exactly, but it's still all Trump's fault. Everything is, right?

I'm waiting for people to start blaming him for the measles outbreaks.

Isn't he anti vaccine? If he is then yes. Lol.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 09, 2019, 12:08:01
Isn't he anti vaccine? If he is then yes. Lol.

No, I don't believe he's a plague promoter. 8)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 09, 2019, 12:15:20

Your words. Not mine.

I figured everyone would see my statement as rhetorical. Guess not.

Nevertrumpers are illogical haterz. If it's Trump, it's bad.

That was the point, but not to worry, I understand yours.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 09, 2019, 12:29:34
That was the point, but not to worry, I understand yours.

I don't worry about the internet. I understand yours too.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Target Up on March 09, 2019, 12:36:44
Get a room...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: boot12 on March 09, 2019, 14:00:45
Isn't he anti vaccine? If he is then yes. Lol.

No, I don't believe he's a plague promoter. 8)


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449525268529815552 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449525268529815552)

"Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507493104015114241 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507493104015114241)

"@OnlineOnTheAir: My friend's son, immediate #autism after #vaccines 10 yrs ago. So sad. Keep up good work Nay-sayers will understand soon."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/238717783007977473 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/238717783007977473)

"Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism...."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508183486747136000 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508183486747136000)

"@P01YN0NYM0U55:  @jamandatrtl #vaccines #Shills insist #Autism starts in utero or genetic, but parents insist sudden onset after #vaccine"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/260415099452416000 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/260415099452416000)

"Autism rates through the roof--why doesn't the Obama administration do something about doctor-inflicted autism. We lose nothing to try."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449544008986275840 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449544008986275840)

"With autism being way up, what do we have to lose by having doctors give small dose vaccines vs. big pump doses into those tiny bodies?"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508186362244505600 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508186362244505600)

"@P01YN0NYM0U55: ! @vikdam @jamandatrtl imagine how mad you'd be to watch your healthy child crash hard after vaccine then doctors mock you"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507158574670573568 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507158574670573568)

"I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507162245680627712 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507162245680627712)

"@LindseyScheibe @realDonaldTrump Erik's story breaks my heart. Vaccines destroyed his family.  http://tinyurl.com/qcq3tkm " Very sad!"


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 09, 2019, 15:03:54

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449525268529815552 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449525268529815552)

"Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507493104015114241 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507493104015114241)

"@OnlineOnTheAir: My friend's son, immediate #autism after #vaccines 10 yrs ago. So sad. Keep up good work Nay-sayers will understand soon."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/238717783007977473 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/238717783007977473)

"Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism...."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508183486747136000 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508183486747136000)

"@P01YN0NYM0U55:  @jamandatrtl #vaccines #Shills insist #Autism starts in utero or genetic, but parents insist sudden onset after #vaccine"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/260415099452416000 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/260415099452416000)

"Autism rates through the roof--why doesn't the Obama administration do something about doctor-inflicted autism. We lose nothing to try."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449544008986275840 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/449544008986275840)

"With autism being way up, what do we have to lose by having doctors give small dose vaccines vs. big pump doses into those tiny bodies?"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508186362244505600 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/508186362244505600)

"@P01YN0NYM0U55: ! @vikdam @jamandatrtl imagine how mad you'd be to watch your healthy child crash hard after vaccine then doctors mock you"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507158574670573568 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507158574670573568)

"I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507162245680627712 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/507162245680627712)

"@LindseyScheibe @realDonaldTrump Erik's story breaks my heart. Vaccines destroyed his family.  http://tinyurl.com/qcq3tkm " Very sad!"

Dear God. This appears to actually be legit, those do all seem to be his verified account. With a very brief bit of digging, it looks like he has been publicly linked to the anti-vax movement not just on twitter comments, but in meetings and fundraisers, including with Andrew Wakefield himself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-vaccines-autism-links-anti-vaxxer-us-president-false-vaccine-a8331836.html

And for a view from 'the other side' - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-meets-with-vaccine-skeptic-rfk-jr-to-discuss-safety-probe

I had absolutely no idea that this was something he has espoused views on. I don't care who you are or what your political views are, this has got to be concerning to any rational person.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on March 09, 2019, 15:06:09
And now for something completely different:

Quote
Budget deficit balloons, few in Washington seem to care
By ANDREW TAYLOR, ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Mar 9, 2019

The federal budget deficit is ballooning on President Donald Trump's watch and few in Washington seem to care.

And even if they did, the political dynamics that enabled bipartisan deficit-cutting deals decades ago has disappeared, replaced by bitter partisanship and chronic dysfunction.

That's the reality that will greet Trump's latest budget , which will promptly be shelved after landing with a thud on Monday. Like previous spending blueprints, Trump's plan for the 2020 budget year will propose cuts to many domestic programs favored by lawmakers in both parties but leave alone politically popular retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Washington probably with devote months wrestling over erasing the last remnants of a failed 2011 budget deal that would otherwise cut core Pentagon operations by $71 billion and domestic agencies and foreign aid by $55 billion. Top lawmakers are pushing for a reprise of three prior deals to use spending cuts or new revenues and prop up additional spending rather than defray deficits that are again approaching $1 trillion.

It's put deficit hawks in a gloomy mood.

"The president doesn't care. The leadership of the Democratic Party doesn't care," said former Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "And social media is in stampede mode."

Trump's budget arrives as the latest Treasury Department figures show a 77 percent spike in the deficit over the first four months of the budget year, driving by falling revenues and steady growth in spending.

Trump's 2017 tax cut bears much of the blame, along with sharp increases in spending for both the Pentagon and domestic agencies and the growing federal retirement costs of the baby boom generation. Promises that the tax cut would stir so much economic growth that it would mostly pay for itself have been proved woefully wrong.

Trump's upcoming budget, however, won't address any of the main factors behind the growing, intractable deficits that have driven the U.S. debt above $22 trillion. Its most striking proposed cuts — to domestic agency operations — were rejected when tea party Republicans controlled the House, and they face equally grim prospects now that Democrats are in the majority.

Trump has given no indication he's much interested in the deficit and he's rejected any idea of curbing Medicare or Social Security, the massive federal retirement programs whose imbalances are the chief deficit drivers.

An administration official said Friday that the president's plan promises to balance the budget in 15 years. The official was not authorized to publicly discuss specifics about the budget before the document's official release and spoke on condition of anonymity

Democrats have witnessed the retirement of a generation of lawmakers who came up in the 1980s and 1990s and negotiated deficit-cutting deals in 1990 and 1993. But those agreements came at significant political cost to both President George H.W. Bush, who lost re-election, and President Bill Clinton, whose party lost control of Congress in 1995.

But the moderate wing of the Democratic Party has withered with the electoral wipeout of "Blue Dog" Democrats at the hands of tea party forces over recent election cycles.

"Concern about the deficit is so woefully out of fashion that it's hard to even imagine it coming back into fashion," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., one of his party's few remaining deficit hawks. "This is as out of fashion as bell bottoms."

While in control of the House, Republicans used to generate nonbinding budget blueprints that promised to balance the federal ledger by relying on a controversial plan to eventually transform Medicare into a voucher-like program. But they never pursued follow-up legislation that would actually do it.

Republicans, who seized Congress more than two decades ago promising and ultimately achieving balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, have instead focused on two major rounds of tax cuts during the Trump era and the administration of President George W. Bush in 2001

Nor are Republicans willing to consider tough deficit-cutting steps such as higher taxes or Pentagon budget cuts. Leading Democratic presidential contenders talk of "Medicare for All" and increasing Social Security benefits instead of curbing them.

"You have to get pretty damn serious about revenue as well as defense spending, and those are two things the Republicans don't want to bring into the conversation," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "My Democratic friends who talk about expansion of benefits. I've told them to 'get real.'"

Trump has never gone to the mat for his plan to slash domestic spending such as renewable energy programs.

"If Trump can be criticized I think the perception has been that he has not fought for the spending cuts that he's proposed," said former Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "There's no upside to trying to cut anything. There's no political reward. But if you cut something there's a lot of political downside."

Neither is there any reservoir of the political will and bipartisan trust required to take the political heat for the tough steps it would take to rein in deficits. And it's not like voters are clamoring for action.

"There's been very little dialogue in the last several years about debt and deficit and how to really be able to address it," said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. "It just never came up" in the 2016 election. "It still doesn't come up."

The deficit registered $714 billion during Trump's first year in office but is projected to hit about $900 billion this year according to the Congressional Budget Office, which says Trump's tax cut will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

"One of the short-term goals should be — I know it's not a lofty goal — stopping things from getting a lot worse. It's something the Republicans obviously were unable to do. That's a low bar, but they couldn't meet a low bar," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/budget-deficit-balloons-washington-care-61575464 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/budget-deficit-balloons-washington-care-61575464)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 09, 2019, 15:19:59
Dear God. This appears to actually be legit, those do all seem to be his verified account. With a very brief bit of digging, it looks like he has been publicly linked to the anti-vax movement not just on twitter comments, but in meetings and fundraisers, including with Andrew Wakefield himself.


I had absolutely no idea that this was something he has espoused views on. I don't care who you are or what your political views are, this has got to be concerning to any rational person.

Well then I do blame him for the measles outbreak then.  In fairness I blame the whole movement but he has a bigger voice that contributes to this kind of garbage. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 09, 2019, 16:36:50
>Trump has given no indication he's much interested in the deficit and he's rejected any idea of curbing Medicare or Social Security, the massive federal retirement programs whose imbalances are the chief deficit drivers.

Once again: the president produces a budget request for discretionary spending.  Congress appropriates, or not.  Mandatory spending (Medicare, Social Security) has its own budget, and is mandatory - the president doesn't request it.

The cited paragraph above applies equally to the Democrats, and almost entirely equally to the Republicans (partial exceptions: Paul Ryan and his followers, Mitch McConnell who is prepared to reform entitlement spending if the effort is bipartisan).

As I have written before: entitlement reform goes nowhere because it is mandatory spending, so the Democrats don't have to move a finger to get what they want.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on March 22, 2019, 18:21:43
Let the good times begin!! The rumour mill started this morning, but its now official: Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report to the Attorney General.

Quote
Robert Mueller Has Completed His Investigation on Donald Trump and Russia

The special counsel’s report has been delivered to the attorney general.
Inae Oh and Dan FriedmanMarch 22, 2019 5:08 PM   

Special counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his completed report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to Attorney General William Barr, according to reports on Friday.

Mueller was appointed to oversee the Russia probe in May 2017, days after President Donald Trump abruptly fired then-FBI Director James Comey. For nearly two years, the special counsel has quietly led a wide-ranging investigation that has examined possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia and potential obstruction of justice by the president, among other matters.

The probe has resulted in 34 indictments or guilty pleas, including those of top Trump campaign officials and allies. That includes Trump’s lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen; Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos; Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort; Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates; and Michael Flynn. Mueller indicted Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, in January for perjury and obstruction of justice. Cohen, who cooperated extensively with Mueller and with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay $100,000 in fines and $1.4 million in restitution. Manafort, who violated his cooperation agreement by lying to Mueller’s investigators, received more than seven years in prison for a range of crimes, including tax fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. He was also ordered to pay nearly $25 million in restitution and a $50,000 fine.

Over the course of Mueller’s inquiry, Trump has publicly attacked Mueller’s investigation more than 1,100 times, a recent New York Times analysis found.

It remains unclear whether the report Mueller has given to Barr contains: new information, classified information, grand jury information, conclusions. It’s also unknown how many pages Mueller’s report runs. Justice Department guidelines governing the special counsel merely require Mueller, once he concludes his work, to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” That might mean a short report that lists the indictments with little further information, or a lengthy report analyzing Trump’s conduct.

It is not clear if Attorney General William Barr will release a summary or any of Mueller’s findings to Congress. Barr, who was appointed to the post in February despite serious concerns over a memo he wrote last year in which he described the Russia probe as “fatally misconceived,” refused to pledge to release Mueller’s report to the public during his confirmation hearing.

Head here for more on what may—or may not—come in the days ahead.

This is a breaking news post. We will update as more information becomes available.


Mother Jones (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/robert-mueller-has-completed-his-report-on-donald-trump-and-russia/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 22, 2019, 19:51:48
I think Mother Jones might be a tad biased. YMMV.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on March 22, 2019, 20:11:33
I think Mother Jones might be a tad biased. YMMV.

Please enlighten us as how the article I posted is biased??
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: PPCLI Guy on March 22, 2019, 20:58:56
I think Mother Jones might be a tad biased. YMMV.

Dude.  Read the article.  There are no opinions there, just facts. Facts are not repeat not biased- they just are.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 22, 2019, 21:51:10
Robert Mueller Has Completed His Investigation...

Special counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his completed report on Russian interference...

Mueller was appointed to oversee the Russia probe in May 2017, ...

The probe has resulted in 34 indictments or guilty pleas,...

Trump has publicly attacked Mueller’s investigation...

It remains unclear whether the report Mueller has given to Barr contains...

It is not clear if Attorney General William Barr will release a summary or any of Mueller’s findings to Congress...




Yes, this article is just oozing in bias and fake news... ::)



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 22, 2019, 23:02:30
Jesus H. I said not a ******* word about the article. I read it.

I simply stated the truth about mother jones like everyone does if I post a rightish site.

Take a pill FFS.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on March 23, 2019, 10:10:05
Let the good times begin!! The rumour mill started this morning, but its now official: Special Counsel Mueller has delivered his report to the Attorney General.
 

Mother Jones (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/robert-mueller-has-completed-his-report-on-donald-trump-and-russia/)

You're right about that. My old "fishin'" buddies Adam Schiff and Gerry Nadler will load up the boat for a 3 hour cruise. Ably helped out by bait boy Eric Swalwell. What fishing trip is complete without tall tales, who would you turn to but the master yarn spinner, John Brennan.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on March 24, 2019, 17:07:15
Jesus H. I said not a ******* word about the article. I read it.

I simply stated the truth about mother jones like everyone does if I post a rightish site.

Take a pill FFS.

Seen. Assumed you were talking about the article itself. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 24, 2019, 17:23:04
Seen. Assumed you were talking about the article itself.

No problem.
Thank you.

It was more for the unrequired extra commentary, that had to chime in, not yours.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on March 24, 2019, 17:33:50
DOJ summary of the Mueller report.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/read-mueller-key-findings-doj/index.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 25, 2019, 10:30:07
So no collusion and can not confirm or not if there was obstruction.

As much as i don’t like trump I trust that Mueller did a thorough job and this needs to be put to bed.

I’m seeing people on social media and regular media try to spin this and they should just stop.

Investigation is done.  Nothing to see.

Trump has a whole other list of things one can try to go after him for.  This one though is done. I’m not sure what Congress can accomplish that mueller didn’t.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 10:56:45
So no collusion and can not confirm or not if there was obstruction.

As much as i don’t like trump I trust that Mueller did a thorough job and this needs to be put to bed.

I’m seeing people on social media and regular media try to spin this and they should just stop.

Investigation is done.  Nothing to see.

Trump has a whole other list of things one can try to go after him for.  This one though is done. I’m not sure what Congress can accomplish that mueller didn’t.

Mm hm. The Mueller investigation still resulted in 34 individuals being charged. Several of Trump's close associates and hand-picked advisors are already now convicted criminals and are serving or facing jail time. More are on the docket. There is still considerable legal fallout hanging over him from campaign finance offences, likely tax fraud, and fraud around his now-dissolved foundation. He's hardly out of the woods yet, nor is he coming out of this clean.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 25, 2019, 11:40:32
Of those 34 you state: He has charged a total of eight Americans, 25 Russians (13 Russian nationals, 12 Russian intelligence officers), and 3 Russian companies. The MSM are running with the 34 number, but it is a little different sounding when the numbers are broken down.

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-has-been-charged-in-russia-investigation-mueller-trump-2017-12
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 25, 2019, 11:49:06
Mm hm. The Mueller investigation still resulted in 34 individuals being charged. Several of Trump's close associates and hand-picked advisors are already now convicted criminals and are serving or facing jail time. More are on the docket. There is still considerable legal fallout hanging over him from campaign finance offences, likely tax fraud, and fraud around his now-dissolved foundation. He's hardly out of the woods yet, nor is he coming out of this clean.

True.  But the Russian collusion thing should be put to rest.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Technoviking on March 25, 2019, 12:06:03
Mm hm. The Mueller investigation still resulted in 34 individuals being charged. Several of Trump's close associates and hand-picked advisors are already now convicted criminals and are serving or facing jail time. More are on the docket. There is still considerable legal fallout hanging over him from campaign finance offences, likely tax fraud, and fraud around his now-dissolved foundation. He's hardly out of the woods yet, nor is he coming out of this clean.

Just give it up.  Your TDS is showing.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 25, 2019, 12:13:20
This was posted yesterday in Canadian Politics regarding the 2016 US presidential election.

Quote
Clinton had a 99.9% chance to win according to polls.

If we are still on the subject of their 2016 presidential election, this is worth noting,
Quote
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

In spite of the above, she got almost 3 million more votes than he did.

Of course, US presidential elections are determined by the Electoral College.

He had this to say about that,
Quote
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082

Your TDS is showing.

They used to say the same about his predecessor.  :)

ODS
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Obama%20Derangement%20Syndrome





Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Technoviking on March 25, 2019, 12:21:31
ODS
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Obama%20Derangement%20Syndrome
And I believe it.  I just didn't like Mr Obama, but unlike those idiots with ODS, I didn't think that he was out to ruin the country; he was doing what he thought was best for it.

As for the electoral college, it's fine.  We elect our PMs with much less than 50% resulting in over 50% of the seats in the house of commons.  "Majority Rule" is not a great thing if you're a sheep and you and two wolves are voting what to have for lunch :P

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 12:34:24
True.  But the Russian collusion thing should be put to rest.

Yup, that appears to be the case.

Just give it up.  Your TDS is showing.


I await your fact-based rebuttal to literally any of what I posted. If you want to dig back into past posts and bring out evidence of my supposed 'Trump Derangement Syndrome", knock yourself out. I have hardly been a cymbal-clanging monkey for the anti-Trump camp. I don't like him as a person or as the president of one of our allies- he has specifically attacked Canadian trade, and as a loyal and patriotic Canadian I quite reasonably take issue with economic attacks on my country's industries by a major trade partner. But you won't find shrill cries from me to impeach him, you won't find me spending the past two years posting sensationalist speculation on collusion... I just watch the facts as they roll out and occasionally comment on them. Everything I fust said is easily verifiable. There hve been convictions, and there are more trials pending.

Mueller's investigation resulted in 34 people charged, including 7 Americans, with five arguably significant individuals being convicted thus far:
- George Papadopolous, one of his foreign policy advisors, pled guilty to the criminal offense of making false statements to the FBI.
- Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, pled guilty to conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice. He was convicted at trial of multiple counts of tax fraud and bank fraud, and got 73 months in prison.
- Rick Gates, the campaign #2 under Manafort and later Bannon, pled guilty to conspiracy against the U.S., and false statements. He flipped and is awaiting sentencing, as well as getting a bevy of further charges withdrawn.
- LGen (ret'd) Mike Flynn was Trump's National Security Advisor. He pled guilty to lying to the FBI. He cooperated with further investigations and is pending sentencing.
- Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, pled guilty to false statements - lying to the FBI. He pled guilty to illegal campaign contributions in conjunction with buying the silence of a couple women that Trump slept with in order to avoid damaging stories during the election, at Trump's behest. He also pled guilty to tax offences. He also pled guilty to perjury in congressional testimony on the Moscow Trump Tower deal, again to cover for Trump. He later flipped and cooperated with the investigation.

Separately, Trump's foundation has been shut down and is under court supervised dissolution because he was essentially using it as a slush fund. Tax investigations are ongoing and there is a very real prospect of prosecution of Trump or members of his family under New York state law. I'm not going to speculate as to the likelihood of that, or of likely results. It's simply a realistic prospect based on the evidence that is now on the record.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. You may not like the facts. They may not be comfortable, convenient, or politically palatable to you, but the facts remain as they are. When I said that Trump still faces legal jeopardy out of this whole schmozzle, that is entirely accurate. Would I be happy to see him defeated in the next election? Yes. His presidency has proven bad for Canada due to his attacks on our trade and industry, and I do not think he shows the character or ethics one would want to see in a world leader. Am I going to kick and scream and refuse to 'accept' the results of the election if he wins? Absolutely not, I'll shrug and carry on knowing that we live in an imperfect world. Am I going to make crap up or spread propaganda out of some hyperpartisan zeal? Absolutely not. I'm just going to keep watching and see how it all shakes out.

That's the nice thing about objective, verifiable facts. They don't care about our opinion, and they create a nice baseline and a strong foundation for any discussion.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: TimneyTime on March 25, 2019, 13:24:28
Mm hm. The Mueller investigation still resulted in 34 individuals being charged. Several of Trump's close associates and hand-picked advisors are already now convicted criminals and are serving or facing jail time. More are on the docket. There is still considerable legal fallout hanging over him from campaign finance offences, likely tax fraud, and fraud around his now-dissolved foundation. He's hardly out of the woods yet, nor is he coming out of this clean.

Show me where any of the indictments were due to Russian Collusion, which is what the Mueller investigation was supposed to be about.

No Russian Collusion.  Case closed.  That's all the proof you need, my friend.  After 2 years... zilcho, nada, nothing.  Just a bunch of side cases that had nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 13:46:18
Show me where any of the indictments were due to Russian Collusion, which is what the Mueller investigation was supposed to be about.

No Russian Collusion.  Case closed.  That's all the proof you need, my friend.  After 2 years... zilcho, nada, nothing.  Just a bunch of side cases that had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

The Mueller investigation was about a couple things. Its intent was not to go out and prove Russian collusion- they did not situate the estimate in that manner. It was to see if such collusion existed. It did not ultimately find sufficient evidence to lay charges against anyone for offences under that umbrella. The investigation was also to determine the extent, if any, of Russian interference in the election. It found considerable evidence of same, resulting in numerous indictments. These two aspects of the investigation were necessarily related, and each was worthy in its own right.

At no point will you find that I have claimed there is Russian collusion. I have not sat here lamenting that the investigation didn't find that- I wasn't sitting here hoping there would be. On the contrary I very much hoped their wouldn't be. My dislike of Trump doesn't extend to hoping he actively colluded with a foreign power. As I said, I simply watch and see what the facts are.

The investigation was also appropriately empowered to prosecute other matters that they discovered, among which were several conspiracies against the United States for which criminal convictions have already resulted.

Don't attempt to put claims in my mouth that I haven't made. I'm an evidence and facts based guy. You will find that I generally say precisely what I mean and mean precisely what I say. If I haven't claimed or alleged something, you don't get to assume or infer that I have. Other things emerged incidental to the primary objectives of the Mueller investigation, and thsoe things are in their own right interesting, concerning, and worth watching. So yes, the Mueller investigation is now complete, and it appears no more federal indictments will results from same. Several federal and state legal proceedings continue, and it remains evident that the president is potentially personally exposed to legal jeopardy on campaign finance and tax issues. Again, objective, verifiable facts whether one likes them or not.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2019, 13:48:15
I just want to know if Hillary will come out of her hotel room and make a consession speech now.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 13:54:55
I just want to know if Hillary will come out of her hotel room and make a consession speech now.

Like a repeat of the one she made on 9 November, 2016?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPBjOnHTaM
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 25, 2019, 14:02:38
Oh yea....next day.   You know you can lighten up also Francis.  Taking things a little too serious...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on March 25, 2019, 14:04:21
Show me where any of the indictments were due to Russian Collusion, which is what the Mueller investigation was supposed to be about.

No Russian Collusion.  Case closed.  That's all the proof you need, my friend.  After 2 years... zilcho, nada, nothing.  Just a bunch of side cases that had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

The case is far from closed and the absence of proof does not negate the fact that the entire situation with Trump stinks to high heaven. As far as indictments go, twelve Russians were indicted in July 2018 on charges related to a conspiracy to hack Democratic computers with the goal of influencing the 2016 election and another thirteen Russian nationals and three entities, including the Internet Research Agency, were indicted in February 2018 with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. for interfering with the election. The US intelligence community is unanimous in its opinion that Russia ran a campaign to influence the US electorate away from Clinton and towards Trump.

Trump's infatuation with Putin is clearly evident as are his attempted business efforts in Russia. The man has clearly put his own interests well above that of his country and even of his own party. He's been a fraud artist and liar his entire life and continues to be one.

Personally I have never thought that there was "clear collusion" (in so far as Putin and Trump sitting down and saying "here's what we'll do" and essentially that, or something close to it, is what you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the crime of collusion) but there was at least encouragement by his campaign staff of Russian interference on behalf of their candidate and Trump's own public announcements that he hoped the Russians would find Clinton's email. And what about Flynn's discussions with the Russians pre-inauguration that the sanctions would be lifted now that his boy had won; doesn't that give even you concern that there was a quid pro quo in play?-- Not conclusive proof of collusion but encouragement of Putin's already running plan of interference. Could you have seen McCain or his staff acting like Trump and his gang did? I don't think so.

I'll wait to see until the final report comes out. There's a long gap between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt and as usual, the devil's in the details.

 :worms:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 25, 2019, 15:28:21
Like a repeat of the one she made on 9 November, 2016?

Her speech seems to have inspired many women to run for office as Democrats in 2018,
Quote
NBC
Nov. 20, 2018
Midterms 2018: It was the Year of the Woman — for Democrats, not Republicans
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/it-was-year-woman-not-republican-side-n938341
Democrats have elected 35 new women to the House, compared with just one for Republicans.
Of the 103 women so far slated to serve in the House next year, 90 are Democrats.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on March 25, 2019, 15:35:55
The TDS is strong in this thread.  I get the impression those wedded to Trump being some sort of Russian spy won’t accept any alternative. 

This was a distraction.  Now that the Mueller investigation is over, hopefully we’re about to see what really happened.  There should be a special counsel appointed to finish this.  Starting with investigating the FISA abuses, which should open up into everything else going on. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 16:15:09
The TDS is strong in this thread.  I get the impression those wedded to Trump being some sort of Russian spy won’t accept any alternative. 

This was a distraction.  Now that the Mueller investigation is over, hopefully we’re about to see what really happened.  There should be a special counsel appointed to finish this.  Starting with investigating the FISA abuses, which should open up into everything else going on.

The corollary to that is that there are thsoe - surprisingly, even here in Canada, a country against which Trump has aligned himself in his economic and trade policy- who believe that disfavouring or opposing Trump can only be explained by 'derangement', that is, insanity or madness.

It's not "I disagree with the facts upon which you base your claims. Here's what I believe to actually be true and here's the evidence for same."
It's not "I disagree with your reasoning or analysis or interpretation about a commonly agreed on set of facts, and here's why."
It's not "I disagree witht he political or ethical principles that shape how you see this, and here's why."

Instead it's "You don't like the guy I like. Therefore, despite the arguments you'e presented and the facts that I am unable to dispute, I'm going to dismiss you as insane."

'Deranged' is kidnapping and hacking up the kid down the street because the voices from your TV told you to; or walking around wearing tin foil on your head all day because the government is trying to read your thoughts via satellite. 'Deranged' is not simply having a rationally based position on political, economic, or foreign relations matters that leads to a differing political view from your own. If you're stuck resorting to calling those politically opposed to you 'deranged', your own position is probably pretty shaky.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Scott on March 25, 2019, 16:29:24
Let's just leave references to TDS out of things from now on. It adds nothing whatsoever.

Scott
Staff
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: TimneyTime on March 25, 2019, 16:31:27
The case is far from closed and the absence of proof does not negate the fact that the entire situation with Trump stinks to high heaven. As far as indictments go, twelve Russians were indicted in July 2018 on charges related to a conspiracy to hack Democratic computers with the goal of influencing the 2016 election and another thirteen Russian nationals and three entities, including the Internet Research Agency, were indicted in February 2018 with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. for interfering with the election. The US intelligence community is unanimous in its opinion that Russia ran a campaign to influence the US electorate away from Clinton and towards Trump.

Trump's infatuation with Putin is clearly evident as are his attempted business efforts in Russia. The man has clearly put his own interests well above that of his country and even of his own party. He's been a fraud artist and liar his entire life and continues to be one.

Personally I have never thought that there was "clear collusion" (in so far as Putin and Trump sitting down and saying "here's what we'll do" and essentially that, or something close to it, is what you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the crime of collusion) but there was at least encouragement by his campaign staff of Russian interference on behalf of their candidate and Trump's own public announcements that he hoped the Russians would find Clinton's email. And what about Flynn's discussions with the Russians pre-inauguration that the sanctions would be lifted now that his boy had won; doesn't that give even you concern that there was a quid pro quo in play?-- Not conclusive proof of collusion but encouragement of Putin's already running plan of interference. Could you have seen McCain or his staff acting like Trump and his gang did? I don't think so.

I'll wait to see until the final report comes out. There's a long gap between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt and as usual, the devil's in the details.

 :worms:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-robert-mueller-delivers-report-20190322-story.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller closed his long and contentious Russia investigation with no new charges Friday, ending the probe that has cast a dark shadow over Donald Trump's presidency but launching a fresh wave of political battles over the still-confidential findings.

The case is closed.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 16:40:27
Let's just leave references to TDS out of things from now on. It adds nothing whatsoever.

Scott
Staff

Thank you, much appreciated.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on March 25, 2019, 16:40:50
Brihard, you of all people should take offence to corruption in high office and abuse of law enforcement and judicial processes.  If Trump did any of these things, he needs to go.  I’m happy to read the leader of Canada’s closest ally did not collude with our adversaries.  And related, I’m very disappointed to read the Canadian Prime Minister possibly obstructed justice (this originating from within his innermost circle when his AG went public is much different from Trumps opponents going after him). 

I can be a Canadian patriot and have both of those opinions, but nice try. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 16:53:03


The Hill, who has not been a fan of Trump or Republicans

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/435552-apologies-to-president-trump

Apologies to President Trump

Quote
With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.

However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties.

In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump.

Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump’s presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along.

Yet, each time Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him. We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be “lies,” although they had no evidence to back up their claims.

We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.

We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump’s “treason.”

As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump’s detriment.

And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.

So, a round of apologies seem in order.

Apologies to Trump on behalf of those in the U.S. intelligence community, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, which allowed the weaponization of sensitive, intrusive intelligence tools against innocent citizens such as Carter Page, an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Apologies also to Page himself, to Jerome Corsi, Donald Trump Jr., and other citizens whose rights were violated or who were unfairly caught up in surveillance or the heated pursuit of charges based on little more than false, unproven opposition research paid for by Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Apologies for the stress on their jobs and to their families, the damage to their reputations, the money they had to spend to hire legal representation and defend themselves from charges for crimes they did not commit.

Apologies on behalf of those in the intelligence community who leaked true information out of context to make Trump look guilty, and who sometimes leaked false information to try to implicate or frame him.

Apologies from those in the chain of command at the FBI and the Department of Justice who were supposed to make sure all information presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is verified but did not do so.

Apologies from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court judges who are supposed to serve as one of the few checks and balances to prevent the FBI from wiretapping innocent Americans. Whether because of blind trust in the FBI or out of ignorance or even malfeasance, they failed at this important job.

Apologies to the American people who did not receive the full attention of their government while political points were being scored; who were not told about some important world events because they were crowded out of the news by the persistent insistence that Trump was working for Russia.

Apologies all the way around.

And now, with those apologies handled — are more than apologies due?

Should we try to learn more about those supposed Russian sources who provided false “intel” contained in the “dossier” against Trump, Page and others? Should we learn how these sources came to the attention of ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who built the dossier and claimed that some of the sources were close to Putin?

When and where did Steele meet with these high-level Russian sources who provided the apparently false information? 

Are these the people who actually took proven, concrete steps to interfere in the 2016 election and sabotage Trump’s presidency, beginning in its earliest days?

Just who conspired to put the “dossier” into the hands of the FBI? Who, within our intel community, dropped the ball on verifying the information and, instead, leaked it to the press and presented it to the FISC as if legitimate?

“Sorry” hardly seems to be enough.

Will anyone be held accountable?

Perhaps people are finally awaking from their biased and bemoaning bleating. I am waiting for Sen Lindsay Graham to start Senate Judicial hearing into the other side of things. Time to move the fire to where it will actually burn those responsible.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on March 25, 2019, 16:55:49
Looks like the Mueller report destroyed an entire industry. Can we blame this one on Trump?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/mueller-investigation-ends-along-its-industry/585634/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/mueller-investigation-ends-along-its-industry/585634/)

Quote
The Mueller-Industrial Complex Collapses
Newsmakers, pundits, and hustlers banked their future on the investigation taking down the president. The jig is up.

Quote
The investigation’s actual result now also casts a dour shadow over the Mueller-industrial complex’s wares and messages. The work came at a great cost: It cannibalized the future for the benefit of the present. Like taking out a loan on news to come in the hopes that its benefit will pay out enough to cover its costs, the Mueller disciples traded their own anticipatory media on margin, assuming that their winnings would more than pay off their debts. That bet turned out to be a bad one, and now the payment has come due.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 17:13:32
Brihard, you of all people should take offence to corruption in high office and abuse of law enforcement and judicial processes.  If Trump did any of these things, he needs to go.  I’m happy to read the leader of Canada’s closest ally did not collude with our adversaries.  And related, I’m very disappointed to read the Canadian Prime Minister possibly obstructed justice (this originating from within his innermost circle when his AG went public is much different from Trumps opponents going after him). 

I can be a Canadian patriot and have both of those opinions, but nice try.

I take issue with any and all criminality, wheresoever it may be found. I don't care who the facts come out against so long as they're truthful.

You're attempting to bring another red herring into this with the reference to our own ongoing political tribulations. I have not referenced those here, nor have I suggested views on the one must necessarily dictate views on the other. In fact I agree with you saying thsoe two viewpoints are not contradictory, but then I have never claimed otherwise because I've never related those two subjects here, and in fact I very specifically steer pretty well clear of the latter of the two for reasons that are probably obvious. By trying to imply that I have, you're being disingenuous. What I said was, and I quote:

Quote from: brihard
"he has specifically attacked Canadian trade, and as a loyal and patriotic Canadian I quite reasonably take issue with economic attacks on my country's industries by a major trade partner."

Quote from: brihard
"His presidency has proven bad for Canada due to his attacks on our trade and industry, and I do not think he shows the character or ethics one would want to see in a world leader."
Quote from: brihard
"there are thsoe - surprisingly, even here in Canada, a country against which Trump has aligned himself in his economic and trade policy- who believe that disfavouring or opposing Trump can only be explained by 'derangement', that is, insanity or madness"

I don't insist on anyone else sharing my views. I do insist on people being truthful about what I have said or suggested. You are not doing that. You're merely trying to change the subject and move the goalposts when I called you out on your prior post.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 17:55:10
I don't insist on anyone else sharing my views. I do insist on people being truthful about what I have said or suggested. You are not doing that. You're merely trying to change the subject and move the goalposts when I called you out on your prior post.

Appears to happen quite often here.You are not unique in that aspect. YMMV.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 18:10:25
Appears to happen quite often here.You are not unique in that aspect. YMMV.

You are not a victim.

You are now totally immaterial to anything I wish to discuss. Back to ignore so you can go bang the drums or something.

I guess nine days wasn’t bad, and a whole two weeks would have been wishful thinking on my part. Well done you.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 18:19:13
You are not a victim.

I guess nine days wasn’t bad, and a whole two weeks would have been wishful thinking on my part. Well done you.

I said nothing about being a victim.

I simply stated a truism.

As for ignore, it's my decision, I can apply and rescind as I see fit.

Now, what was that you were saying about putting words in people's mouths?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 18:27:42
I said nothing about being a victim.

I simply stated a truism.

As for ignore, it's my decision, I can apply and rescind as I see fit.

Now, what was that you were saying about putting words in people's mouths?

I’m speaking to the behaviour you constantly show us. You haven’t been quiet about trying to claim I and others are saying mean things about you, and when challenged with actual quotes from posts versus what you claim, you tend to stomp off and put us on ignore. This being your first reply to me in nine days, it’s quite clear that you’re trying to make a point here, and you leave the inference out for myself and others to make. Playing coy doesn’t fool anybody.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 25, 2019, 18:30:07
I take issue with any and all criminality, wheresoever it may be found. I don't care who the facts come out against so long as they're truthful.

You're attempting to bring another red herring into this with the reference to our own ongoing political tribulations. I have not referenced those here, nor have I suggested views on the one must necessarily dictate views on the other. In fact I agree with you saying thsoe two viewpoints are not contradictory, but then I have never claimed otherwise because I've never related those two subjects here, and in fact I very specifically steer pretty well clear of the latter of the two for reasons that are probably obvious. By trying to imply that I have, you're being disingenuous. What I said was, and I quote:
 
I don't insist on anyone else sharing my views. I do insist on people being truthful about what I have said or suggested. You are not doing that. You're merely trying to change the subject and move the goalposts when I called you out on your prior post.

The issue Brihard is that people lash out when they hear the truth or facts or whatever.  Especially when it is backed by sources.  Real sources and not what passes for sources in the vacuum so em people live in.  Like when people use words they don’t understand and decided to define it they way they want. 

The reason we can’t discuss in a civil manner here is that the usual suspects don’t like it when they are challenged.  They act like a version of snowflakes on the far right.

You brought up some good points and the rebuttal was TSD.  See the trend?

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 18:38:22
I’m speaking to the behaviour you constantly show us. You haven’t been quiet about trying to claim I and others are saying mean things about you, and when challenged with actual quotes from posts versus what you claim, you tend to stomp off and put us on ignore. This being your first reply to me in nine days, it’s quite clear that you’re trying to make a point here, and you leave the inference out for myself and others to make. Playing coy doesn’t fool anybody.

I'm sorry. Are you attempting to pull things off topic and move the goal posts? I was commenting on the discussion, but you obviously aren't. Hmmm. Please leave me out of it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on March 25, 2019, 18:50:00
I'm sorry. Are you attempting to pull things off topic and move the goal posts? I was commenting on the discussion, but you obviously aren't. Hmmm. Please leave me out of it.

You quoted my post. If you’re done, that’s fine with me.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 25, 2019, 19:36:07
Republicans block move by Democrats to pass resolution calling for Mueller report to be made public.

Multiple sources,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mitch+mcconnell%22+%22chuck+schumer%22+%22mueller+report%22&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPx92DrJ7hAhXG34MKHf7bD74QpwUIJQ&biw=1280&bih=641
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on March 25, 2019, 20:03:37
Republicans block move by Democrats to pass resolution calling for Mueller report to be made public.

I mean, not even a week ago Trump publicly said for "ridiculous" report to be made public, and now the GOP wants to block it being made public. 

https://www.apnews.com/093727be24b649f7adad971e0b48878d
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 25, 2019, 20:19:36
I mean, not even a week ago Trump publicly said for "ridiculous" report to be made public, and now the GOP wants to block it being made public. 

https://www.apnews.com/093727be24b649f7adad971e0b48878d

Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.

I think people confuse this a bit. Trump ran on the Republican ticket. I'm not sure, in his heart, what he really is. He also does not have overwhelming support in the party, congress or the senate. He has lots of enemies and RINOs out there. I think he has more support now, than what he had. Some like McConnell seem to have come grudgingly around. Perhaps when it all does come out, more of the GOP might be more forgiving and he wont have to fight them all the time.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on March 25, 2019, 20:51:45
I mean, not even a week ago Trump publicly said for "ridiculous" report to be made public, and now the GOP wants to block it being made public. 

I just know what I read on here and in the papers. But, it left me with a few questions,

Why didn't Mueller talk to Trump in person?
Will the public ever see Trump's written answers?
There was this, "While the report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
If there was no collusion, why so many contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Why did so many of them lie about it?
Will the public ever hear from Mueller himself about the report?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 25, 2019, 21:23:46
Republicans block move by Democrats to pass resolution calling for Mueller report to be made public.

Multiple sources,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mitch+mcconnell%22+%22chuck+schumer%22+%22mueller+report%22&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:d&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPx92DrJ7hAhXG34MKHf7bD74QpwUIJQ&biw=1280&bih=641

Lovely.  All that will do is fuel speculation. 

Look at what keeping things under wraps is doing for Trudeau.

If Trump is totally vindicated then why not make it public?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on March 25, 2019, 21:26:54
Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.
My  :2c::  Even if support from Republicans for #POTUS45 is far from unanimous, I don't see enough quite enough dissent to go for the yellow bit - many are likely scared that any such push'll lead them to being "mauled by Presidential Tweet".  Most involved on all sides may also be smart enough to hold back because of the green bit, though.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on March 25, 2019, 21:29:49
Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.

Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on March 25, 2019, 21:40:14

I'll wait to see until the final report comes out. There's a long gap between balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt and as usual, the devil's in the details.


Fair enough. Are the other legal actions civil or criminal? What is the standard of proof for a Congressional indictment? There appears to be 4 schools of thought! https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on March 25, 2019, 22:11:58
Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?
Layman's terming it may oversimplify, but I'd call Mueller's work more of an investigation and Barr's work more of a review of a report resulting from an investigation. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on March 25, 2019, 22:20:12
Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?

It was a law enforcement investigation.  Mueller was named by Rosenstein.  Who was a Trump appointee. 

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 25, 2019, 22:40:04
>Why didn't Mueller talk to Trump in person?

Trump is a loose cannon, and US investigators are infamous for setting and using perjury traps.  Multiple prominent and respected lawyers and other thinking heads wrote articles advising Trump not to bypass any of his presidential privileges and submit to oral questioning.  Nothing sinister there.

>Will the public ever see Trump's written answers?

Who knows?  Idle speculation to pretend one way or the other.  I'd like to see Trump declassify absolutely everything and order its widespread release now that he can't be pre-emptively accused of "obstruction" by doing so (the investigation being ended).

>There was this, "While the report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Hard to prove a negative.  Regardless, if an investigation ends without charges, the presumed innocent remain innocent.  It's already clear, though, that it's one of the straws Trump's critics are seizing on in efforts to spin away their abject misery.  (The other primary straw is the non-finding on obstruction.)

>If there was no collusion, why so many contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Why did so many of them lie about it?

Please quantify "so many".  And in what way is it relevant?  Christopher Steele, working for the Clinton campaign to procure "opposition research" had multiple contacts with Russians, including paying some for the "information" he received.  I'm curious to know whether collusion between the Russians and the Clinton campaign is equally good/bad/indifferent.

>Will the public ever hear from Mueller himself about the report?

Not unless there is further degradation of the "democratic institutions" for which Trump is supposed to carry all the blame.  To borrow a theme, I've noticed that erosion of democracy is always descending on Trump's head, but landing on someone else's.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 25, 2019, 22:45:11
>Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?

Yes, but that's an example of "the truth" which is not "the whole truth".  Most of Mueller's staff were known to be Democrats by affiliation or sympathy; this was repeatedly reported.  The investigation was well-staffed by people well-motivated to take Trump down.  It's one of the reasons the fizzle has many anti-Trumpers so despondent - they can't blame it on the administration's lawyers looking after their own.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 25, 2019, 22:52:05
>Is it possible the GOP may want to peruse it for possible information to move to a Republican investigation and hold information back that might prejudice those investigations? Just a guess.

Some Republicans definitely would like to investigate the investigation - shine a light on the parts that look like they didn't pass muster according to how the "institutions of democracy" are supposed to behave when it comes to things like FISA warrants, surveillance of US citizens, unmasking of surveilled US citizens, partisan behaviour on the part of government employees, etc.

But I think it more likely that this is just politics.  Democrats want to go through the report immediately and turn everything that favours them into sound bites - the "lie travels around the world while the truth is getting its pants on" thing.  Republicans want to prevent that and throttle the information release in a way that doesn't detract from the opposing "nothingburger" message.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 25, 2019, 23:08:36
>The Mueller investigation still resulted in 34 individuals being charged.

So: the Obama administration had almost 8 months (from the time Trump locked down the primary in early June, to the inauguration the following January) to dig into Trump, and the Mueller investigation was 18 (?) months long.  The United States, and the United states government, has plenty of people who want to take Trump down; we can assume from what some of them have said on the record about Trump that a subset of those people is strongly motivated.  It is clear that people within government have been comfortable leaking information unfavourable to Trump, and it was clear during the previous administration that agencies (notably: the IRS) are staffed with some people generally hostile to Republicans and Republican causes and willing to act on a partisan basis.

With the full powers of the US government during the Obama administration's kick at the can, and all the power brought to bear by the not-Trump-sympathetic investigators on Mueller's team, and all the other people in the US government who might be able to get their hands on information (eg. transcripts of meetings, tax returns), and Trump's notoriously loose-lipped personality, and the threat of prison hanging over a handful of his close associates, etc, etc, all that squeezed out was a handful of process and other unrelated (eg. fraud) crimes.  And the election interference crimes occurred during the Obama administration's watch, and they admitted they knew about at least some of the attempts and elected to go soft.  But Trump is the one giving the Russians an easy pass, not Mr The-'80s-wants-its-foreign-policy-back, I'll-have-more-flexibility-after-my-re-election.  Some perspective is in order.

Some people may wish there's still a stone there to be turned over.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on March 26, 2019, 10:10:54
"One Million Billion Dollars" I see a few noses are out of joint today.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/pentagon-congress-new-wall-money/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/pentagon-congress-new-wall-money/index.html)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 26, 2019, 11:55:58
My  :2c::  Even if support from Republicans for #POTUS45 is far from unanimous, I don't see enough quite enough dissent to go for the yellow bit - many are likely scared that any such push'll lead them to being "mauled by Presidential Tweet".  Most involved on all sides may also be smart enough to hold back because of the green bit, though.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I did not mean a GOP investigation of Trump, but a wide open investigation of all the stuff that happened on the democrat side. Schiff, Strozyk, Clinton, Obama, FBI, et al.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on March 31, 2019, 22:25:22
Conrad Black's editorial caught my eye.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-the-absurd-collusion-delusion-goes-up-in-smoke-at-last

His conclusion is quite to the point, and is a telling indictment of what the mainstream media infotainment industry has become:

Quote
Our media failed. Our correspondents in Washington just took the feed from the Trump-haters and did precisely nothing to explain what was really happening, or to prepare the Canadian public for the outcome, or even comment intelligently after the collusion bubble burst. Dislike of Trump, I repeat, is quite understandable, but an almost complete failure of our media that focuses on Washington to grasp, even after the revelation of it, what was really unfolding there, is inexcusable.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 01, 2019, 00:10:55
Conrad Black's editorial caught my eye.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-the-absurd-collusion-delusion-goes-up-in-smoke-at-last

His conclusion is quite to the point, and is a telling indictment of what the mainstream media infotainment industry has become:

Sorry. I find Conrad's shrieking to be only slightly left of Alex Jones's conspiracy tripe. More articulate, perhaps, but no more persuasive.

 :2c:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 01, 2019, 13:39:34
Conrad Black's editorial caught my eye.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-the-absurd-collusion-delusion-goes-up-in-smoke-at-last

His conclusion is quite to the point, and is a telling indictment of what the mainstream media infotainment industry has become:

I find his articles to be much more truthful than most of the MSM. I agree with him on this.

The MSM has destroyed itself in their efforts to support the liberal agenda of impeaching Trump. Even Fox has fallen victim to leftist owners and policy.

Pretty bad when the National Enquirer and News of the World are better sources of the news than CNN, MSNBC, CBC or Global.

I expected the left to lose their minds when Mueller didn't indict Trump  :pullhair:

I expect they will pull out all the stops when Sen (R) Graham starts investigating the them, instead of them harassing Trump. It is going to be both interesting and satisfying to watch the contortions coming when they start hearing the real truth about their leaders. It would be great to see investigations of the left, on both sides of the border, going on at the same time. May even find some common ground between them.

Want collusion conspiracy theory? The trudeau grits and the obama/ clinton democrats conspired together to force socialism on North America at the same time.............but Trump happened  ;) Time to turn Hubble onto the left now.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 01, 2019, 14:19:52
 :sarcasm:



https://babylonbee.com/news/democratic-leaders-call-for-new-investigation-to-investigate-the-investigators-investigating-the-investigators

Quote
Democratic Leaders Call For New Investigation To Investigate The Investigators Investigating The Investigators

WASHINGTON, D.C.—After House Republicans formally called for an investigation into the investigators investigating the Trump campaign, congressional Democrats quickly responded by calling for a new investigation into the investigators investigating the original investigators.

The investigation will center around claims that the investigators assigned to investigate the investigators may show significant bias, with the new investigators investigating the investigation investigators attempting to determine if there has been any prejudice or corruption in the investigation investigation.

“We now know who will investigate the investigators, but who will investigate the investigators investigating the investigators?” Senator Chuck Schumer said in a press conference. “We must hold the investigators investigating the investigation accountable if we are to retain our faith in the justice system.”

At publishing time, Republican leadership had called for a fourth investigation to investigate the investigators who were tasked with investigating the investigators assigned to investigate the investigators.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 01, 2019, 14:42:39
I find Conrad's shrieking to be only slightly left of Alex Jones's conspiracy tripe.

The Chair of the House Intelligence Committee had this to say,
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4788386/ok&fbclid=IwAR0PgsT1yBB_4vV8OU5q2x9eNQvadHV3k5-jCrUK1Fc7KrvYxc1KTrM9vnA

The Los Angeles Times,
Quote
Since he delivered the litany, no one has called him on a single error.

In spite of the name-calling.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 01, 2019, 22:42:24
A shrieker Black may be, but he is essentially correct: much of the media got played again (along with many others), pretty much the same way that Ben Rhodes played them over the Iran deal (and in which presumably Team PMO hoped to play Canadian media).  The ones with egg on their faces wanted to believe Trump was going down over "Russian collusion" and took at face value the claims of all the "former administration officials" and "anonymous administration officials" that there was hard, serious evidence.  Either through a disinclination to do the hard work of corroborating any of the claims or a simple inability to do so, they've been shown to have been peddling a lot of BS on behalf of others for well over two years.

Schiff has decided to go all-in.  AG Barr's commitment, described fairly here at The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/give-william-barr-benefit-doubt/586207/), means that if there is anything that someone other than Mueller might choose to latch onto, it should become available.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 02, 2019, 17:20:34

AG Barr's commitment, described fairly here at The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/give-william-barr-benefit-doubt/586207/), means that if there is anything that someone other than Mueller might choose to latch onto, it should become available.

I think the Atlantic article says it all: wait until the Mueller report is made available and see what he actually found. Until then everyone should take a Valium.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 03, 2019, 21:56:59
Honest question:  Mueller and Barr are both Republicans.  Doesn't this make it a Republican investigation by definition?
Both are in non partisan positions. I'd say no.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 03, 2019, 23:19:27
The Tables Turn in Russian Collusion Hunt - By Victor Davis Hanson - 31 Mar 19
Has been moved to,
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,130138.msg1567391.html#msg1567391
"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 04, 2019, 09:43:07
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,130138.msg1567391.html#msg1567391

-Former FBI Director James Comey falsely testified.
-Andrew McCabe currently is under criminal referral for lying to federal investigators.
-Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has admitted to lying under oath to Congress.
-Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin likely also lied to FBI investigators when they claimed they had no knowledge while working at the State Department that their boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was using an illegal private email server
-Samantha Power, the former U.N. ambassador, in her last year in office requested on more than 260 occasions to unmask names of Americans monitored by the government. Yet Power later claimed that most of these requests were not made by her. And yet she either does not know or does not cite who exactly used her name to make such requests during the election cycle.
-Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr did not tell the truth on a federal written disclosure required by law when he omitted the key fact that his wife Nellie worked on Christopher Steele’s Fusion GPS dossier.
-Former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted to lying under oath to Congress on two occasions.

And so on.

Jesus. Quite the crew.  I remember when Trump revoked Brennan's security clearance and it seemed like there was a collective how dare he.
Brennan went on to say
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but will not destroy America... America will triumph over you."

Does lying under oath to congress count as moral turpitude?

Pretty scary when you realize how corrupt at all levels the most powerful nation in the world is. Is the US really all that different than the KSA?




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on April 04, 2019, 11:23:09
If half of what Victor Davis Hanson wrote is true, and for the record I think it is mostly true, there should be outrage at the abuses that took place.  Even if you detest Trump. 

I'd like to hear from the usual crowd on this forum, specifically the ones so diametrically opposed to anything Trump, what are your thoughts on these allegations?

My experience with colleagues or others I know is many people are not aware of the detail.  They catch a 10 second CNN clip stating "orange man bad" and they are back to the hockey game.  But honestly, for those who detest Trump and who have followed this train wreck in detail from the beginning, how do you rate what Hanson lays out and does it change your opinion in any way on the Trump administration? 

   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 04, 2019, 12:05:34
If half of what Victor Davis Hanson wrote is true,

The Chair of the House Intelligence Committee,
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4788386/ok&fbclid=IwAR0PgsT1yBB_4vV8OU5q2x9eNQvadHV3k5-jCrUK1Fc7KrvYxc1KTrM9vnA

The Los Angeles Times,
Quote
Since he delivered the litany, no one has called him on a single error.

In spite of the name-calling.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on April 04, 2019, 12:21:06
The Chair of the House Intelligence Committee,
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4788386/ok&fbclid=IwAR0PgsT1yBB_4vV8OU5q2x9eNQvadHV3k5-jCrUK1Fc7KrvYxc1KTrM9vnA

The Los Angeles Times,
In spite of the name-calling.

You posted this earlier in the thread. Anyway, it is only Adam Schiff's personal opinion.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on April 04, 2019, 12:23:06
Adam Schiff, now House Intelligence Committee Chair, has been saying he has proof (of everything Trump) for more than two years. He has never produced a teensy-weensy bit of proof. Just air.

For you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=140&v=p8_EoMmuqVU

Another day in Trump’s America
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 04, 2019, 12:31:10
If half of what Victor Davis Hanson wrote is true, and for the record I think it is mostly true, there should be outrage at the abuses that took place.  Even if you detest Trump. 

I'd like to hear from the usual crowd on this forum, specifically the ones so diametrically opposed to anything Trump, what are your thoughts on these allegations?

My experience with colleagues or others I know is many people are not aware of the detail.  They catch a 10 second CNN clip stating "orange man bad" and they are back to the hockey game.  But honestly, for those who detest Trump and who have followed this train wreck in detail from the beginning, how do you rate what Hanson lays out and does it change your opinion in any way on the Trump administration? 

   

Pretty nice knowing you were right all along, isn't it?  ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 04, 2019, 12:43:45
Adam Schiff, now House Intelligence Committee Chair, has been saying he has proof (of everything Trump) for more than two years. He has never produced a teensy-weensy bit of proof. Just air.

For you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=140&v=p8_EoMmuqVU

Another day in Trump’s America

It seems like a lot of people risked (sold?) their credibility and career on hating Trump.  Whatever your feelings on Trump are it seems pretty hard to deny there was a combine arms effort at taking him down. From the media to the FBI, which is pretty messed up.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 04, 2019, 13:08:54
It seems like a lot of people risked (sold?) their credibility and career on hating Trump.  Whatever your feelings on Trump are it seems pretty hard to deny there was a combine arms effort at taking him down. From the media to the FBI, which is pretty messed up.

A lot of people gambled on, what they thought, was a slam dunk. They listened to the promises and plans of their colleagues and leaders. The same colleagues and leaders who manufactured, what they considered was, an airtight plan to use dishonesty and deceit to take him down. Tried and true practices they have used previously to silence political enemies. They grew comfortable with these means. These means, designed to take out other politicians.

Except Trump is not a politician.

They failed miserably. All those hangers on, that were sure in their leaders capabilities, jumped on board attempting to curry favour with the leaders of the Shadow Government. Planning on coming out ahead when the new state appeared after the quiet revolution.

Those who, falsely, climb to great heights, fall the furthest, back to reality.

I don't care if Trump does anything else for the next five years, so long as all the major players and a large swath of the ignorant worker bees, in this fiasco, go to prison for a long time.

Only when politicians start going to jail, will honesty and integrity start returning to politics. Fines don't work. A waitress in November is now a millionaire. Getting booted from politics doesn't work. Your corrupt party cronies will find you a multi million dollar consulting business to work, on behalf of the party.

Jail. Real jail. Not a white collar, financial fraud type day camp/ prison farm. Good solid lock down, orange jumpsuit, ADX in Colorado type place.

We should really show them the way and how easy it is, by starting right here at home with our own bad seed politicos and enablers.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 04, 2019, 13:24:35
Goto prison for taking a wrong but innocent picture of a submarine engine but not keeping a server full of illegally stored classified emails. For a pocket full of pot but not lying under oath to Congress.

 :not-again:

A bit off topic but I wonder how the Russian revelations (lack there of) will effect Canadian politics and if we'll see less omg Conservatives = Trump rethoric.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 04, 2019, 13:39:21
Goto prison for taking a wrong but innocent picture of a submarine engine but not keeping a server full of illegally stored classified emails. For a pocket full of pot but not lying under oath to Congress.

 :not-again:

A bit off topic but I wonder how the Russian revelations (lack there of) will effect Canadian politics and if we'll see less omg Conservatives = Trump rethoric.

Wouldn't bet on that Jarn. It seems the deeper they dig, the more they double down with more progressively fantastic lies and actions. It's a strategy based on, "If they're defending from our attacks they can't mount an offence, we just have to hold out till we get elected. Then we can make our bad stuff disappear again." This is Schiff's modus operendi.

Except, I don't believe liberals on either side of the border will. Not until they tear down the structure, fire all the senior placeholders and start back at a grass roots junior party. Within that, full hearings and judicial recommendations for prosecution of anyone that has the slightest stink of 'old boys club' on them. Investigations that politicians can't control. You don't send the fox to fix the chicken coop.

If the proper people can get inside the liberal OODA loop, the whole network will come down.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on April 04, 2019, 13:47:03
A lot of people were counting on a Clinton presidency.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: ModlrMike on April 04, 2019, 13:48:46
What's really funny is watching them try to simultaneously vilify and exhonorate Biden for his #MeToo episodes.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on April 04, 2019, 14:03:54
Looking back at the Obama/Trudeau "bromance", as it was coined somewhere, I can't help but wonder if the Obama administration's alleged misdeeds had negative influence with respect to how Trudeau now seems to be operating re: SNC scandal, and the other unethical issues.  And secondly, maybe the Trump administration was behind the SNC scandal leak to the media (via the wide NSA net) to damage and help oust the Cdn PM who has been a thorn in his side.  All tinfoil, I know, but plausible.     
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on April 04, 2019, 14:09:37
What's really funny is watching them try to simultaneously vilify and exhonorate Biden for his #MeToo episodes.
It’s funny until he decides not to run. Then some revolutionary quack is going to fill the slot and Trump will mop the floor with that person. Everybody here knows that the US is tearing itself apart, a decent man or woman can’t stop it, but maybe slow it down.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 04, 2019, 17:40:48
Anyway, it is only Adam Schiff's personal opinion.

And according to the Los Angeles Times,
Quote
Since he delivered the litany, no one has called him on a single error.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-heffernan-schiff-barr-20190329-story.html



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on April 04, 2019, 18:31:21
Adam Schiff, a CA Dem; LA Times - Liberal media
Quote
Since he delivered the litany, no one has called him on a single error.

Thus if I wrote a letter to The Editor disputing Schiff is sprouting, would that count as calling him on his errors?

Have you looked at the bio of the opinion piece author?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 04, 2019, 18:58:55
If you can post a published source that called the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee on a single error, that would be appreciated.

I was unable to find one. ( Other than the name-calling. )

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 04, 2019, 19:29:19
This may be a repeat, but my earlier post seems to have disappeared into the aether.

Pretty much everything both of them (Schiff and Hanson) said and wrote happened (is in the realm of "fact").  But a factual recounting doesn't reveal much about motive and intent, and the gravity of each incident depends on the assessment of observers.  (Is it worse to agree to take a meeting with a Russian source to get dirt on your campaign opponent, or to pay someone to solicit information from Russian sources?)

To use an example from each: Hanson's reference to the airport meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch is correct insofar as that it happened, but there's no third party to reveal whether the investigation into Hillary Clinton was discussed; Trump's request to "find emails" happened, but aside from conspiracy theorists and people determined to see the worst is understood to have been a gibe at Clinton.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on April 04, 2019, 22:35:17
To take Brad’s post a bit further, context needs to be considered.  Trump’s remark was in jest during a campaign rally, Lynch probably should have been fired for the appearance of impropriety. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on April 05, 2019, 13:14:20
Adam Schiff is dealing in rumour and conspiracy theories. Do you think that is proper for the chair of the intelligence committee?

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1113869834025078788?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1113869834025078788?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on April 05, 2019, 17:26:46
Adam Schiff is dealing in rumour and conspiracy theories. Do you think that is proper for the chair of the intelligence committee?

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1113869834025078788?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1113869834025078788?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)

Well, if the President routinely does such things on twitter, then why isn't it inappropriate of the chair of the intelligence committee to behave in such a way as well?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 05, 2019, 18:35:52
Well, if the President routinely does such things on twitter, than why isn't it inappropriate of the chair of the intelligence committee as well?


.......and if Trump jumped off a cliff should Schiff follow? You know yourself, that sort of comparison is a bogus excuse.

The stink of corruption is starting to sit heavy on the democrats. Their chicken little charade is coming to an end and will be career ending for many of them. If not jail sentences.

Schiff hasn't got anything. He's a male Maxime Waters. Their desperation is proven in their actions of trying to get the full report before anyone else and their constant bleating of wrongdoing. Now they're attacking Barr. I'm sure once they have it, they'll probably attack Mueller too.

Keep them on the defence so they can't go on the offence seems to be their only plan.

On a side note and maybe someone else has heard. I was listening to a conversation and the subject was about a couple of very skilled and very large law firms that are currently working on investigations of wrong doing by democrats. According the conversation, they have so much stuff, they've got over 5000 indictments ready to recommend.

I'm attaching no veracity to it until it can be verified.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jed on April 05, 2019, 18:37:40
Well, if the President routinely does such things on twitter, then why isn't it inappropriate of the chair of the intelligence committee to behave in such a way as well?


I have a question. If Trump can not trust the Mainstream Media to factually report anything of importance, how can he send messages to be delivered  without bias?


Keep in mind that the Mainstream Media has proven to grievously report the Mueller Report information for over two years.  Think of the irreparable harm that has been inflicted on the US.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 05, 2019, 19:16:35
Well, if the President routinely does such things on twitter, then why isn't it inappropriate of the chair of the intelligence committee to behave in such a way as well?

After this presidency I can't see how the position will be viewed as anything other than reality-TV entertainment.

I'm not sure if the revelations of how untrustworthy all these key US players are (lying to congress, law enforcement) is a good thing or better unknown unproven.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 05, 2019, 19:34:28

.......and if Trump jumped off a cliff should Schiff follow? ...

I've concluded some time ago that Trump is jumping off a cliff. I don't think Schiff should follow him.

... Keep in mind that the Mainstream Media has proven to grievously report the Mueller Report information for over two years.  Think of the irreparable harm that has been inflicted on the US. ...

One would think that the cause of the irreparable harm that is being inflicted on the US is still open to debate. I'm somewhat more inclined to believe that this is the cause:

Quote
Trump is spouting nonsense at a greater rate

By Michael D'Antonio

Updated 3:06 PM ET, Fri April 5, 2019

(CNN)It's not just that President Donald Trump has been spouting nonsense at a greater rate, although he is. What's new is that his false statements are becoming more bizarre. He said this week, for example, that his Bronx-native father was born in Germany. And they are accompanied by other displays of apparent cognitive distress. Among the glaring examples:

- Last month, the President of the United States looked at Apple executive Tim Cook, one of the most important business leaders in the world, and called him Tim Apple.
- A few days earlier at a conservative conference where he literally hugged a flag, Trump ditched his script and rambled for two mostly incoherent hours. He mixed mockery, profanity and grandiosity in a style more suited to a barstool than a podium decorated with the presidential seal.
- In an Oval Office encounter with reporters this week, he repeatedly used the word "oranges" instead of "origins" to demand an investigation into the beginnings of the independent counsel's probe of Russian influence in the 2016 election.
- Bizarrely, he told a GOP fundraiser audience that "they say" the sound created by energy-producing windmills "causes cancer."

In any family, a 72-year-old man who spoke this way would be the subject of urgent discussions. Trump's trouble accessing words, summoning long-term memories, and naming a famous man in front of him could indicate mental deterioration. Add the crazy talk about windmills and cancer, coming from the leader of the free world, and you get a situation that ought to alarm everyone. ...

... In interviews in the 1980s and '90s, according to Stat News, Trump "spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print."

More recently, noted Stat, "Trump's vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one." When shown examples of the two Trumps, experts saw symptoms that "can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease." ...

See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/opinions/trump-is-spouting-nonsense-at-a-greater-rate-dantonio/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/opinions/trump-is-spouting-nonsense-at-a-greater-rate-dantonio/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 05, 2019, 19:38:10
Really? CNN?

Why not News of the World or the National Enquirer?

They are closer to the truth.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 05, 2019, 22:20:08
>can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease.

Either or both of those, aggravated by the notorious stress of the presidency, is plausible.  But there's still a long way to incapacity, and I doubt the Democrats want to put Pence in the driver's seat this close to the election for any reason.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: reverse_engineer on April 05, 2019, 22:24:49
I'd rather listen to Trump ramble than Trudeau at least. I bet JT can't couldn't even peel potatoes on kitchen duty...but he's running our "democracy".

I'll take an incoherent Trump 100% of the time, thanks.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on April 06, 2019, 10:44:56
Quote
More recently, noted Stat, "Trump's vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one." When shown examples of the two Trumps, experts saw symptoms that "can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease." ...

What "experts"?

I know lots of "experts" that see symptoms in Trudeau of Borderline Personality Disorder.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on April 06, 2019, 11:11:06
>can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease.

Either or both of those, aggravated by the notorious stress of the presidency, is plausible.  But there's still a long way to incapacity, and I doubt the Democrats want to put Pence in the driver's seat this close to the election for any reason.

Very true.  But both those things would explain a lot.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on April 06, 2019, 11:12:16
Really? CNN?

Why not News of the World or the National Enquirer?

They are closer to the truth.
CNN's not perfect, agreed -- what sources do you consider a bit more trustworthy?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 06, 2019, 11:26:49
More recently, noted Stat, "Trump's vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one." When shown examples of the two Trumps, experts saw symptoms that "can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease." ...

What "experts"?

I know lots of "experts" that see symptoms in Trudeau of Borderline Personality Disorder.

Looks like CNN regurgitated a 2 year old opinion piece. I personally trust unnamed experts even less than anonymous sources.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on April 06, 2019, 11:38:53
More recently, noted Stat, "Trump's vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one." When shown examples of the two Trumps, experts saw symptoms that "can indicate slipping brain function due to normal aging or neurodegenerative disease." ...

What "experts"?

I know lots of "experts" that see symptoms in Trudeau of Borderline Personality Disorder.

Not the first time there has been analysis of behavioural traits that Trump has exhibited. The article below compares Trump to himself in years prior, in the context of whether there should be more in place to assess the medical and psychiatric fitness of presidents, as candidates trend older and older.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/trump-cog-decline/548759/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on April 06, 2019, 11:52:13
Where's the analysis of behavioural traits that Trudeau has exhibited by the MSN? Groping, India, selfies, SNC, etc, etc.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 06, 2019, 11:57:07
Where's the analysis of behavioural traits that Trudeau has exhibited by the MSN? Groping, India, selfies, SNC, etc, etc.

Don't forget the 100% denial rate.....EVERYONE seems to 'experience' things different. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on April 06, 2019, 12:06:04
Where's the analysis of behavioural traits that Trudeau has exhibited by the MSN? Groping, India, selfies, SNC, etc, etc.
Perhaps the thread's title should use smaller words;  U.S. means United States, not "us"... and Pres-I-den-cy is  four syllables.   ::)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 12:51:20
When his detractors lose ground, his mental state is their default TDS excuse. They'll move off this as soon as they think they've found something better to verbally assassinate him with. It's always in the drawer ready to pull out though. This is why they put it out, to distract people. Just like it's doing here. How many times has this been discussed here? Same people, same stances, same results. CNN rates below PBS and the Hallmark Channel. They are the pulp found at supermarket counters. The stopped clock, in the lobby, was name #1 journalist for being right twice a day.

Someone should be doing psych workups on Pelosi, Waters and AOC. Bet there's some pretty wild crap going on up in there.

CNN's not perfect, agreed -- what sources do you consider a bit more trustworthy?

Without numbers or research, some I watch are, The Hill, Bloomberg, Al Jezzeera, Reuters AP and the CSM. Now, everyone gets a story wrong once in a while. However, far and away from either right or left, I found the above to be, at least, fairly centrist.

I really don't look all that hard. I usually know within the first para or so, whether it's true news or hit piece hyperboyle. If I have doubts, I'll check one or two more for accuracy. If I'm really that interested, that is. Lately, all I watch the news for is the weather and they don't get that right 50% of the time. That and local goings on. CBC and Global have been out of my channel program for a few years now. I watch neither and don't support their stations with my viewership. My TV skips right by them, like they're not there. I found it particularly galling to watch a CBC talking head stare at the camera and flat out lie to Canadians.

Come here, hang your hat on something from CNN or Infowars, you should be called on it. Neither reports news, they make up stories. Same goes for the interlopers. There's tons of graphs and tables out there showing what side of the line they fall on. In my mind, if you cite something from the middle to far wings of each side, your source and it's content are fair game and totally suspect. Whether the Huff Post or the NY post.

That was probably more than you were looking for. Apologies.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on April 06, 2019, 13:11:06
Where's the analysis of behavioural traits that Trudeau has exhibited by the MSN? Groping, India, selfies, SNC, etc, etc.

Go ahead and start a thread for such things pertinent to the Canadian PM if you so choose. Nobody’s stopping you.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 06, 2019, 13:12:56
Go ahead and start a thread for such things pertinent to the Canadian PM if you so choose. Nobody’s stopping you.

Ooooo, that sounds like a thread full of Warning Banners.  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on April 11, 2019, 18:42:59
Interesting that the former WH Counsel for Obama has been indicted as a result of the Mueller investigation:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/greg-craig-indicted-mueller-related/index.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 13, 2019, 11:22:15
An informative article on the history and extent of Congress's power to look at tax returns.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-returns-democrats_n_5caf9ae5e4b098b9a2d0e96f (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-returns-democrats_n_5caf9ae5e4b098b9a2d0e96f)

 :cheers:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 13, 2019, 11:50:43
One more interesting article which shows that the problems with American democracy are not a new thing but were brought to the fore as long ago as the presidencies of John and John Quincy Adams:

Quote
The second and sixth presidents are seen as failures but their warnings against populist hero worship ring very true today

Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein

Sat 13 Apr 2019 06.00 BST

The Presidents Adams, John and John Quincy, knew that the powerful in government were elitists, no matter what they called themselves.

There were those, like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and many of their fellow southerners, who skillfully employed a rhetoric that concealed their class interests. There were those in the Adamses’ New England who dismissed all social inferiors without apology. The two Adamses may have been snobs in their own way but they hated all forms of deception and intimidation, subtle or direct, regardless of its origin. They hated the fact that American politics thrived on the embellishment of larger-than-life personalities as “men of the people”. To the endless frustration of the father and the son, each spent the greater part of his political career facing the charge of holding a dangerous degree of elitist sympathy. Whether guilty or not, they took a perverse pride in refusing to court public opinion through dishonest means – which made them poor politicians.

Nor were the Presidents Adams ever sanguine about the two-party system, which may be the most distinguishing feature in their common political profile. Others forecast a favorable outcome to party competition, convinced voters could safely decide which of two candidates best represented the majority’s interests. The Adamses balked at this vision. They decried the hypnotic sway of “party distinctions” and “party spirit” as the bane of political life. Political parties did not guarantee democracy to everyone; they merely protected the interests of their most influential members. The Adamses would have preferred a system that pitted the visible merits, known competence, and experienced judgment of one prospective leader against another.

They detested the provocative mania parties allowed for, in rousing an intense enthusiasm for select, heroically framed men without objectively assessing their assets and virtues first. History remembers the Adamses as two failed presidents who fell out of step with progressive notions of democracy. Few understand how much they worried about the emergence of one or another form of aristocracy in America, whether it was a moneyed oligarchy or a slave-owning planter contingent that spoke with a single voice. Any faction that held outlandish power over laws and lawmaking threatened good government. Their cure for malignant control was to be found in institutional solutions aimed at preserving a balance of power across society.

In reassessing the roots of the fractured democracy of today, it pays to study the Adamses’ critique. Our backward gaze leave us in history’s majestic haze, and leaves us with many misperceptions. As a modern culture, we must acknowledge when common assumptions are just plain wrong. The biggest of these is the desire to see democracy’s historical inevitability as a function of ethical progress. An orthodox American faith in “government by the people” masks truths. Our hallowed phrases ultimately explain little. They ignore the real question dogging our history: at any given moment, who makes the wheels of power turn? ...

See rest of article here:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/13/john-quincy-adams-jefferson-jackson-trump-the-problem-of-democracy-extract (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/13/john-quincy-adams-jefferson-jackson-trump-the-problem-of-democracy-extract)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Chris Pook on April 13, 2019, 19:07:16
Yup.  No aristocracy in the United States

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/John_D._Dingell%2C_Sr..gif/220px-John_D._Dingell%2C_Sr..gif)

John Dingell Sr., Democrat

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Michigan's 15th district
In office
March 4, 1933 – September 19, 1955

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/John_dingell.jpg/220px-John_dingell.jpg)

John Dingell, Democrat

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Michigan (15th/12th/15th/16th District)
In office
December 13, 1955 – January 3, 2015

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Debbie_Dingell_official_portrait.jpg/220px-Debbie_Dingell_official_portrait.jpg)

Debbie Dingell, Democrat  (born Republican, married Democrat)

Member of the
U.S. House of Representatives
from Michigan's 12th district
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2015

Father to son to wife.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on April 13, 2019, 19:21:06
Nobody is "born" a political flavor????
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Chris Pook on April 13, 2019, 19:37:39
These folks are....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2019, 19:49:28
Sounds like the Contrade (Borroughs) of Sienna (Italy): If you marry out of your Contrade, you are said to be in a "mixed" marriage.  :nod:  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 13, 2019, 22:18:09

Former Obama administration counsel indicted for concealing scope of work with Ukraine

https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/04/former-obama-administration-counsel-indicted-for-concealing-scope-of-work-with-ukraine/

Quote
Former Obama administration counsel indicted for concealing scope of work with Ukraine
April 12, 2019 09:23:19 am
Akira Tomlinson

Counsel for the Obama administration Gregory Craig was indicted on Thursday for making false statements to and concealing work-related information he performed for the Ukraine government in 2012 from the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ alleges that Craig lied and withheld information in order to avoid registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires individuals who lobby or do public relations on behalf of foreign entities in the US to register with the DOJ and disclose such activities, receipts and disbursements, for work conducted on the prosecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, former prime minister and political opponent to then-President Victor Yanukovych, for the Ukraine government while acting as partner at Skadden, Arps, Meagher, Slate & Flom. According to the indictment, Craig avoided registration under FARA because he believed it would prevent him and others at the firm from being appointed to federal government positions and it would force disclosure of the approximately $4 million payment received by the firm, from a third party, for a report that dictated that Tymoshenko received a fair trial, designed to improve Ukraine’s public image. The indictment also alleges that the firm had a “parallel engagement with Ukraine to assist in the prosecution of Tymoshenko on additional charges.” The DOJ believes these reasons, if disclosed, would have undermined the purpose and autonomy of the report.

Craig denounced the charges against him, referring to them as “unjustified,” as the requirements for registration under FARA did not apply. He maintains that he did not proactively reach out to any US news sources to distribute nor promote the report, but only responded to requests from the New York Times after it was only published by the Ukraine government to “prevent mischaracterization by Ukraine.” According to the indictment, however, and contrary to its initial determination based on Craig’s statement, Craig participated in the public packaging and distribution of the report, and reached out to a US media source.

The allegations against Craig stem from the Robert Mueller investigation.

Craig’s arraignment is scheduled for Friday. The charges carry a maximum sentence of five years each and thousands in fines.

In February 2018, Alex van der Zwaan, former attorney at Skadden pleaded guilty to making false statements under 18 USC § 1001(a)(2) in regards to his work on the Tymoshenko report. In January Skadden settled with the DOJ, allowing it to escape prosecution for the payments received for the report. The terms of the settlement required Skadden to retroactively register its work under FARA, restructure its compliance process and cooperate with further investigations. The settlement did not specifically identify Craig but claimed that a “lead partner, made false and mislead statements including, among other things, that Skadden provided a copy of the Report only in response to requests from the media and spoke to the media to correct misinformation about the report that the media was already reporting,” resulting in the DOJ determining it was not to register under FARA.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Baden Guy on April 14, 2019, 09:40:07
"Mr. Craig appeared in federal court in Washington a day after he was indicted on the charges, which grew out of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Mr. Craig was arraigned before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, who released him on relatively unrestrictive terms, ordering that he continue to reside at his current address and not travel outside the Washington metro area.
The indictment alleged that, while a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mr. Craig took on work on behalf of the government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine. The work was brought to Mr. Craig by Paul Manafort, then a political consultant for Mr. Yanukovych and later the campaign chairman for President Trump in 2016. The charges stated that Mr. Craig lied in order to avoid registering with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and withheld information about the full scope of his activities.

At the heart of the case is whether Mr. Craig’s interaction with a reporter for The New York Times triggered the requirement for him to register under the foreign lobbying law."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/gregory-craig-pleads-not-guilty.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on April 14, 2019, 10:50:51
Your point is what? Because somehow Trump is involved it needs to be pointed out and get points from the usual source?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on April 14, 2019, 10:52:08
"Mr. Craig appeared in federal court in Washington a day after he was indicted on the charges, which grew out of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Mr. Craig was arraigned before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, who released him on relatively unrestrictive terms, ordering that he continue to reside at his current address and not travel outside the Washington metro area.
The indictment alleged that, while a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mr. Craig took on work on behalf of the government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine. The work was brought to Mr. Craig by Paul Manafort, then a political consultant for Mr. Yanukovych and later the campaign chairman for President Trump in 2016. The charges stated that Mr. Craig lied in order to avoid registering with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and withheld information about the full scope of his activities.

At the heart of the case is whether Mr. Craig’s interaction with a reporter for The New York Times triggered the requirement for him to register under the foreign lobbying law."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/gregory-craig-pleads-not-guilty.html

So President Obama can't claim from now on that no members of his administration were ever indicted.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 14, 2019, 11:05:27
For better or for worse Trump becoming the US president appears to have shaken things up and put a spotlight on unethical and illegal behavior in the US government.

Not saying he isn't guilty of some of the same stuff, quite probably is, but would all of this stuff have came to light if the election went the other way?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 14, 2019, 11:56:22
, but would all of this stuff have came to light if the election went the other way?

The Mueller Report has not yet come to light, as far as the American public is concerned. Neither have his tax returns.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 14, 2019, 12:50:26
But people lying under oath to congress have.

And the government spying on citizens.

And the FBI being partisan.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 14, 2019, 13:39:27
Is anyone seriously expecting any bombshells in either the Mueller report or Trump's tax returns?  I expect none; anything incendiary would have been leaked long ago.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on April 14, 2019, 15:54:44
Your point is what? Because somehow Trump Obama/Clinton is involved it needs to be pointed out and get points from the usual sources?
Double-edged question, there, that's legit going both ways ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 14, 2019, 18:56:47
Is anyone seriously expecting any bombshells in either the Mueller report or Trump's tax returns?  I expect none; anything incendiary would have been leaked long ago.

Trump is a multi millionaire. We know how he's made, lost and made and lost his money. He's not even being paid. He being POTUS for free and gives his government wage to charity. I'm not concerned how he made his money.

I want to see Pelosi's. She collects her government wage, around $195,000, I think,  but has somehow amassed approx. $196 million. Cortez was a bartender in October and is, suggested, to have already made her first million. Elijah Cummings, in the mid-1990s, the Internal Revenue Service filed court papers declaring that Cummings was legally obliged to pay more than $30,000 in unpaid federal taxes. He, finally, finished paying those taxes in 2014. Almost 20 years. Mostly with loans signed by guarantors. Maxine Waters is another millionaire that apparently got there on her government wage. ::)

If we have to see tax returns, those are the ones the American public should be presented. Not Trumps.

The law does not require Trump to show anything. The IRS agrees and has said everyones returns are private and they dont hand them out, respecting that right. A congressman though can request ANY record held by the US government or citizen. That congressman is then allowed to break that privacy and table any of those documents he requested. Those records can then be read out, entered into record and discussed by congress. Nothing is supposed to leave the chamber, but we all know that's the last thing a partisan and biased opposition will do is keep it secret. That, in my layman's eyes is a horribly, unfair and unjust law.

So, they would have to subpoena them, from the IRS. The IRS, however, is under no obligation to expidite them.

The only ones who think, this process is fair are those that only want the records to see what they can read into them and hang someone with.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 14, 2019, 19:41:09
If anyone is interested here is a link to the Gregory Craig  indictment (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5817350-Craig-Gregory-Indictment.html). And if anyone is Craig was in private practice when he was hired by Ukraine and had nothing to do with Obama.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 14, 2019, 19:45:49
Quote from: Fishbone Jones
Cortez was a bartender in October and is, suggested, to have already made her first million.

Really? I remember her bitching about money after she was elected about not being able to afford an apartment for the month or two wait until her government paychecks started rolling in.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4648503/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-rent-dc/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 14, 2019, 20:01:32

I want to see Pelosi's. She collects her government wage, around $195,000, I think,  but has somehow amassed approx. $196 million.

While Pelosi is no a pauper by any means but her net worth is a lot worse then your estimate.

Quote
Since Nancy Pelosi has been appointed her prestigious position of Speaker of the House, she has been reported of having a net worth of $29 million. That may seem like quite a lot of money for any government official that gets paid $223,500 a year, however, it is not just her political positions that have earned her such an impressive income. Nancy, along with her husband, Paul Pelosi, hhasspent many years investing in high-end commercial real estate. They own several different properties together that they rent out to other companies for a hefty price each year.

In addition to their commercial properties, the Pelosi’s also own quite a few residential properties that Nancy and her family can either use as a vacation home or rent to other residents as she sees fit. So, it is unclear exactly just how much money the two are making from their properties. Although the $29 million evaluation is a close estimation, it is safe to assume that she and her husband will not have to worry about money troubles any time soon.

Link (https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/what-is-nancy-pelosis-net-worth.html/)

At least Nancy and her husband got there fortune honestly, not by an illegal tax scheme engineered by someones father, nor by bamboozling officials or stiffing contractors.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 14, 2019, 20:12:05
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s actually net worth (at present):

Quote
After Ocasio-Cortez defeated Rep. Joe Crowley in the primary in June and won the general election in November, she said in an interview with the New York Times that she was worried about paying for an apartment in Washington, DC, before her $174,000 annual congressional salary kicked in.

According to public records, she had $15,000 in savings in 2018, which should have been more than enough to pay for a $2,700 average apartment in Washington DC.

$174,000 is a very healthy paycheck for anybody in America, not to mention for a 29-year old as of 2019.

The median household income in America for 2019, after all, is only about $62,000 ($72,000 is the average income). See the chart below by the US Bureau of Census.
Real median household income in America chart

According to AOC’s communications director at the end of 2018, Ocasio-Cortez had around $7,000 in savings. Where the rest of her $15,000 in savings went, it’s hard to know. Perhaps she spent her money on moving expenses and preparation for her new government position.

She made about $26,600 in 2018, and she’s paying off somewhere between $15,000 – $50,000 on her student loan debt.

Her student loan debt is huge because she attend Boston University, one of the most expensive private schools in the country that has a 2019/2020 tuition of over $53,000. Kind of strange going to such a school given she’s a Democratic Socialist.

Despite only having around $7,000 in savings, Ocasio-Cortez is actually fairing better than the median 29-year who has just $2,430 in savings, according to a story by CNBC in 2018.

Given AOC doesn’t own property, and does not look like she owns any stock either, her current net worth is likely around $0 given her student loans cancel out her savings.

But don’t worry, Ocasio-Cortez will likely becoming one of those millionaires she despises within the next 10 years.


Link (https://www.financialsamurai.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-net-worth-is-higher-than-you-think/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Lumber on April 15, 2019, 06:58:36
I'm really not sure why the author seems to think it odd that a "democratic socialist" would want to attend one of the best schools in the country. She and the rest of the hard left crowd, while still far too left to be good for America (IMO) , are not full blown communists. Wanting the millionaires of the world to do better and be better, and wanting their to be no more millionaires at all, are two extremely different positions. Maybe she plans on leading by example.

AOC has done and said more than a few things in the news that have made me cringe, but I think the authors position misses the mark.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Loachman on April 15, 2019, 20:33:42
Trolling Democrats:

Tucker: Trump calls Democrats' bluff on illegal immigrants https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8XJPwmX3jo
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Rifleman62 on April 18, 2019, 12:19:17
Mueller Report
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 18, 2019, 12:46:49
Mueller Report Volume 1 of 2.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on April 18, 2019, 16:09:19
Interesting.  Nothing earth shattering though.

Of note is his staff refusing to follow his orders.  Likely saving him.

One way or another, releasing the report isn't going to quiet down either side.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 18, 2019, 19:23:51
Mueller Report Volume 2 of 2.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955290-Mueller-Report-Volume-II-Obstruction.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on April 18, 2019, 19:50:04
The slime oozes everywhere in that doc.
I wonder if it is enough for the GOP to smack Trump with a mackeral by moonlight for the 2020 run.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 18, 2019, 19:59:16
So no bombshells.  And people are left to decide for themselves whether Trump was a man guilty of (something?) trying to obstruct justice, or an innocent man trying to get investigators to openly clear him so he could move on with being president.  The first theory suffers from an absolute lack of real effort to obstruct anything meaningfully, but I can see from the articles and comments that a lot of people are having trouble letting go of it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 18, 2019, 20:53:41
So no bombshells.  And people are left to decide for themselves whether Trump was a man guilty of (something?) trying to obstruct justice, or an innocent man trying to get investigators to openly clear him so he could move on with being president.  The first theory suffers from an absolute lack of real effort to obstruct anything meaningfully, but I can see from the articles and comments that a lot of people are having trouble letting go of it.

(http://eriklundegaard.com/media/2/doonesbury-guilty-guilty.gif)

 ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on April 18, 2019, 23:58:59
I agree with Victor Davis Hansen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gn9q7JEscqY
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 19, 2019, 09:13:05
For anyone interested.

Today's Wall Street Journal headline,

Quote
‘Putin Has Won’
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-has-won-mueller-report-details-the-ways-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-election-11555666201
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 19, 2019, 12:49:24
Just a quick request.

The two pdf volumes of the Mueller report are neither searchable nor capable of being highlighted. Anyone with Adobe Acrobat Pro should be capable of converting the documents. Here's how you do that:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/18/18484973/adobe-acrobat-pro-character-recognition-searchable-text-pdf (https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/18/18484973/adobe-acrobat-pro-character-recognition-searchable-text-pdf)

If anyone has the tools, time and inclination to do that and to post them here, it would make our task of reviewing the actual documents much easier.

 :cheers:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 19, 2019, 13:31:48
Been doing a lot of reading, but here are a couple for people who want to read something contrary to what we might expect from each of the "blue" and "red" bubbles, in the (perhaps faint) hope that a contrary view contains more useful facts, conclusions, and opinions:

Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/)

David French at NRO (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-mueller-report-should-shock-our-conscience/)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 19, 2019, 14:22:32
Been doing a lot of reading, but here are a couple for people who want to read something contrary to what we might expect from each of the "blue" and "red" bubbles, in the (perhaps faint) hope that a contrary view contains more useful facts, conclusions, and opinions:

Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/)

David French at NRO (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-mueller-report-should-shock-our-conscience/)

Good job picking those two poles as examples.

This reminds me of a quote from Andrew McCabe's book The Threat:

Quote
For law enforcement, a sufficiently fractured public conversation can pose a mortal threat. When a population loses any sense of a shared story—when each segment of a population believes that only its own perceptions are valid—then that population can become ungovernable.

Whether you think McCabe was treated shabbily by the administration or think he's the devil incarnate, one can't disagree with that position. That quote speaks volumes about the current situation in the US and why the Russians are doing what they are doing. The fact that Trump feeds this chaos for his self-aggrandisement is the principle reason I think that he is unfit to be the President.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 19, 2019, 14:35:06
That quote speaks volumes about the current situation in the US and why the Russians are doing what they are doing. The fact that Trump feeds this chaos for his self-aggrandisement is the principle reason I think that he is unfit to be the President.

For reference to the discussion,

Quote
National Post

As Mueller investigation ends, experts see one winner after two years of American chaos: Putin

A Kremlin campaign to destabilize American democracy has inflamed partisan tensions and eroded public confidence
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/as-mueller-investigation-ends-experts-see-one-winner-after-two-years-of-american-chaos-putin

Quote
BBC

Putin laughs at political chaos in the US
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-39957800/putin-laughs-at-political-chaos-in-the-us







Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Baden Guy on April 19, 2019, 14:38:40
Just a quick request.

The two pdf volumes of the Mueller report are neither searchable nor capable of being highlighted. Anyone with Adobe Acrobat Pro should be capable of converting the documents. Here's how you do that:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/18/18484973/adobe-acrobat-pro-character-recognition-searchable-text-pdf (https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/18/18484973/adobe-acrobat-pro-character-recognition-searchable-text-pdf)

If anyone has the tools, time and inclination to do that and to post them here, it would make our task of reviewing the actual documents much easier.

 :cheers:

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES APRIL 18, 2019
These findings, from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, detail his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The document has been redacted by the Justice Department.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 19, 2019, 14:42:02
Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES APRIL 18, 2019
These findings, from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, detail his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The document has been redacted by the Justice Department.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I found those but can't highlight or annotate them as I can with a converted pdf. I'm just the kind of anal retentive guy that likes to go through stuff like this with a fine tooth comb. Highlights rule!

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 19, 2019, 18:59:23
A Republican  Senator had this to say,

Quote
Mitt Romney says he’s ‘sickened’ and ‘appalled’ by Mueller report details
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2019/04/19/mitt-romney-says-sickened-and-appalled-mueller-report-details/gdpquVyQaIkN3Ria4m8EMK/story.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 19, 2019, 20:03:00
A Republican  Senator had this to say,

That's one Republican ... unfortunately there are 62,984,827 to go.

 :whistle:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 19, 2019, 20:14:03
That's one Republican ... unfortunately there are 62,984,827 to go.

 :whistle:

 :)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on April 19, 2019, 20:18:49
:)

Oh yes, the pot guy.  ;D

https://americascashcrop.com/adv1.php?iris=1081467&src=google&campaignid=1604477236&adgroupid=62318810538&adid=305421552175&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9aTGkqXd4QIVT57ACh322wxREAAYASAAEgKdJPD_BwE (https://americascashcrop.com/adv1.php?iris=1081467&src=google&campaignid=1604477236&adgroupid=62318810538&adid=305421552175&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9aTGkqXd4QIVT57ACh322wxREAAYASAAEgKdJPD_BwE)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 19, 2019, 20:28:07
Oh yes, the pot guy.  ;D

 :)

Is it true that he actually said, "I'd Rather Kill Myself Than Raise the Minimum Wage."?



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on April 19, 2019, 20:28:24
The collusion question is not settled yet. Mr. Clapper has it figured out as "passive collusion". If the penalty for collusion is impeachment then what is the penalty for passive collusion?

Quote
JAMES CLAPPER: I think, if there wasn’t active collusion proven, then I think what we have here is a case of passive collusion, where, in some cases, unwittingly — to include candidate Trump himself, who retweeted messages that had been planted by the Russians in social media, and so, that’s a small, but important example of how members of the campaign were used and manipulated by the Russians.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/19/clapper_on_trumprussia_if_active_collusion_wasnt_proven_we_have_a_case_of_passive_collusion.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/19/clapper_on_trumprussia_if_active_collusion_wasnt_proven_we_have_a_case_of_passive_collusion.html)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: cavalryman on April 19, 2019, 21:07:21
A Republican  Senator had this to say,

Mitt Romney is simply trying to be the next John McCain.  You know, a plaster saint who failed where Trump succeeded. ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 20, 2019, 00:49:58
>Mitt Romney says he’s ‘sickened’ and ‘appalled’ by Mueller report details

Compared to what?  This is the first prolonged investigation of this scale into a presidential administration.   How much "dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President" is the benchmark?  Does lying to hundreds of millions of Americans all at once about insurance coverage count as "dishonesty and misdirection"?

"I am also appalled that, among other things, fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia" applies to the Clinton campaign as well.

Where does using foreign intelligence agencies to circumvent the letter and spirit of laws protecting the civil rights of US citizens fit into the scale of sickening and appalling?  Misleading a FISA court?  Exposing the names of people under investigation?  Leaking classified information?

Note that I don't seek to excuse Team Trump; I mean to point out that it might not be the worst example.  It just happens to be the first one subject to this amount of exposure.  And, it may turn out that the worst behaviour was expressed by those out to get Team Trump.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 20, 2019, 00:51:38
>passive collusion

Shark, jumped.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on April 20, 2019, 01:39:33
The Economist, "What to Make of the Mueller Report," (19 Apr 2019) has been posted within the 'Large Articles' thread, here (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,130227.0.html).
It provides a quick summary of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on April 20, 2019, 07:02:33
A Republican  Senator had this to say,

Mitt Romney. You see most senators as friends or enemies. With Mitt I see him as friendless and enemy-less. I see him sitting in the cafeteria on that one rickety table in the corner all by himself. If he goes to the gym he gets that torn medicine ball. When he goes to board the bus for a senate function there are no seats left and he stands by the driver. Yep, Mitt Romney, the most non-senator senator since senators were invented.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 20, 2019, 09:41:04
Mitt Romney. You see most senators as friends or enemies. With Mitt I see him as friendless and enemy-less. I see him sitting in the cafeteria on that one rickety table in the corner all by himself. If he goes to the gym he gets that torn medicine ball. When he goes to board the bus for a senate function there are no seats left and he stands by the driver. Yep, Mitt Romney, the most non-senator senator since senators were invented.

That sounds very sad!

Especially considering he was chosen by the Republican party as their best hope to challenge President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 20, 2019, 12:56:06
The goalpost-shifting appears to be focused on moving away from "collusion" to bad behaviour and obstruction, with a view to impeachment.

Andrew McCarthy (at NRO) (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment/), whom I consider to be a must-read resource, foresaw this over a year ago.

He also wrote this about Barr and the report (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/mueller-report-vindicates-william-barr/) (dated 19 Apr) which should dampen the notion that there could possibly be any sort of fix/cover-up going on.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: ModlrMike on April 20, 2019, 14:10:34
I sit ready for the next straw the Democrats attempt to clutch.  :waiting:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on April 20, 2019, 14:31:39
The goalpost-shifting appears to be focused on moving away from "collusion" to bad behaviour and obstruction, with a view to impeachment.

….Andrew McCarthy (at NRO), whom I consider to be a must-read resource....
a)  I'm also a fan of McCarthy's insights, even when I disagree with his start state at times.

b)  I'm not sure that Barr is completely off the hook yet;  there was something biased to the point of unsavoury about his whole non-neutral AG performance. While McCarthy's explanation rings true, I still feel it's too soon to say.  We'll see how the remaining criminal proceedings play out.

c)  Most importantly, I desperately hope that the Dems aren't so oblivious as to go for impeachment (number of seats held/necessary to pass both Houses; 'normal' voter reaction ['normal' = not left or right extreme]; and of course, having the religiously out-there but more competent than Trump, Pence as President).  But then, the Democrats also display a 'holier than thou, natural governing party' attitude, so they may  go for stupid.  So far, Pelosi is using the right words to reel them in.


I'd best bow out;  I've already spent too long in this thread.  ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 20, 2019, 15:21:30
The centrist/establishment sub-faction of the Democratic party isn't oblivious, and has made that clear by its actions and statements.  What they would like to do is milk the idea of impeachment and misdeeds to fight the next election, but they really needed this report to be released a year from now (6 months before election rather than 18).  I suppose they might try to park the discussions on a back-burner to simmer for 12 months and then turn up the heat again.

There's enough blow-back from within the Democrat-favouring media and pundits over the colossal "collusion" story frig-up that I doubt they'll be able to hold together any kind of anti-Trump narrative (based on the Mueller report) for that long.  As fast as each breathless accusation emerges, it'll be shredded by people unwilling to tolerate degradation of their collective reputation any further.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 20, 2019, 15:30:09
But then, the Democrats also display a 'holier than thou, natural governing party' attitude, so they may  go for stupid. 

Jay Leno put it this way, “Every time I think I’m a Democrat, they do something stupid. And every time I think I’m a Republican, they do something greedy.”   :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 21, 2019, 11:48:04
Videos like this lead be to believe Trump is going to win the next election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuHepjHA2JY

https://heavy.com/news/2019/04/rebecca-mankey-parker/

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 21, 2019, 23:51:55
Alan Dershowitz has an opinion on obstruction (https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1120043971059884032); he is not supportive of the investigators' preferred position.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 25, 2019, 11:22:02
Not sure this is a 100% fit into this thread but it's close enough.

The French Ambassador to the US is retiring after five years under both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was recently interviewed by Foreign Policy and gave very candid comments not only about the difference between the two presidents and their administration but also about his views on what he is calling an end of an era in US/European politics.

This from the later part of the interview:

Quote
...FP: I understand your memoir is finished. Can you give us some highlights?

GA: What for me was striking was realizing that I had started my career more or less when Ronald Reagan was elected and I was completing my career when Trump was elected. And suddenly I realized by chance my career nearly exactly fit a particular period in history—a period that I’m convinced is over. I’m really convinced the direction of Trump is a signal that 40 years of what people call neoliberalism is over. This period where everybody was convinced that free trade was good, the market good, taxes were bad, and state intervention was bad, and suddenly with the election of Trump but also with Brexit and the populist wave in the Western countries, including France, the signal is that some of our citizens are saying, “No way, it’s over.” Nearly overnight all the certainties of my diplomatic life were shattered. You had an American president saying suddenly that the EU is a threat, that NATO is dangerous. That for me was the stepping stone of my memoirs.

FP: So if this era is over, what follows?

GA: I think that what’s interesting on the right wing of the political spectrum is you have a new conservatism that is suddenly defined. The Republican Party was the party of free trade, the party of active foreign policy, of budgetary restraint, and suddenly it’s over. In a sense Trump hijacked the Republican Party. So you can argue that after the mandate of the current president, things will come back to business as usual, but I don’t think so. That’s the advantage of being a foreigner: You see that conservatism is moving in the same direction everywhere. The French conservative party—and I’m not talking about the far-right—is also moving in the direction of identity, [closed] borders, anti-immigration, anti-globalism, so you have sort of a new right. And I’m regretting a bit leaving my post now because I’m convinced the 2020 elections will be a critical moment for the American left to redefine itself, and of course it has influence on the rest of the world.

FP: What went wrong? Why is this era ending in a backlash where people feel that the verities of the period you describe didn’t hold true anymore?

GA: The statistics show that half of Americans, roughly speaking, have seen stagnation of their income in the last 30 years. Overall the opening of the borders has been good for the poor countries, and very good for the rich of the rich countries, but the lower middle class and lower end have been really hit. And it’s not only the opening of borders but also automation. And on top of that, you had the storm of the financial crisis of 2008. I think it was very well managed, especially by Obama, but millions of Americans lost their homes and millions of Americans lost their jobs. So there was a moment when 30 or maybe 35 to 40 percent of Americans said, “It’s over.” And the genius of Trump has been to feel this crisis....

See interview here:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/19/how-trump-practices-escalation-dominance/ (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/19/how-trump-practices-escalation-dominance/)

Incidentally I learned a new word recently - "autarky" - when I was researching the economy of Germany in the '30s. It's defined as:

Quote
Autarky is the characteristic of self-sufficiency; the term usually applies to political states or to their economic systems. Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. If a self-sufficient economy also refuses all trade with the outside world then economists may term it a closed economy.

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

I might be pushing the envelope on this but what I see behind the current Trump/Republican push on repatriating jobs, restricting immigration and limiting trade deals to bi-lateral ones have at their heart the move to an autarkic state.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 25, 2019, 13:16:39
His memory is selective, and his understanding of US conservatives is weak.

There was never a period when "everybody" believed that taxes and state intervention were bad; both were supported continuously by progressives and progressive parties and governments throughout the period he defines.  US conservatives still support free trade and markets, provided you look beyond Trump and his dedicated acolytes (and even their influence is tiny in the big picture - it is simply not to be mistaken for a war on free trade).  What is "over" was just another interval between evolutionary/revolutionary upheavals.  The current governing castes have had a long kick at the can to alleviate the problems they claimed they would solve or mitigate if elected; they are now held to have failed or under-performed and people are looking for alternatives.  Mostly, people just want to be masters in their own houses and are not at all on the same page as the castes who find borders and passports annoying to their freewheeling enjoyment of all the world has to offer.  The French path through academia to high government is so rarefied that I have no doubt they have lost touch with everyone except themselves.  So: Obama / Clinton tell the people jobs are going away and not coming back; Trump tells them he'll bring jobs back; no surprise who wins the voters at risk.

The "active foreign policy" advocates still exist, but they have differentiated.  Although US Republicans / conservatives seem to be (according to Pew surveys I have linked before) approximately where they were attitude-wise during the Clinton administration, the Democrats / progressives have shifted very far in the progressive direction.  This leaves the neo-cons who were the centre of attention during the Bush 43 administration without a home - conservatives are shot of them, and the centre-left part of the spectrum from which they originated and which was once well-occupied by Democrats is now only sparsely populated.  Hence all the whining recently by their thought leaders.  Their brand of muscular foreign policy (solution to everything: military intervention and war) has no home; what remains of activist foreign policy among conservatives is a willingness to engage in building all the institutions that people claim the Trump administration wishes to destroy.  And Trump's non-interventionist lean is an outlier; he just has a big voice and big pulpit.  Trump didn't hijack the Republican party; he won the presidency, and his position and his coattails matter enough that Republicans aren't going to throw away everything over principles this time (which is one of the great disappointments on the left: Alinsky's make-them-play-by-their-rules doesn't work any more).

Trump and Republicans are nowhere near seeking autarky.  Seeking favourable deals and trying to clamp down illegal immigration is what they are doing, which is not the same thing as saying "we don't need you, goodbye".

Something to remember about Trump, highlighted again by the Mueller report: he doesn't often follow through on his bombastic rhetoric and flights of temper.  To assume he will oversee a coherent policy of isolationism is unreasonable.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: dapaterson on April 25, 2019, 15:39:06
To assume he will oversee a coherent policy ... is unreasonable.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 25, 2019, 22:44:35
US seems to be doing alright the last couple years.  Well except in the whiny pathetic Canadian psych.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on April 26, 2019, 00:15:21
US seems to be doing alright the last couple years.  Well except in the whiny pathetic Canadian psych.

They've been doing fine for more than "a couple of years". It's been ever since the Obama administration cleaned up the Subprime mess that occurred at the end of the Bush years.

(https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/us-real-gdp-2007-2016-600x558.png)

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/25420/economics/us-economy-under-obama-2009-2017/ (https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/25420/economics/us-economy-under-obama-2009-2017/)

If you add in the Trump years you'll see that the GDP growth curve continued at roughly the same pace.

(https://www.headwater-ic.com/sites/default/files/users/headwateric/images_blog/2018-10-10%20blog%2C%20chart1%2CGDP.png)

https://www.headwater-ic.com/blog/2008-us-economy-part-2-3 (https://www.headwater-ic.com/blog/2008-us-economy-part-2-3)

Give a little credit where it's due.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 26, 2019, 17:03:31
>It's been ever since the Obama administration cleaned up the Subprime mess that occurred at the end of the Bush years.

The stabilization measures that cleaned up the mess were all started/passed/implemented during the last few months of the Bush administration, and were the work of the Bush administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress.  That's where the credit is due - it was bipartisan, and did not involve Obama.  (It did involve McCain, because he thought it important to show up at the Senate in the middle of the presidential campaign - he was wrong about that.)

The Obama administration's job was to manage recovery.  The data show what has been endlessly reported for over a decade (ie. it's no revelation) - an exceedingly slow recovery.  What's puzzling some observers a little right now is that the growth curves are not leveling off, which usually happens because the rates of improvement in the early stage of a recovery are faster ("low-hanging fruit").

Per capita GDP (in constant dollars, of course) is more illustrative.

World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US)

If I got the link correct, the chart line on that page illustrates a long-term trend of which the years since 2008 are unremarkable.  In particular, a smoother curve would result if you drew a line from 2003 to 2009 - the bump (rise) from 2003 to 2007 is remarkable.  The recovery still hasn't reached a point at which the historical data would coincide with an extrapolation of the line from 2003 to 2007.  That is the target.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 27, 2019, 13:40:36
I think it is the 'system' ~ the Fed and the many and varied agencies ~ that get both most of the blame for 2000-2008 and deserve most of the credit for 2010 to 2019, not any particular politician or party.

The United States has a complex but well-managed system that seems to balance bureaucratic and political inclinations with the realities of the commercial world. It fails, sometimes, but it also has well-designed mechanisms for making corrections ... the system works; ditto for Australia, Britain, Canada and the non-Eurozone Europeans and Japan, Singapore and so on.

My objection to President Trump's policy direction, as I understand it, which I admit is very imperfectly, is that it is too short term. He seems, to me, to be still thinking like a real estate developer: on a quarterly results basis and 'believing' that there is, somewhere, the national or global equivalent of a bankruptcy court that will bail him out if he makes a mistake. I think a political leader needs to have a 'five-year plan' sort of mentality while a bureaucratic leader, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve or the Governor of a central bank, needs to have a generational plan, one with a 25-year view.

That makes for a very healthy tension between the elected, and ultimately responsible to the people, politicians and the ultra-powerful bureaucrats. Neither likes being thwarted by the other but each must accept the 'checks and balances' which were, in some large part, developed in Canada circa 1960, in the Coyne Affair (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-the-coyne-affair-paved-the-way-for-carney/article4612015/) which pitted Bank of Canada Governor James Coyne (father of columnist Andrew Coyne) against Prime Minister John Diefenbaker ~ Diefenbaker won the battle, Coyne (and all central bankers, everywhere) won the war because, in those days, the world looked to Canada for leadership in many fields, including governance. My fear is that, unlike e.g. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, all of whom disliked their central bankers but respected their role and independence, President Trump will try to use popular will to bend the Fed to his agenda ... even if you think his agenda is correct, the balance is more important.

America is doing well ... Australia has, since about 1995, done even better, Canada, not so much. None of Clinton, Bush, Obama or Trump deserve all the credit for America's success; neither do Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen and Powell. None of them deserves all the blame for 2008, either. If you really want to give credit to someone then it's Harry Dexter White, John Maynard Keynes, Montague Norman and Marriner Eccles, none of whom mean much of anything to most people, sadly.

Edited: punctuation
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Good2Golf on April 27, 2019, 16:39:41
Kayne’s definitely has his supporters and detractors, as did other micro and macroeconomists, but your point about the moderated balance between national financial establishments and executive (of any lean) is worthy, as is you note that tension, potentially dysfunctional, comes when the temporal bounds of fiscal consideration become greatly foreshortened.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 29, 2019, 16:29:36
News Release

29 Apr., 2019

IAFF Endorses Joe Biden for President
https://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=91986
The IAFF, which represents firefighters and paramedics, endorsed Joe Biden today, making them the first major labor union to endorse a 2020 candidate.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 29, 2019, 16:40:38
News Release

29 Apr., 2019

IAFF Endorses Joe Biden for President
https://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=91986
The IAFF, which represents firefighters and paramedics, endorsed Joe Biden today, making them the first major labor union to endorse a 2020 candidate.





Quote
Many of you may not like us being involved in politics or just won't like our decision. But we need to have a role in determining who gets the Democratic nomination for president to ensure that your voice is heard and remains a core part of the election and discourse -

Awfully thoughtful of that union to make that decision in behalf of it's members.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on April 29, 2019, 17:00:36
Awfully thoughtful of that union to make that decision in behalf of it's members.

He's already having a meltdown on Twitter over it. 

This has always been the policy of our union in regards to active and retired members,

Quote
First and foremost, I want to be clear - your union will never tell you how to vote. No organization, individual or union should demand that you vote for a particular candidate. It is a very personal decision based on your values, priorities and expectations.

As public employees, IAFF members are subject to all manner of government – government that is run by politicians who make decisions that affect your lives and livelihoods. That’s why elections can have a more serious and direct impact for our members than for many other Americans.

Whether we like it or not, the political arena is where all the power is – politicians and lawmakers have a big hand in deciding policies that can greatly affect your career, family and economic future.

Your union represents you on a narrowly focused basket of issues – issues specifically related to your jobs as professional fire fighters and paramedics, including retirement security, occupational safety and health, collective bargaining rights, healthcare, wages and benefits, worker rights, staffing and presumptive protections.

As your union, we are your voice on these issues. We will always fight to improve your livelihood, keep you safe and improve conditions for our profession.

How much importance you place on these issues in electing a president is your choice.

It is our responsibility as your union to support the candidate who will have your back when it comes to signing laws, making agency appointments, writing rules and making the important decisions that affect you on the job every single day.

Your union works on your behalf on issues that pertain to our profession. We don’t engage in identity politics, nor do we advocate for or against other issues.

Our recommendations are offered as information on where candidates stand on issues that are vital to fire fighters – protecting you on the job, improving your standard of living, protecting your safety and health, securing affordable healthcare, making sure you come home at the end of each shift, providing a secure retirement and other aspects of your work.

Simply put, we provide you with information on where candidates stand so you are better educated on fire fighter-specific issues when you go to the ballot box.
https://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=91865




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on April 29, 2019, 17:25:33
Cool. Did your union support specific candidates during elections?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 29, 2019, 17:34:28
At least they are out in the open. Unlike Working Families and other union shill, union supported and union financed organisations that use members dues to promote a specific party and candidate.

Then we have professional organisations that, by using pictures of people on the job and hedged speech, promote the idea that all their members support a certain government. Like the OPP association tried.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 29, 2019, 19:58:53
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/deputy-ag-rod-rosenstein-submits-resignation?fbclid=IwAR0rnMI9u2gY_d9Llt8oKenOZ-L5U6iY4GPfwx301SQfhwbhEQgN4d1A0DQ

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Submits Resignation

Quote
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who frequently found himself in the political crosshairs due to his role in the special counsel's Russia probe and whose departure has long been expected, submitted his resignation on Monday to President Trump, effective May 11.

Attorney General William Barr in a statement said Rosenstein served the Justice Department "with dedication and distinction."

"His devotion to the Department and its professionals is unparalleled," the statement read. "Over the course of his distinguished government career, he has navigated many challenging situations with strength, grace, and good humor."

In his resignation letter, Rosenstein thanked Trump "for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education, and prosperity, because 'a nation exists to serve its citizens.'"

Rosenstein, 54, previously served as deputy assistant attorney general and U.S. attorney. He had intended to leave his position last month but stayed on for the completion of the Mueller probe, which Rosenstein had overseen.

In February, Fox News reported that Barr had picked Jeffrey Rosen, who currently serves as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to take over for Rosenstein.

Rosenstein was part of a small group of department officials who reviewed the document and helped shape its public release. After Mueller didn't reach a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed the investigation, Barr and Rosenstein stepped in and determined the evidence wasn't enough to support such an allegation.

In recent months, Rosenstein became a frequent target of Trump's ire, after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe described private discussions about secretly recording and potentially ousting the president in the days after he fired FBI Director James Comey.

Trump accused them of pursuing a “treasonous” plot against him. Rosenstein, though, denied pursuing a recording of the president and has pushed back on claims he broached the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. However, Rosenstein was largely spared the type of anger directed by Trump at Sessions, whose recusal infuriated the president and led to Sessions' to his forced resignation last November.

As first reported by The New York Times last year, Rosenstein allegedly discussed wearing a "wire" to tape Trump and pursuing his removal from office in meetings and conversations with Justice Department and FBI officials. This would have been in the tumultuous days after Comey was fired as FBI director, with the president citing in part a memo penned by Rosenstein — reportedly catching him off guard.

Fox News has learned one key meeting took place on May 16, 2017 at Justice Department headquarters. Several people were in the room, including McCabe and former FBI counsel Lisa Page. Mueller was appointed as special counsel the next day.

Rosenstein’s conservative critics on the Capitol Hill seized on the reports, with North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, calling on him to appear before Congress to explain the comments. In July, Meadows and Jim Jordan of Ohio, another member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, introduced five articles of impeachment against Rosenstein.

Those impeachment articles accused Rosenstein of intentionally withholding documents and information from Congress, failure to comply with congressional subpoenas and abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That effort was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it has not been voted upon.

Before named by Trump to serve as the No. 2 to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Rosenstein took over the Russia probe after Sessions recused himself from the investigation. It was Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller to his post.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on May 06, 2019, 18:22:43
AG Barr's commitment, described fairly here at The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/give-william-barr-benefit-doubt/586207/), means that if there is anything that someone other than Mueller might choose to latch onto, it should become available.

The author had this to say,

Quote
I was willing to give Bill Barr a chance. Consider me burned.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/bill-barrs-performance-was-catastrophic/588574/

In today's news,

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Loachman on May 06, 2019, 21:51:30
I have only ever read a few articles from the Atlantic, so offer no personal opinion about its general accuracy or political bias, but many of those commentators that I have come to trust do not hold it - or NYT and MSNBC - in high regard.

My preferred source for discussions about President Trump, and this matter in particular, is National Review Online. Several writers are lawyers, and not all are fans of their President, so several viewpoints are available in one source. The overiding opinion, from several articles that I have read, seems to be supportive of Attorney-General Barr.

From the Atlantic article quoted:

"This pair of mischaracterizations has the effect of transforming Trump into an innocent man falsely accused."

The legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty". No guilt seems to have been proven, and claims of "collusion" (not a crime, as "conspiracy" would be, if committed) have proven groundless. There has been some discussion regarding the ability to obstruct justice in a case where no crime can be proven. And vocalization by somebody falsely accused is certainly normal behaviour; there is no indication that, words aside, he actually took any unusual step to obstruct anything. Firing James Comey was well within his right, and, until he did so, Democrats were calling for his firing as his actions during the election supposedly cost Clinton her "win" (as did, according to her, many other things except for her crappy campaign and growing reputation for corruption).

The Mueller witch hunt (which completely ignored more credible claims of true crimes committed by the Democrats) was allowed to continue, and the final report was released with the minimal level of redaction necessary to meet legal requirements. That displayed an unprecedented level of transparency, as such documents are (usually, at least) never released.

"Barr amplifies this transformation with his third layer of misrepresentation: his adoption of Trump’s “spying” narrative, which states that there was something improper about the FBI’s scrutiny of campaign figures who had bizarre contacts with Russian-government officials or intermediaries. Barr has not specified precisely what he believes here, but yesterday’s Senate hearing was the second congressional hearing at which he implied darkly that the FBI leadership under James Comey had engaged in some kind of improper surveillance of the Trump campaign. In other words, not only is the president an innocent man falsely accused, but he’s now the victim of “spying on a political campaign” - as Barr put it a few weeks ago - by a biased cabal running the FBI."

There certainly seems to be ample evidence to back up the "spying" narrative, and I eagerly await the investigations regarding that and the coverups of Clinton/Democrat activities, including, but not limited to, Clinton Foundation donations/briberies, Uranium One, The Steele Dossier (based upon faulty/made-up claims of Trumpian misbehaviour concocted by Russians and a former British intelligent agent - see "Collusion" with foreign agents, including Russians) which was used to kick off various investigations, and absolutely gross e-mail security violations.

I could never believe any claims that Russia had a preferrence for Donald Trump winning, after the Clintons had, essentially, been bought and paid for, and Obama had soft-pedalled the Russian threat. Obama was caught, while unknowingly on an open microphone, promising Dmitri Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" to make concessions to Russia after his re-election, and, later, when Mitt Romney referred to Russia as "The number one geopolitical foe", retorted that "The 1980s are now calling and they want their foreign policy back". Russians were good until Donald Trump won, at which point they became an excuse for Clinton losing and a means of obstructing the lawfully-elected President.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/

Russian Collusion, Clinton $tyle

By Deroy Murdock March 27, 2018 10:51 AM

In contrast, Team Mueller studiously ignores something more conspicuous than the iridescent onion domes atop Red Square’s St. Basil’s Cathedral: Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents - thanks to then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s public favors - gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.

While this institution performed some charitable work, it also was the Clintons’ de facto slush fund. It operated a veritable full-employment program for the courtiers in Hillary’s “government in waiting” during the Obama years and financed much of the Clintons’ global travels. Donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in essence, gift-wrapped presents for the Clintons.

Hillary’s March 2009 button-pushing “Russian reset” ceremony with Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, triggered this particular bonanza. Hillary captured its essence in March 2010 when she told former Soviet propagandist Vladimir Pozner on First Channel TV: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on May 16, 2019, 12:12:07
I find Conrad's shrieking to be only slightly left of Alex Jones's conspiracy tripe. More articulate, perhaps, but no more persuasive.

He was in today's news,

Quote
Trump grants full pardon to former media baron Conrad Black
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/conrad-black-pardon-trump-1.5137985
Black was convicted in 2007 of fraud and obstruction of justice


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on May 16, 2019, 15:44:51
That should set all the right teeth nicely on edge for a couple of days...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 17, 2019, 09:00:28
You guys need to start reading Gateway Pundit ,as I do. The Atlantic I consider to be left leaning. National review has lost their mind in their hatred of Trump. I also like Legal Insurrection for anything in the news about the law. Its run by a Harvard professor. With 22-23 Democrats running it appears that Biden has sucked all the oxygen from the room. But I wonder if he wants to be President , if he sticks it out it may be time to get the popcorn going. It will be entertaining.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on May 17, 2019, 09:25:14
You guys need to start reading Gateway Pundit ,as I do.

For reference to the discussion,

The Gateway Pundit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit#False_stories_and_conspiracy_theories

The Gateway Pundit
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 17, 2019, 09:31:41
Gatewaypundit

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on May 17, 2019, 10:25:26
You guys need to start reading Gateway Pundit ,as I do. The Atlantic I consider to be left leaning.

Quote
The Gateway Pundit:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit  Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.
Quote
The Atlantic:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/
LEFT-CENTER BIAS

Overall, we rate The Atlantic  Left-Center Biased due to editorial position and High for factual reporting based on excellent sourcing of information.
      Yep, seems about right. 



Personally, (since we're giving recommendations), try The Economist.  Subscriptions are inexpensive, articles tend not to be lengthy, and the e-version analyses are quite timely.
Quote
The Economist:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/
LEAST BIASED

Overall, we rate The Economist  Least Biased based on balanced reporting and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record.


Mind you, I know quite a few people who read widely (yes, across  ideological biases  :o ) in order to develop informed opinions;  of course, that requires an interest in TRUTH, which isn't always found on a soapbox or behind a pulpit.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on May 17, 2019, 10:33:58
I prefer going to Milnews.ca as my source of unbiased media reporting and Mariomike as my search engine  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on May 17, 2019, 11:24:04
Thank-you. When strangers on the internet tell me what I "need" to read, I prefer to do a little fact-checking first.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on May 17, 2019, 11:56:23
   
Mind you, I know quite a few people who read widely (yes, across  ideological biases  :o ) in order to develop informed opinions;  of course, that requires an interest in TRUTH, which isn't always found on a soapbox or behind a pulpit.

I agree.  And with that, I am very much looking forward to AG Barr's tenure, and following US Attorney John Durham's probe.  I believe some of the media is going to get bit in the end. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: ModlrMike on May 17, 2019, 14:43:46
Thank-you. When strangers on the internet tell me what I "need" to read, I prefer to do a little fact-checking first.

Don't worry, the Government is going to cover that for you.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on May 24, 2019, 23:43:41
Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense funds for parts of border wall
By Priscilla Alvarez, CNN

Quote
Washington (CNN)A federal judge on Friday night blocked President Donald Trump from tapping into Defense Department funds to build parts of his US-Mexico border wall.

In a 56-page ruling, Judge Haywood Gilliam, a Barack Obama appointee in the Northern District of California, blocked the administration from moving forward with specific projects in Texas and Arizona, saying he couldn't disburse the funds without congressional approval.

Although Friday's ruling does not prevent the Trump administration from using funds from other sources to build the projects, it's a setback for the President on a signature agenda item that has frequently been thwarted by Democrats in Congress.

"The position that when Congress declines the Executive's request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds 'without Congress' does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Gilliam writes.

He added, "because the Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to show that Defendants' actions exceeded their statutory authority, and that irreparable harm will result from those actions, a preliminary injunction must issue pending a resolution of the merits of the case." ...

See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/politics/federal-judge-trump-border-wall/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/politics/federal-judge-trump-border-wall/index.html)

and here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-border-wall-construction-plans (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-border-wall-construction-plans)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Target Up on May 26, 2019, 15:05:24
At least one North American country has people willing to stop their Top Cat from pissing Other People's Money up against the wall, either literally or figuratively.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 26, 2019, 18:35:21
The Supreme Court will overrule these lower court democrat judges.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on May 26, 2019, 20:02:55
The Supreme Court will overrule these lower court democrat judges.

Is this a reasoned legal analysis or are you just sure that the GOP has finally stacked the Supreme Court sufficiently?

 :whistle:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on May 26, 2019, 20:06:39
Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense funds for parts of border wall

Maybe the Mexican taxpayers will pay for it?

Quote
Fox News

I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me. Believe me. And I'll build it very inexpensively. I'll build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.
https://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/16/watch-highlights-donald-trumps-2016-announcement-ill-build-border-wall-and-mexico-will

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: YZT580 on May 26, 2019, 23:06:02
Is this a reasoned legal analysis or are you just sure that the GOP has finally stacked the Supreme Court sufficiently?

 :whistle:
I would prefer to say that the supreme court has been unstacked to the point that reasonable decisions based upon law and not upon personal preferences can finally be rendered.  It all depends upon your point of view.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on May 26, 2019, 23:42:37
I would prefer to say that the supreme court has been unstacked to the point that reasonable decisions based upon law and not upon personal preferences can finally be rendered. It all depends upon your point of view.

Considering the Republicans lost the popular vote in every presidential election, except one, since the 1980's, they have done a pretty good job of stacking / unstacking, if you prefer, the Supreme Court.

As you say, "It all depends upon your point of view."

Five of the Justices, including the Chief, were appointed by a Republican president.

Four of the Justices were appointed by a Democratic president.

Yes, I understand the popular vote does not determine who gets in. But, as Brihard explained,

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.

Speaking of gerrymandering and the Supreme Court,

Quote
Politico

05/24/2019

Supreme Court blocks gerrymandering rulings in Michigan and Ohio
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/24/supreme-court-blocks-gerrymandering-michigan-ohio-1344369

If interested, read about REDMAP. Described as, "Gerrymandering on steroids."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
"The effects of REDMAP came about in the 2012 election, in which the Republicans were able to secure several districts and retain control of the United States House of Representatives by a 33-seat margin, despite Democratic candidates having had more of the general vote."




Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 27, 2019, 01:13:17
Is this a reasoned legal analysis or are you just sure that the GOP has finally stacked the Supreme Court sufficiently?

 :whistle:

Trump has been able to replace some very liberal judges with conservatives. With Justice Roberts being able to side with the liberals more often than not if its a close vote and he is the decider it makes me uneasy. The Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical but the ones that are ruling against Trump were selected by Obama generally.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on May 27, 2019, 03:05:00
Trump has been able to replace some very liberal judges with conservatives. With Justice Roberts being able to side with the liberals more often than not if its a close vote and he is the decider it makes me uneasy. The Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical but the ones that are ruling against Trump were selected by Obama generally.

Out of curiosity, are you open to the possibility that trying to do an end run around Congress on a couple billion dollars of spending might simply and actually be illegal? There’s a constitutional separation of powers for a reason, and as president he’s sworn to uphold that, not usurp it. I won’t even bother getting into why it would be a horrendous precedent to set. Quite simply, the executive gets to do some things, Congress gets to do others, and each has certain ability to say no to the other. He’s trying to do something he just isn’t allowed to do, and that’s why he lost this in court.

Hopefully the Supreme Court aren’t simply partisan puppets and uphold this separation of powers. It’s important for the health of America that excesses in any branch of government be curbed.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on May 27, 2019, 04:55:31
Trump has been able to replace some very liberal judges with conservatives. With Justice Roberts being able to side with the liberals more often than not if its a close vote and he is the decider it makes me uneasy. The Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical but the ones that are ruling against Trump were selected by Obama generally.
Saying that "Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical" shows that you know the correct words, but saying that Justice Roberts makes you "uneasy," demonstrates no actual belief in (or perhaps understanding of) that principle. 

Are the Justices ruling "against Trump," or deciding cases based on the arguments' merit?  Is Roberts somehow treasonous 'to the team' because, as a registered Republican appointed by GW Bush, he occasionally pens rulings that adhere to the Constitution and legal precedent rather than some Pavlovian adherence to Republican dogma? 

Agreeing with your worldview does not make them apolitical any more than being appointed by Obama automatically makes their judgements political.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on May 27, 2019, 16:03:01
Just when you think Trump can't sink any lower he says this.

Quote
"Kim Jong Un is smarter and would make a better President than Sleepy Joe Biden."

https://www.theblaze.com/news/fake-trump-quote-biden-viral-bremmer?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM-Final%202019-05-27&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days (https://www.theblaze.com/news/fake-trump-quote-biden-viral-bremmer?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM-Final%202019-05-27&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days)

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1132736661576704000 (https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1132736661576704000)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on May 27, 2019, 16:16:49
Just when you think Trump can't sink any lower he says this.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/fake-trump-quote-biden-viral-bremmer?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM-Final%202019-05-27&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days (https://www.theblaze.com/news/fake-trump-quote-biden-viral-bremmer?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM-Final%202019-05-27&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days)

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1132736661576704000 (https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1132736661576704000)

Fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/27/political-scientist-caused-confusion-when-he-made-up-trump-quote-president-noticed/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5dce4a0285ac
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on May 27, 2019, 16:18:18
Fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/27/political-scientist-caused-confusion-when-he-made-up-trump-quote-president-noticed/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5dce4a0285ac

Are you sure, fake news is not a thing is it?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on May 27, 2019, 16:22:15
Are you sure, fake news is not a thing is it?

It is when it is a thing.  There is a difference between fake news and labelling all news as fake news when it suits or does not suit one's world view.

Trump is definitely a champion at alternative facts but that does not mean the other side is innocent either.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on May 28, 2019, 15:19:36
Saying that "Judges at all levels are supposed to be apolitical" shows that you know the correct words, but saying that Justice Roberts makes you "uneasy," demonstrates no actual belief in (or perhaps understanding of) that principle. 

Are the Justices ruling "against Trump," or deciding cases based on the arguments' merit?  Is Roberts somehow treasonous 'to the team' because, as a registered Republican appointed by GW Bush, he occasionally pens rulings that adhere to the Constitution and legal precedent rather than some Pavlovian adherence to Republican dogma? 

Agreeing with your worldview does not make them apolitical any more than being appointed by Obama automatically makes their judgements political.

Apparently even with the appointment of "conservative" judges they are acting independently.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-decisions-refute-pre-conceived-expectations-of-conservative-rubber-stamp
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 28, 2019, 15:31:30
Todays rulings are going to make interesting viewing on Fox tonight.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-decisions-refute-pre-conceived-expectations-of-conservative-rubber-stamp

Supreme Court hands down varying decisions in hot-button abortion, transgender and border cases
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Baden Guy on May 29, 2019, 13:19:43
Charging Donald Trump with crime wasn't an option, Robert Mueller says
Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday charging the president of the United States with a crime in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election was not an option his office could consider, given existing Justice Department guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

In his first public comments since being assigned in May 2017, Mueller said on Wednesday "it would be unfair" to potentially accuse someone of a crime when the person couldn't stand trial to defend himself.

"Charging the president with a crime was … not an option we could consider," said Mueller. "We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dc-mueller-statement-1.5153877

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on May 29, 2019, 19:02:04
Here's hoping John Durham and Bill Barr can get to the bottom of this.

For anyone interested, check out Victor Davis Hanson's points on all of this, or John Solomon of Judicial Watch...     
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on May 30, 2019, 20:50:29
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

(from here (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-and-barr-blast-misinterpretations-no-conflict-on-obstruction))
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on May 31, 2019, 01:41:42
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.

(from here (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-and-barr-blast-misinterpretations-no-conflict-on-obstruction))

Also logically consistent with this:

'“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said'

He has not at any point said that the president clearly did not commit a crime. So logically, from that statement, he does not believe that the president 'clearly did not commit a crime'. That leaves a ton of room for ambiguity, but it's absolutely, unambiguously, NOT an exoneration.

The report found what it found, and due to the unique legal status of the president, there are courses of action that they could not take, so they stopped short of determining what they would have done 'but for' those factors. That's reasonable.

The report is not an indictment. It's also not an exoneration. It's potentially ammunition for the former in the hands of those who are able to indict, though I would be surprised if it went to that point.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on May 31, 2019, 02:42:32
The suggestion that an investigation could make a meaningful determination of exoneration is widely shared and widely mistaken.  Investigators and prosecutors try to make cases for conviction, not exoneration.

As Alan Dershowitz points out (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role):

"Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment."

It's possible that an investigation might uncover evidence that conclusively supports exoneration, but the absence of evidence for exoneration in a prosecutor's case is not sufficient to determine that exoneration either is or is not due to the accused.  "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" only tells us the prosecutor's attempt to make his case, while failing, did not also produce a clear case for the defence.  If investigators/prosecutors in the course of things were routinely able to reliably prosecute or exonerate - and bound by law to do so - I suppose we wouldn't need defenders.

Just to be clear, there is no "but for" with respect to findings (eg. a finding that a crime was committed).  The "but for" (OLC opinion) applies to taking a president to court.  There's no conflict between the statements because Mueller's claim is that he failed to make a finding that supported a prosecution, not that he was prevented by law or policy from making such a finding.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on May 31, 2019, 10:13:22
"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."
https://www.google.com/search?q=I+had+nothing+to+do+with+Russia+helping+me+to+get+elected&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A5%2F30%2F2019%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F31%2F2019&tbm=

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on May 31, 2019, 11:23:12
The suggestion that an investigation could make a meaningful determination of exoneration is widely shared and widely mistaken.  Investigators and prosecutors try to make cases for conviction, not exoneration.

As Alan Dershowitz points out (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role):

"Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment."

It's possible that an investigation might uncover evidence that conclusively supports exoneration, but the absence of evidence for exoneration in a prosecutor's case is not sufficient to determine that exoneration either is or is not due to the accused.  "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so" only tells us the prosecutor's attempt to make his case, while failing, did not also produce a clear case for the defence.  If investigators/prosecutors in the course of things were routinely able to reliably prosecute or exonerate - and bound by law to do so - I suppose we wouldn't need defenders.

Just to be clear, there is no "but for" with respect to findings (eg. a finding that a crime was committed).  The "but for" (OLC opinion) applies to taking a president to court.  There's no conflict between the statements because Mueller's claim is that he failed to make a finding that supported a prosecution, not that he was prevented by law or policy from making such a finding.

Yup, you’re bang on for all of that. Now someone needs to explain to Trump and his defenders that they similarly cannot claim exoneration on this report.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on May 31, 2019, 12:33:41
Words are important and Trump is not always precise, which hurts him.  But he can absolutely claim he did not commit a crime.  Nothing was stopping Mueller from reporting Trump did indeed commit these crimes but OLC prohibits the indictment, but he didn't do that.  Remember, the Special Counsel in the Clinton case did conclude Bill Clinton committed a crime.   

Where Mueller states: '“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” is him saying he did not pursue an investigation to clear the president.  As Dershowitz testifies prosecutors don't do that.  Mueller's report speaks for the fact they found no crimes by Trump, and also very importantly, none of his associates committed obstruction or colluded with Russia either.  OLC doesn't prevent them indicting everyone around the president, and they didn't on the Russia/obstruction matter.  Case closed.

Trump is effectively innocent, and can proclaim it.  Unless you believe that the absence of evidence you are not a criminal means you just might be one.  (That's not directed at you Brihard).     

The hoopla about all of this is the political establishment fighting to remove the outsider before he wrecks their party via Barr, Durham, Harowitz, and Huber.  Former head of the NSA Admiral Mike Rogers, who testified in a FISA court hearing back in 2017, will be a key player also.             



     
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on May 31, 2019, 12:53:56
Mm hm. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence in criminal matters just like anyone else. Until and unless proven guilty of something, he is innocent.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 31, 2019, 12:57:46
Perhaps Mueller is worried that if Trump gets his way, the Uranium One debacle will end up in court with all the players involved, including him.

So, is he still trying to get Trump in dutch? Hoping if they keep up the narrative, they won't get to that investigation?

His job wasn't to exonerate Trump, it was to get evidence enough for the democrats to impeach him.

He failed miserably. Now all he can do is sit and wait for the dems to come up with something else or wait for a call from the Senate Intelligence Committee into his role with the previous government.

Innocent until proven guilty is a US maxim and a pillar of their judicial system.

Trump could not be found guilty.

The gut feeling of Mueller doesn't count.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on May 31, 2019, 13:19:46
Yup, you’re bang on for all of that. Now someone needs to explain to Trump and his defenders that they similarly cannot claim exoneration on this report.

This ^

Although I doubt any of them are willing to listen.  No more so than those on the other side of this.

Polarization at work.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on May 31, 2019, 14:03:14
One side says Trump is innocent, the other says Trump is a Russian asset and/or committed crimes in relation to that investigation. 

The fact remains that one side is correct.  Trump is innocent. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on May 31, 2019, 19:51:15
One side says Trump is innocent, the other says Trump is a Russian asset and/or committed crimes in relation to that investigation. 

The fact remains that one side is correct.  Trump is innocent.

(http://eriklundegaard.com/media/2/doonesbury-guilty-guilty.gif)

 ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: JesseWZ on May 31, 2019, 20:37:08
Schroedingers Mueller Report.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: quadrapiper on May 31, 2019, 23:19:21
The fact remains that one side is correct.  Trump is innocent.
There are undoubtedly crimes the fellow hasn't committed, or commissioned; however, innocent, as a general descriptor, is not even remotely applicable.

As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on May 31, 2019, 23:53:48
There are undoubtedly crimes the fellow hasn't committed, or commissioned; however, innocent, as a general descriptor, is not even remotely applicable.

As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Pure speculation and biased at that.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on June 01, 2019, 00:56:03
There are undoubtedly crimes the fellow hasn't committed, or commissioned; however, innocent, as a general descriptor, is not even remotely applicable.

As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Sorry about my now deleted drive-by post.....wasn't worthy of what I expect from myself.
Bruce
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 01, 2019, 12:54:35
>As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Whose name do you think you could substitute for "adult Trumps" and not have that statement be true?  It's evergreen.

I agree with the commentators who assert the counterintelligence investigation had to happen if there was a suspicion that Americans were conspiring with foreigners (Russians) to meddle in an election.  Near the top of the list of "institutions of democracy" that must be protected [is] a free and fair election.

For the same reason, I agree an internal administration investigation must also happen to reassure Americans that no-one abused pretexts for and methods of the CI investigation to put their thumb on the scale.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: quadrapiper on June 01, 2019, 17:03:37
>As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.
I'm reasonably certain that all of our federal politicians, even the ones whose policies I despise, would steer clear of the sort of gratuitous, hazardous to the nation associations the Trump campaign (and, given e.g. Butina, other elements of the US Right establishment) had swirling around it. There's always foreign contact, especially dealing with anyone from a high-level business, diplomatic, or political background or family (e.g. Martin, Trudeau), but that's background noise compared to Ivan strolling into Trump Tower.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 01, 2019, 17:25:04
A meeting in which the campaign participants expected to receive dirt on the opposition campaign, and then blew it off because it didn't meet expectations?  I fully realize it is repeatedly presented by critics as something grave and troubling; but that's a problem for the people who find it so to deal with.  I find it pretty trivial compared to all the other mud-slinging and dirt-digging that goes on during election campaigns.  Too much stuff is misrepresented as something graver than it is, or misrepresented entirely.  From today's reading I see that there are still some writers (well-respected in the world of journalism) who can't resist writing a sentence to invite a reader to conclude that the problem with Flynn is that he met with a Russian, rather than that he lied about it later.  As long as the Blue Team can't climb down from their outrage enough to start talking truthfully, I expect the Red Team to go right on making equally outrageous (eg. "exoneration") claims.

Two simple exercises:
1) On a scale of 1 (least) to 10 (worst), where does the Trump Tower meeting rank?
2) On the same scale, where does the Steele investigation rank (as a dirt-digging effort; disregard its use by the FBI)?

Shifting the context from the US to Canada doesn't make much sense - Canada's relative importance and influence is much lesser.  If Canada had the clout in the world the US does, I suppose we'd observe similar levels of sleaze.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 01, 2019, 22:41:08
As for the election campaign, it seems reasonable to flag it as being something of a grab-bag of white collar crimes, questionable contacts and influences, and general sleaze. Nothing about any of the adult Trumps suggests that, offered advantage by a foreign power, they wouldn't seize that advantage.

Ivanka or Don Jr. In 2024?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: quadrapiper on June 02, 2019, 14:42:54
Ivanka or Don Jr. In 2024?
DJT, first of his name, etc...

Wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the ambition.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 02, 2019, 16:45:46
"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."
https://www.google.com/search?q=I+had+nothing+to+do+with+Russia+helping+me+to+get+elected&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A5%2F30%2F2019%2Ccd_max%3A5%2F31%2F2019&tbm=

Seen that and a bunch of people flipping out over how this is an admission of guilt and he needs to be impeached bla bla bla.

Same people whom when Trump makes a statement they don't like or agree with, brush it off as nonsense and the ramblings of a mad man not to be believed.

It seems when to believe Trump is directly related to how bad it makes him look.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 02, 2019, 16:59:48
Seen that and a bunch of people flipping out over how this is an admission of guilt

I read it as a denial ,

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."

and he needs to be impeached bla bla bla.

Quote
May 28, 2019 

Senate Republicans Say They Would Kill Trump Impeachment Charges Instantly
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-impeachment-senate-gop-would-kill-charges-instantly.html



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 02, 2019, 17:21:21
The "admission" some people are excited about is the implied admission that Russia did help him get elected (ie. another nail for those that like to pound the "illegitimately elected" table).

But Trump is the speaker, so we're left to guess whether his intent was to express the idea that Russia did help get him elected, or that Russia did try to help get him elected.  (Depending on viewpoint, the political distinction between Russian interference being a meaningful/successful intervention and a mere attempt can be huge.)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on June 03, 2019, 13:26:29
It seems when to believe Trump any politician is directly related to how bad it makes him/her look.
True, but not JUST for #POTUS45  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 03, 2019, 18:54:17
I read it as a denial ,

"I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected."

I wanna say the antifa psychopaths helped more than the Russians.

Thought I read somewhere that a whopping $3000 in campaign donations were attributed to Russia.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 03, 2019, 19:54:16
Quote
I wanna say the antifa psychopaths helped more than the Russians.

I just know what I read in the papers,
Quote
The Atlantic
The special counsel pointed back to the words of his report. Here are its key findings.
May 29, 2019

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

The Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” and it “welcomed” this help.

There is insufficient evidence to accuse the Trump campaign of criminal conspiracy with its Russian benefactors. However, “the social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.”

These contacts were covered up by a series of lies, both to the special counsel and to Congress. Lying by the Trump campaign successfully obscured much of what happened in 2016. The special counsel in some cases “was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.” In particular, the investigation never did determine what happened to proprietary Trump-campaign polling data shared with the Russians.

Within hours of the appointment of a special counsel to investigate 2016 events, Trump began defaming him. Trump had already fired the FBI director who investigated these events. His first order to fire the special counsel appointed in the director’s place was issued on June 17, 2017, a month after Mueller’s appointment. That order would be followed by many more. Trump directed his staff to lie about these orders.

Over and above his efforts to fire the special counsel, “the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

The subversion of the investigation was brazen. “Many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view.”

Full article here,
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/mueller/590467/


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on June 03, 2019, 20:02:08
Gee, imagine the gall to call a witch hunt a witch hunt. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 03, 2019, 20:12:19
Gee, imagine the gall to call a witch hunt a witch hunt.

"Fake news!"    :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 03, 2019, 20:29:43
You know what's probably worse than a foreign government trying to interphere with your countries elections? *

When agencies from your own government like the FBI do.



*for all I know the Russians did try and interphere. Considering how many countries the USA has interphered with I rally can't find myself getting too upset about someone doing it to them.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 03, 2019, 20:58:18
*for all I know the Russians did try and interphere.

He denied it,

Quote
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.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=sbT1XOfuEJDL_QbQw77wBw&q=%22great+confidence+in+my+intelligence+people%2C+but+I+will+tell+you+that+President+Putin+was+extremely+strong+and+powerful+in+his+denial%22&oq=%22great+confidence+in+my+intelligence+people%2C+but+I+will+tell+you+that+President+Putin+was+extremely+strong+and+powerful+in+his+denial%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...13321.21167..21612...0.0..0.0.0.......2....1..gws-wiz.VA5hxpQOfbU

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on June 03, 2019, 21:11:20
Every country interferes in other countries business if it suits their fancy.....always has been, always will be.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 03, 2019, 23:15:52
>I wanna say the antifa psychopaths helped more than the Russians.

Good luck measuring that.  The influence of either probably doesn't kick in until the third or fourth decimal place.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on June 21, 2019, 07:47:40
Fave excerpt from this one (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/20/joe-biden-age-2020-1374591) ...
Quote
... The hope is that voters will embrace Biden as a kind of American Churchill.

The past 24 hours raise, not for the first time, a more painful possibility: Grampa Simpson is running for president ...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 21, 2019, 10:31:05
Quote
The past 24 hours raise, not for the first time, a more painful possibility: Grampa Simpson is running for president ...

Opinions on which septuagenarian is the more "stable genius" may depend on which team one supports.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on June 21, 2019, 11:50:04
Opinions on which septuagenarian is the more "stable genius" may depend on which team one supports.
Well, neither are in a great position to realistically play the "he's too old" card …  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on June 21, 2019, 13:53:41
He blinked!

Quote
Trump confirms he called off retaliatory Iran attack ‘10 minutes before the strike’

President Trump confirmed early Friday that he called off a retaliatory attack on Iran in response to the downing of a U.S. drone “10 minutes before the strike,” saying the number of expected casualties was not "proportionate" to what Tehran did.

In a stunning tweet thread, the president said the U.S. was "cocked & loaded to retaliate" with plans to hit three sites, but he reversed course after asking military leaders about how many would be killed. ...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-called-off-retaliatory-strike-against-iran-in-last-minute-wsj (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-called-off-retaliatory-strike-against-iran-in-last-minute-wsj)

Quote
How Donald Trump created one hell of a mess with Iran

The shooting down of a US military drone by Iran on Thursday emphasizes that the conflict between the United States and Iran is deepening.

It's a crisis that President Donald Trump predictably provoked by pulling out of the Iranian nuclear deal just over a year ago -- with no real Plan B beyond imposing ever-tougher sanctions on the Iranian regime.
But the story gets more complicated, because in the last few weeks, Trump has sent mixed messages regarding his true intentions. ...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/opinions/us-iran-mess-trump-endgame-bergen/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/opinions/us-iran-mess-trump-endgame-bergen/index.html)

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 21, 2019, 14:04:53
I doubt he blinked, rather he didn't want to kill upwards of 150 people at this time. The sanctions are hurting and more sanctions might be a better option unless reflagged tankers or a USN vessel is hit. PRC involvement in Iran is a factor for caution as trade negotiations are being worked out. Hitting a location where there might be Russian or PRC military personnel would pose a much bigger problem than just Iran.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 21, 2019, 14:15:41
Blinked, or made a point?

I doubt Trump's own thought process led to the decision.  I see the result of a deliberation involving several people, with the more peaceable faction carrying the day - probably the lawyer in the room, or the diplomats.  So now everyone knows the US isn't necessarily going to be provoked into military escalation by a trivial provocation, and that if a response happens it is unlikely to be equally trivial.

People who in recent weeks cautioned the administration against military escalation should be happy.  Nevertheless, I suppose now some will switch to baiting Trump ("weak Trump! indecisive Trump!") as having lost face, in order to continue serving their partisan political goals.  If that goads Trump into overreaction, then they can exploit that too, even if it means people die who otherwise might not.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on June 21, 2019, 14:58:21

Strategic decisions are not always political decisions.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 21, 2019, 16:53:56
He blinked!

 :rofl:

He made a sound, humane decision. I know it drives the TDS crowd crazy, but there it is.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on June 21, 2019, 17:30:39
:rofl:

He made a sound, humane decision. I know it drives the TDS crowd crazy, but there it is.

Yup,....and didn't make a lot of future terrorists.  Sometimes just having Daddy unbuckle his belt sends a good message.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on June 21, 2019, 18:11:29
You're glossing over the key point. He originally made a decision to strike (undoubtedly knowing that there would be casualties). The strike package was launched.

Then, he changed his mind and called them back. That's blinking and that's a clear sign of indecision.

I'm not a hawk here and I know that there are clearly pro and con issues as well as differing factions both within the White House and Congress. The issue here isn't whether a strike was warranted or not nor whether this was a decision made on humanitarian grounds. What it is is nothing more nor less a clear signal that Trump is indecisive and incapable of making a reasoned, sound decision. He shifts with the wind and whoever gets to him last.

This is a bad, bad signal to send to the world and particularly to America's enemies. His credibility can't sink much lower.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 21, 2019, 18:37:31
You're glossing over the key point. He originally made a decision to strike (undoubtedly knowing that there would be casualties). The strike package was launched.

Then, he changed his mind and called them back. That's blinking and that's a clear sign of indecision.

I'm not a hawk here and I know that there are clearly pro and con issues as well as differing factions both within the White House and Congress. The issue here isn't whether a strike was warranted or not nor whether this was a decision made on humanitarian grounds. What it is is nothing more nor less a clear signal that Trump is indecisive and incapable of making a reasoned, sound decision. He shifts with the wind and whoever gets to him last.

This is a bad, bad signal to send to the world and particularly to America's enemies. His credibility can't sink much lower.

 :cheers:
That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. You are also allowed to read whatever you want into it. Bottom line, it's just your opinion. One not shared by everyone. Not everyone is ready to damn him for everything he does.

The guy decides not to escalate and kill people, but still gets pillored. You would likely be in that group that would vilify him if he did launch and are now trying to pigeon hole him when he didn't give you a reason to be outraged.

That's just my opinion though. One that carries the same weight as yours.

Cheers,
 :cheers:



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on June 21, 2019, 18:57:47
That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. You are also allowed to read whatever you want into it. Bottom line, it's just your opinion. One not shared by everyone. Not everyone is ready to damn him for everything he does.

The guy decides not to escalate and kill people, but still gets pillored. You would likely be in that group that would vilify him if he did launch and are now trying to pigeon hole him when he didn't give you a reason to be outraged.

That's just my opinion though. One that carries the same weight as yours.

Cheers,
 :cheers:

Just for the record, I would not have been in the crowd that might have pilloried him for completing the strike nor would I have been outraged with that. For that matter I'm not outraged that he didn't complete the strike.

What I am is "concerned" about (and what I am damning him for) is the weakened state of America's stature and credibility and how emboldened America's enemies will be by the fact that he flip flopped in the middle of the mission. Trump supporters should be concerned about this too.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on June 21, 2019, 19:11:18
"Flip flop??"  I guess you could say Vasily Arkhipov "flip flopped".....
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on June 21, 2019, 19:52:26
"Flip flop??"  I guess you could say Vasily Arkhipov "flip flopped".....

No, Arkhipov never said ‘launch’ and then reversed his decision. He was in the unusual position of being a third person with authority to authorize launch when there are generally only two, and he alone of the three did not believe that nuclear war must have started, and therefore he withheld his authorization to launch. It’s a fortunate coincidence of history that he happened to be on that submarine, but not a particularly astute reference in this context.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 21, 2019, 23:00:27
Well, neither are in a great position to realistically play the "he's too old" card …  ;D

President Eisenhower had this to say about that, “The greater likelihood that a man of 70 will break down under a load than a man of 50.”

Eisenhower: A need for “younger men in positions of the highest responsibility so as to symbolize the youth, vigor and virility of the Republican Party.”

Eisenhower: "All the programs in the world, and all the Eisenhower prestige, cannot elect some revolting old Republican hack against a youthful, able, and personable Democrat.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt was fifty when he won his first term; John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were in their forties.

He said, “We all know that when advancing years and diminishing energy begin to take their toll, the last one that ever appreciates such a situation is the victim himself.”

Eisenhower was willing to consider the nation’s welfare ahead of personal ambition. He was 62, but had the prestige and qualifications of successful 5-star general.

Edit to add,

Just read something about Biden telling voters about driving girls on dates in his '51 Plymouth.  :)

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 24, 2019, 18:34:27
>What I am is "concerned" about (and what I am damning him for) is the weakened state of America's stature and credibility and how emboldened America's enemies will be by the fact that he flip flopped in the middle of the mission. Trump supporters should be concerned about this too.

So we observe a decision-making and execution process that allows changes pretty much up to the last minute.  This is sub-optimal compared to ... what, exactly?  Over the top at 06:00 boys, even if the artillery is late?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 24, 2019, 21:20:44
Ever since FJAG made that observation I've been thinking of it non-stop. Is a leader who changes their mind last minute indecisive or are they showing flexibility?

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on June 24, 2019, 21:36:49
Ever since FJAG made that observation I've been thinking of it non-stop. Is a leader who changes their mind last minute indecisive or are they showing flexibility?

Depends on your politically stripe.

Remember Obama’s Red Line moment...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/chris-wallace-compares-trump-to-obama-is-iran-his-red-line-moment
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 24, 2019, 21:42:14
I was thinking more about us as leaders in the CAF. If we change out mind last minute sorta thing. Really has me thinking.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on June 24, 2019, 21:48:20
I was thinking more about us as leaders in the CAF. If we change out mind last minute sorta thing. Really has me thinking.

Depends on the reason.  Was it to avoid risk? Was it because of new info? Was a gut feeling?  The results are what ultimately matters.  How he made that decision also counts. Was it cool and calculated or was it in a fit of panic. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 24, 2019, 23:52:14
A truly indecisive person would have difficulty committing to a decision in the first place.

Most decision support processes include the concept of a go/no-go meeting - sometimes more than one (I suppose some would be more accurately called decision points in military lingo, when there are discrete conditions to be met).  Sometimes the decision is "no-go" ("go" usually being the assumed posture going in).  Usually "Was it to avoid risk?" and/or "Was it because of new info?" have been the governing factors in my experience.  Sometimes the new info/assessment hinges on the introduction of a new player who may not have been involved in earlier stages of planning (novel assessment/emphasis of factors, even if the basic info is all stuff that was known prior).

If you can explain the change credibly or even plausibly, it's probably not indecision.

I suppose there's always room for a deliberate "launch-it-and-then-call-it-off" theory.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on June 24, 2019, 23:55:51
I was thinking more about us as leaders in the CAF. If we change out mind last minute sorta thing. Really has me thinking.

“Has the situation changed?”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on June 25, 2019, 02:16:39
A truly indecisive person would have difficulty committing to a decision in the first place.

Most decision support processes include the concept of a go/no-go meeting - sometimes more than one (I suppose some would be more accurately called decision points in military lingo, when there are discrete conditions to be met).  Sometimes the decision is "no-go" ("go" usually being the assumed posture going in).  Usually "Was it to avoid risk?" and/or "Was it because of new info?" have been the governing factors in my experience.  Sometimes the new info/assessment hinges on the introduction of a new player who may not have been involved in earlier stages of planning (novel assessment/emphasis of factors, even if the basic info is all stuff that was known prior).

If you can explain the change credibly or even plausibly, it's probably not indecision.

I suppose there's always room for a deliberate "launch-it-and-then-call-it-off" theory.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - Dr Sigmund Freud

When you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras - Dr Theodore Woodward

When someone tells you he changed his mind because someone told him 10 minutes before H-Hour that there'd be casualties when he already knew or ought to have known that; think flip flop - FJAG  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 25, 2019, 12:47:34
The excuse publicly offered may not be an accurate representation of what happened.  One fact is that the strike was called off shortly before some meaningful point (presumably, the time at which the first munition went beyond recall?).  Two things we don't know as fact: the reason(s) for the decision, and the time at which the decision was made.  All we have is Trump's say-so.

"When [Trump] tells you [anything]", how do you know when he is telling truth and when he is not?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 25, 2019, 15:53:23
Now Canada has the opportunity to escort tankers in troubled waters.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 25, 2019, 19:27:22
Now Canada has the opportunity to escort tankers in troubled waters.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on June 26, 2019, 02:13:29
From the realDonaldTrump Twitter account:

Quote
Donald J. Trump

Verified account
 
@realDonaldTrump
 14h14 hours ago
More
....Iran’s very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry & Obama!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)

So much for proportionality.

 :clubinhand:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on June 26, 2019, 09:38:14
From the realDonaldTrump Twitter account:

So much for proportionality.

 :clubinhand:

Quote
No more John Kerry & Obama!

I guess not.  :)

Silver Star 
Bronze Star (with valor)
Purple Heart (3)
Combat Action Ribbon
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Loachman on July 02, 2019, 21:55:42
Comparing President Trump to more "conventional" leaders generally seems to lead people to false conclusions.

He does not think - or act - like most people. His background is in real estate and entertainment - wrestling, beauty pageants, and The Apprentice - rather than conventional politics. He seems to have a pretty good understanding for the ways that other people think and act, and different societal customs, and gets results.

He prefers to use economic measures to influence governments rather than military force, and has the means to do so, as the following article shows.

He also uses the carrot-and-stick method, although not necessarily in that order. It has achieved unprecedented results with North Korea, first by out-crazying President Kim and then offering him prosperity and a way to a better and safer future for both North Korea and President Kim - who must be well-aware that brutal dictators eventually run out of time and either flee into exile or meet grisly ends. Their body language during the border crossing was quite encouraging.

He made a clear threat against Iran. His previous cruise missile strike in Syria and MOAB strike against Daesh in Afghanistan have demonstrated that he is not averse to using force where it can achieve something positive. He also demonstrated, during the Syrian strike, that he did not wish to waste lives and, during the MOAB strike, that he was willing to kill real enemies. He is aware of the effects of sanctions on the Iranian economy and that a large chunk of the Iranian population, especially the younger ones, do not like their theocratic overlords. As long as Iran can be contained and kept from developing nuclear weapons, it is of little real threat and the regime may well crumble in the next few years. A disproportionate counter-strike could well harm American influence in the Iranian population - we've heard the "bombing only makes more enemies" before. Showing some mercy, with a credible consequence if Americans or their allies are attacked, seems, to me, a much better course of action. I suspect that his threat and "flip-flop" were more planned than not.

He's not shown any tendency towards indecision or flipping and flopping in the past. He's also not stupid, else he'd likely be much less rich and presidenty than he is now. And, if one goes through Youtube and watches his interviews on talkshows, he's been very consistent over several decades - and also quite popular with his hosts and audiences alike. He was never "racist", "homophobic", "misogynistic", or anything else negative until he decided to take on both the Republican and Democratic establishments and and stand up to extremely-biased and vindictive mainstream media.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/us-iran-standoff-trump-has-more-choices-than-previous-presidents/

Iran and the Levers of Global Power

By Victor Davis Hanson July 2, 2019 6:30 AM

Vis-à-vis Tehran, Trump has more choices than previous presidents have had, partly because the U.S. is now the world’s largest producer of oil and gas.

<snip>

Yet the Left now can apply little pressure or find much traction in its Pavlovian opposition to all initiatives Trump - never truer than during the budding Iranian crisis where it is playing a reflexively negative role. Progressives initially railed about Trump’s provocation and warlike politics that allegedly risked war. After Trump’s stand-down, they immediately turned on a dime to damn the administration’s purported appeasement and inaction in the face of Iranian provocation.

The Left forgets that Trump ran on a Jacksonian policy of strong deterrence predicated on reactive not preemptive defense. The subtext of his appeal to the swing-state constituencies was that the sons and daughters of the deplorables were not going to risk dying for the nation-building dreams of the elite. Like it or not, Trump’s electoral concerns are not just that he not appear weak in the face of Iranian aggression, but also that he not incite a war of choice with Iran or undertake optional strikes. By showing forbearance thus far, Trump has put the Left in a dilemma, given that the next Iranian aggression, if it targets Americans, will earn a response from a heretofore restrained Trump, and the dilemma will be the Left’s: Is there any conceivable scenario in which it would strike back against Iranian aggression that resulted in the deaths of Americans?

In sum, Trump has some choices with Iran that few other presidents have enjoyed. After considering all the bad alternatives, Trump will likely conclude that the good one is to stay calm as Iran implodes, to not play omnipotent global cop responsible for the safe commerce of those who oppose U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, and to not weaken sanctions - and be ready to hit back hard should Iran be so foolish as to kill Americans in international space.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.html

Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly Mistake

By Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Thomas Gibbons-Neff June 21, 2019

WASHINGTON - He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.

While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy. The hawks did not have the president’s best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.

However much weight that advice may or may not have had, the sentiments certainly reinforced the doubts that Mr. Trump himself harbored as he navigated his way through one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions of his presidency. By his own account, the president called off the “cocked & loaded” strike on Thursday night with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people.

The concerns that Mr. Trump heard from Mr. Carlson reflected that part of the presidential id that has always hesitated at pulling the trigger. Belligerent and confrontational as he is in his public persona, Mr. Trump has at times pulled back from the use of force, convinced that America has wasted too many lives and too much money in pointless Middle East wars and wary of repeating what he considers the mistakes of his predecessors.

<snip>

“To those who want to criticize the president, I would say they ought to be thankful they’re not the ones having to make that decision,” said Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who was among the lawmakers at the White House that day. “I watched him really agonize over this.”

<snip>

One thing made clear yet again, however, was just how different Mr. Trump’s decision-making process is from those of other presidents, even on the weightiest of issues to confront a commander in chief.

Meetings and memos aside, he trusts his instincts more than institutions, reaches out to unconventional sources of guidance and is willing to defy a roomful of advisers. He has not had a Senate-confirmed defense secretary for nearly six months, and the acting secretary resigned  this week. And those advisers he does have were busy trying to outmaneuver each other.

Mr. Trump had been resisting a military response to repeated provocations by Iran for weeks by the time he woke up on Thursday morning to discover that an American spy plane had been shot down. Now led by John R. Bolton, his hawkish national security adviser, the president was faced with the choice of how to respond.

On Thursday morning, only hours after the drone was shot down, Mr. Bolton met for breakfast at the White House at 7 a.m. with Patrick Shanahan, the acting defense secretary who had announced his resignation just three days earlier, as well as with Mark T. Esper, the Army secretary set to replace Mr. Shanahan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The group discussed the drone episode and agreed on a possible military response to recommend to the president, according to an administration official. At 11 a.m., the same group along with other national security officials met with Mr. Trump to brief him on options for a strike on Iran. According to one administration official, the potential casualties of such an attack were discussed at that meeting.

But as usual, Mr. Trump did not rely exclusively on his official team. Among the outsiders he talked with in the morning was Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a close ally. Mr. Graham urged that he consider a military response to the drone’s shooting down.

<snip>

Administration officials said on Friday that the president’s national security team was unanimous in favoring a response and all agreed with the final option recommended to Mr. Trump. But several military officials said General Dunford cautioned about the possible repercussions of a strike, warning that it could endanger American forces and allies in the region. A 6 p.m. meeting in Mr. Shanahan’s office at the Pentagon including General Dunford was described as particularly tense.

As for Mr. Pompeo, he argued during meetings at the White House that sanctions were having a powerful effect by slashing Iran’s revenues from oil sales, according to a senior administration official familiar with the discussion. While he expressed support for a pinpoint military response, he stressed that the sanctions were having the long-term effect the administration had hoped. Some of Mr. Trump’s aides wondered whether a strike would upset a strategy that was already working.

<snip>

But an administration official informed about the discussions privately disputed that account. The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that, the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime, when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the military planned.

That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared with Mr. Shanahan or General Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the strike.

Pentagon lawyers are typically involved in casualty and collateral damage estimates, charged with considering the worst possible outcome. Such numbers are fluid and almost always a rough guess, as it is almost impossible to know who or what will be at the site of an attack when it occurs.

But the lawyers’ involvement was seen by some of Mr. Trump’s aides as an attempt to circumvent Mr. Bolton and Pentagon leaders to influence the president. In effect, whether intended to or not, the casualty estimate played to the concerns that Mr. Trump had shared with Mr. Carlson and other skeptics of military action in the Middle East.

Gen. Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chairman who is close to the Trump White House, said another factor came into play during the deliberations - the president was told that the attack on the drone was really a mistake, as Mr. Trump had publicly suggested to reporters early in the day.

“The president got some additional information that the Iranian national leaders were frustrated or furious with the tactical commander who made the decision to shoot down the American drone,” General Keane said in an interview. Among those who were said to be angry, he said, was Qassim Suleimani, the powerful commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force.

General Keane said it was unclear whether the commander who ordered the downing of the drone was operating within his authority or was a rogue figure. But either way, he said, it impressed upon Mr. Trump that he would be risking a dangerous escalation over what was not intended to be an attack by Iran’s top leaders.

“I don’t think that’s what was decisive for the president,” General Keane said, but it contributed to the decision, which he said was mainly driven by the casualty concern. “What was decisive for him was the comparison for him, compared to destroying missile batteries and killing people, of shooting down a drone.”

By this point, time was running out. Mr. Graham, who had pushed for a strike, was on an airplane heading to the West Coast and out of touch. Mr. Trump scrubbed the mission.

The decision made, the military ordered ships and planes in the region to stand down. At the White House, Mr. Trump turned on his television to watch the opening of Mr. Carlson’s 8 p.m. show, where he heard what surely must have sounded like vindication. Onscreen, Mr. Carlson declared that “foreign wars have ended in dismal failure for the United States.”

While no decision had been announced yet, Mr. Carlson praised Mr. Trump for resisting military intervention in Iran. “The same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago are demanding a new war, this one with Iran,” he said. “The president, to his great credit, appears to be skeptical of this - very skeptical.”

If he kept the television on, though, Mr. Trump would have heard a radically different message from another friend on Fox at 9 p.m. With the news of Mr. Trump’s decision still not public, Sean Hannity declared that Mr. Trump may have “no choice” but to “bomb the hell out of them.”

For one night, at least, that would not be true. But the battle for Mr. Trump’s ear is not over.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 02, 2019, 22:43:03
Awesome.

Only thing all those words didn't explain was why the Democrats got 3 million more votes than the Republicans in 2016, and 10 million more votes in 2018.  :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Loachman on July 02, 2019, 23:05:33
Which, for a Presidential election, is totally irrelevant as has been pointed out many times. And which, in the 2018 election, resulted in some House gains for the Democrats and some Senatorial gains for the Republicans.

The same rules applied to both sides in the Presidential election. One side ran a good and vigorous campaign (and for a much lower cost), and spoke to a lot of dissatisfied voters who'd been taken for granted for too long (the "deplorables" in the "flyover" states). The other campaigned mainly in the big cities on either coast where it already had an advantage and had a candidate who many despised and displayed real health concerns on several occasions.

Donald Trump was doing one or two huge rallies almost every day, and Clinton could barely attract a few hundred and lacked energy.

And the Democrats still don't understand what they did wrong, either.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 02, 2019, 23:21:09
>Only thing all those words didn't explain was why the Democrats got 3 million more votes than the Republicans in 2016, and 10 million more votes in 2018.

Why bother to explain that which is meaningless?  Each election is distinct.  "the Democrats" is just a blob.  All "got more votes" suggests is over-performance in some political divisions, which is irrelevant in a representative system.  California doesn't get more say just because it feels very strongly about being Democratic.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 03, 2019, 17:01:28
Which, for a Presidential election, is totally irrelevant as has been pointed out many times.

It’s still a valuable gauge of political sentiment, particularly given the rather horrendous gerrymandering many districts have been subjected to.

And which, in the 2018 election, resulted in some House gains for the Democrats

They won a net gain of 40 seats.

Democrat votes: 60,727,598
Republican votes: 50,983,895

and some Senatorial gains for the Republicans.

Pretty hard to beat the Republicans when a state like Wyoming ( population 580,000 ) has just as much clout as California ( population 40 million ).

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 03, 2019, 17:21:42
Sure it is....win both States.  You make UT found like there's a stacked deck somewhere.

It's been 3 freakin' years....Trump won...get over it.   He may not win this time,  I won't sit and find 100,000 excuses and tears for it like some folks.  He just didn't  win...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 03, 2019, 17:29:10
Pretty hard to beat the Republicans when a state like Wyoming ( population 580,000 ) has just as much clout as California ( population 40 million ).

The population of the states is irrelevant, all states are equal. The senators represent the interests of the state, they don't represent the population. The house represents the people of the districts of the state. It would not be right to have more senators in the one state than another.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 03, 2019, 17:38:28
Since they've lost the popular vote in every election, except one, since the 1980's, my uneducated guess is the Republicans will again win the Electoral College in 2020. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 03, 2019, 17:50:55
popular vote
Popular vote? What is that? How does it figure in a presidential election? I never heard of any such thing taken into account.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 03, 2019, 17:59:01
Popular vote? What is that? How does it figure in a presidential election? I never heard of any such thing taken into account.

Not sure, but the current POTUS seems upset about it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 03, 2019, 18:01:07
Not sure, but the current POTUS seems upset about it.

Yeah, you know everything upsets him.  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 03, 2019, 18:08:18
In respect of the presidential election, there is no 'popular' vote that enters into the system or process.

Discussion of a 'popular' vote is a canard and a diversion and is irrelevant to the conversation of presidential elections, in the US.

Currently, it is mostly trotted out by hillary supporters and liberals that, three years later, can't accept their loss.

It carries zero weight and consequence. It's just a sound bite that means nothing and only tries to cloud the issue.

 :2c:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 03, 2019, 18:42:10
Yeah, you know everything upsets him.  ;D

Keeps him busy on Twitter.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 03, 2019, 18:47:35
It's been 3 freakin' years....Trump won...get over it.   

Loud and clear.

But, like it or not, the investigation into the election is still in the news,

Quote
07/02/2019

Trump to hold rally on Mueller testimony day
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/02/trump-mueller-testimony-day-1396053
President Donald Trump is set to hold a rally on the same day that former special counsel Robert Mueller will make his highly anticipated testimony before Congress.
 

Not sure, but the current POTUS seems upset about it.

Seems that way,

Quote
June 24th, 2019

Trump’s latest California voter fraud claim as baseless as past allegations
https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2019/jun/24/donald-trump/pants-fire-trumps-latest-california-voter-fraud-cl/
Todd: "You didn't like the fact that you lost the popular vote. That bothered you, didn't it?"






Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on July 03, 2019, 20:49:50
He's also not stupid, else he'd likely be much less rich and presidenty than he is now.
   :facepalm:  He came into life as a millionaire through inherited wealth, and has since declared SIX corporate bankruptcies.  Of course, anyone worshipping such an unrepentant compulsive liar would dismiss mere facts as irrelevant;  yep, he's a genius.

And as I haven't a clue how his behaviour could possibly  be 'much less "presidenty",' I'll just bow out and let the Lewinsky-fest continue.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 03, 2019, 23:08:14
He has presided over a stunning economic recovery. Facts are facts. It was enabled by eliminating Obama rules.He has enabled dialogue with North Korea and renegotiated some bad trade deals. I predict this thread will continue into 2020 after his re-election.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 03, 2019, 23:12:28
 
   :facepalm:  He came into life as a millionaire through inherited wealth, and has since declared SIX corporate bankruptcies.  Of course, anyone worshipping such an unrepentant compulsive liar would dismiss mere facts as irrelevant;  yep, he's a genius.

And as I haven't a clue how his behaviour could possibly  be 'much less "presidenty",' I'll just bow out and let the Lewinsky-fest continue.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on July 03, 2019, 23:16:56
He has presided over a stunning economic recovery. Facts are facts. It was enabled by eliminating Obama rules.He has enabled dialogue with North Korea and renegotiated some bad trade deals. I predict this thread will continue into 2020 after his re-election.

If you look at the statistics of the US economy since 2010, the Trump years largely fall into the general trend that started under Obama. Theres little statistical evidence to prove a "stunning economic recovery", though the economic trends have remained relatively favourable.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/numbers/economies/us/

His discussions with North Korea is a positive step.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 03, 2019, 23:34:50
If you look at the statistics of the US economy since 2010, the Trump years largely fall into the general trend that started under Obama. Theres little statistical evidence to prove a "stunning economic recovery", though the economic trends have remained relatively favourable.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/numbers/economies/us/

His discussions with North Korea is a positive step.

Agree fully with your assessment on the economy. Trump has done little beyond lining a few more pockets amongst the 1%.

Re Korea, I think Trump's only accomplishment is to provide North Korea with a major psychological victory by giving legitimacy to what is one of the world's most repressive and disgusting regimes. Anyone can be a sycophant the way Trump has been. There has been little or no progress respecting denuclearization and there is no prospect that there ever will be.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 03, 2019, 23:49:39
>Pretty hard to beat the Republicans when a state like Wyoming ( population 580,000 ) has just as much clout as California ( population 40 million ).

Since we're playing Stupid Numbers Games, look on the bright side.  35 Senate seats were up for election; Democrats won 24* and Republicans 11.  (*Both independents caucus with the Democrats; one is currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination).  Democrats won 68.6% of the races with only 59.4% of the popular vote.

(CA, with its peculiar electoral system which resulted in two Democrats running off for the Senate seat, isn't the best example to use for beating the results-should-reflect-voter-party-distribution dead horse.)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 03, 2019, 23:52:49
Agree fully with your assessment on the economy. Trump has done little beyond lining a few more pockets amongst the 1%.

Re Korea, I think Trump's only accomplishment is to provide North Korea with a major psychological victory by giving legitimacy to what is one of the world's most repressive and disgusting regimes. Anyone can be a sycophant the way Trump has been. There has been little or no progress respecting denuclearization and there is no prospect that there ever will be.

 :cheers:

The economy was crap and it was all Obama. doing as he was a devout socialist, if not a communist.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 03, 2019, 23:59:01
(Another post disappeared into the aether.  Well, I suppose it'll help me to be concise.)

>Not sure, but the current POTUS seems upset about it.

Not as upset as the people on the losing side of the electoral college result.

There is nothing stunning about the current economic recovery.  It has always been atypically weak.  People currently bragging about low unemployment numbers are making the same mistake as Obama's cheerleaders: not accounting for the number of people who stopped looking for work, who are not counted in the conventional measure (the U3 number).  The only thing stunning about the current period of expansion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_expansions_in_the_United_States) is its duration.

Nevertheless, given the uptick in employment among the people in the lowest income range, a helluva lot more than "lining a few more pockets amongst the 1%" has happened recently.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 04, 2019, 00:06:09
The economy was crap and it was all Obama. doing as he was a devout socialist, if not a communist.

Just a little primer on the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis that developed and exploded under Bush and which Obama's administration had to clean up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008)

Take your time reading it. No rush. There are dozens of external links to help you delve into reality.

Cheers.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: YZT580 on July 04, 2019, 00:46:40
Just a little primer on the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis that developed and exploded under Bush and which Obama's administration had to clean up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008)

Take your time reading it. No rush. There are dozens of external links to help you delve into reality.

Cheers.
From what I have been given to understand and, from what I have read, the Lehmann sub-prime system was established by legislation passed during the Clinton era. 

 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 04, 2019, 01:42:05
T6's comment was that it "was all Obama". It wasn't.

That said I'm not so sure that the sub-prime issue can be laid at the feet of the Clinton congress. If it does go that far back there were several Republican administrations which could have intervened if they had recognized and wanted to correct the issue. They didn't. The real proximate causes of the bubble came during the Bush years:

Quote
...  Two proximate causes were the rise in subprime lending and the increase in housing speculation. The percentage of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated during a given year rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S.[6][7] A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 90% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.[4] Housing speculation also increased, with the share of mortgage originations to investors (i.e. those owning homes other than primary residences) rising significantly from around 20% in 2000 to around 35% in 2006–2007 ...

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

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 04, 2019, 13:28:18
The crisis emerged from factors going back at least 30 years.

Whose "watch" it happened on is an infantile point of view.  Congress was responsible for most of the militating factors, the crisis stabilization measures (successful), and the post-crisis attempts to goose economic growth (weak).  Congress was not under unified party control of one party during all that time.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 04, 2019, 15:20:42
The crisis emerged from factors going back at least 30 years.

Whose "watch" it happened on is an infantile point of view.  Congress was responsible for most of the militating factors, the crisis stabilization measures (successful), and the post-crisis attempts to goose economic growth (weak).  Congress was not under unified party control of one party during all that time.

So just to be clear; are you calling T6 "infantile" for putting it on Obama or me for putting it on Bush?

 :dunno:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 04, 2019, 17:20:15
The point of view is infantile (childish, simplistic) irrespective of which team's flag is carried.  Persons not normally infantile can hold an infantile point of view; they may choose to learn more and amend it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on July 04, 2019, 21:57:34
The economy was crap and it was all Obama. doing as he was a devout socialist, if not a communist.

I'm interested to know how his administration, which came into effect on Jan 20, 2009, could have prevented the crapshow that was the GFC of 2007-2008.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 04, 2019, 23:43:14
"The economy was crap"

Not much point assessing the truth of that statement unless the speaker clarifies whether he is talking about the crisis, the recovery, or both.  The crisis has been described as the worst one since the Great Depression.   The recovery has been described as the weakest/slowest (and longest - a positive feature which might be in some way dependent on the slow pace).  The crisis stabilization measures worked well enough to arrest the crisis.  The recovery measures didn't work very well.  The government distracted itself with the PPACA when it should have been working on recovery measures.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 05, 2019, 09:38:30

Did anyone watch the POTUS 4th of July speech yesterday?

I did and my wife and I both did a double take as we thought we heard him mention how troops captured airports during the revolutionary war.   

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/04/independence-day-donald-trump-trips-up-revolutionary-war-history/1638531001/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/05/flight-of-fancy-trump-claims-1775-revolutionary-army-took-over-airports

 ;D  Guess we weren't hearing things...

Before I get pounced on by Trump supporters: Yes I realize it was likely a stumble while reading a teleprompter and no I don't believe that he believes that the US continental army captured airports in 1775.  I just found it funny.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on July 05, 2019, 10:44:01
Lots of disappointed Americans today not having very much about Trump's speech yesterday to be outraged about.

At least his reveloutionary war airport mixup must have helped many get through the day  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 05, 2019, 13:18:11
Lots of disappointed Americans today not having very much about Trump's speech yesterday to be outraged about.

At least his reveloutionary war airport mixup must have helped many get through the day  ;D

The reference to the 1814 Battle at Fort McHenry as part of the Revolutionary War was also interesting. Who writes his speeches anyway?

That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

Changing the subject slightly, there's a good article in today's The Atlantic which delves into the development of Trump's foreign policy contradictions over the past year or two which is worth reading:

Quote
Trump Couldn’t Ignore the Contradictions of His Foreign Policy Any Longer
The president moves to straighten out his own foreign policy—and leaves his hawkish national security adviser on the sidelines.

6:00 AM ET
Thomas Wright
Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

... President Trump’s foreign policy has been full of twists and turns, but it has also followed a clear narrative arc. The 10-day period from June 20—when Trump reversed himself on Iran strikes—to the DMZ visit was among the most significant of his presidency, as he was forced to come to terms with the consequences and contradictions of his own decisions. Over the course of three decades, Trump has carefully nurtured two images of himself—as a deal maker, and as a militarist. Bolton did all he could to encourage the latter. But even from faraway Ulaanbaatar this past weekend, it was clear that, when made to choose, Trump would opt for the former.

To understand where we are and where we are going, we must first understand where we have been. Trump became president with a set of deeply rooted visceral instincts about the world—hostility to alliances, skepticism of free trade, and support for authoritarian strongmen—but little idea about how to convert these beliefs into policy. He had few advisers qualified for high office who believed what he believed. He was insecure. And so he turned to a number of highly experienced businessmen and former military officers to fill key national security and foreign policy positions—John Kelly, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, Gary Cohn, and Rex Tillerson. These men saw their role as constraining the president, not empowering him. The measured their success by what they prevented from happening, rather than by what they made happen. In the Trump epoch, this was the age of constraint. ...

See rest of article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trump-tries-to-fix-his-foreign-policy-without-bolton/593284/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trump-tries-to-fix-his-foreign-policy-without-bolton/593284/)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 05, 2019, 13:42:45
That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

I imagine the base was a bit disappointed he didn't turn it into a full-scale MAGA rally.

Quote
So far, he's sticking to this dry as melba toast speech and resisting the temptation to riff. We must have scared him straight. He doesn't want his campaign to have to repay the government the millions he'd owe if he got political.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-july-4th-speech-1.5200055



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 05, 2019, 14:03:17
The "base" is undoubtedly perfectly happy with a full-scale pro-America rally.

A substantial slice of the "news" media spent the past couple of days hyping speculation about elements of campaigning, deploring and documenting the costs of military participation, going to the America-isn't-so-great well to recycle the usual complaints, and fretting about overt patriotism in general.  You watch; you'll see; you'll be sorry; etc; etc.

Then they find the speech is just basic rah-rah America, with no apparent partisan campaign messages or self-boosting Trumpism.  Another damp squib.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 05, 2019, 14:41:42

That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

 :cheers:

To be honest I agree with what you just said.   it was more or less subdued and his speech was a little too rah rah rah military but overall was not very political at all.  A few tank displays and some fly overs.  Not that different from some Canada day things I've seen.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 05, 2019, 15:29:31
The "base" is undoubtedly perfectly happy with a full-scale pro-America rally.

A substantial slice of the "news" media spent the past couple of days hyping speculation about elements of campaigning, deploring and documenting the costs of military participation, going to the America-isn't-so-great well to recycle the usual complaints, and fretting about overt patriotism in general.  You watch; you'll see; you'll be sorry; etc; etc.

Then they find the speech is just basic rah-rah America, with no apparent partisan campaign messages or self-boosting Trumpism.  Another damp squib.

Damp squib is exactly the right term for this whole event and the news coverage of it. I've just watched the New York Macey's 4th of July celebration as well as the Washington affair (skipped the fireworks for the later)

Macey's was actually quite nice interspersing a variety of musical acts with video clips of Americans (including the military). It was nice that it covered the country from coast to coast and while hyping up patriotism and America as a whole made it's point by looking at Americans as individuals who are part of the whole.

The Washington event seemed to be a big bust (and not just because of the rain). While Trump's speech talked up the military, the event was not really military. Two M1s and two M2s and a few planes flying past do not a military show of force make. The National Guard probably makes as much of a display at some professional football games. The Marine drill team, band and choir and the Old Guard fife and drum corps had little impact performing on a lacklustre stage. There really was no military parade to speak of just Trump's lengthy and quite dull speech.

In a lot of ways Trump's vision of an event to rival Bastille Day was a complete bust. Here I blame a grandiose vision frustrated by a combination of a Democratic Washington municipal government and a military hierarchy neither of whom wanted any part in the affair. While the press for the most part had a pre-event negative view of it, that's understandable from the point of view of Trump's penchant from making these type of things all about himself, and the departure from the traditional way the 4th has been celebrated over the last half dozen decades.

I'm really not sure who to blame more for this "squib" but in the end, does it really matter? I expect the left will consider it a national embarrassment while the right will laud it as a great presidential moment while much of the centre is probably just happy that it didn't turn into the ****show that they were all expecting that it would.

Quote
Trump Commandeers the Fourth of July
Wandering the National Mall on Independence Day brought you face-to-face with a divided country.

... A Mall celebration that is normally “come one, come all” was split into haves and have-nots, as the choicest spots to watch Trump’s speech were off-limits to anyone without a VIP ticket. Scoring one depended on who you were and whom you knew: Distribution was controlled by the White House, the Trump reelection campaign, and the Republican National Committee. ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/trump-fourth-of-july/593359/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/trump-fourth-of-july/593359/)

 :2c:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 05, 2019, 19:03:11
The meaning of the 4th of July was the start of the Revolution which was a success thanks to our people and leaders at the time. So last night was a tribute to our armed forces and I liked it. The fly over was nice similar to the one's I have seen in France and the UK.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 05, 2019, 19:18:24
The fly over was nice similar to the one's I have seen in France and the UK.

Well the revolutionary war did inspire the French Revolution when they stormed the Bastille and the Paris airport and the Brits under Alfred the Great pushed the Danes out of Heathrow.  So I can see why a fly by makes sense.  ;D

All kidding aside it seemed fairly appropriate and tastefully done.  I’m actually surprised Americans don’t normally have military displays or military parades for July 4th.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 05, 2019, 21:46:23
In a lot of ways Trump's vision of an event to rival Bastille Day was a complete bust.

At least this time it didn't get cancelled,

Quote
2018 Washington Veterans Day Parade
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-military-parade-estimated-cost-92-million/story?id=57218363
Trump cancels military parade, blames local politicians as estimated cost balloons to $92 million


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 06, 2019, 02:55:13
Well the revolutionary war did inspire the French Revolution when they stormed the Bastille and the Paris airport and the Brits under Alfred the Great pushed the Danes out of Heathrow.  So I can see why a fly by makes sense.  ;D

All kidding aside it seemed fairly appropriate and tastefully done.  I’m actually surprised Americans don’t normally have military displays or military parades for July 4th.


We do but they seen at football games or at an air force base when they have an air show.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 06, 2019, 13:06:19
We do but they seen at football games or at an air force base when they have an air show.

There was an increase in the military and emergency services being honoured at sporting events after 9/11.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Colin P on July 08, 2019, 11:20:59
It wasn't that long ago that the US was opposed to a large standing professional army. So not surprised that large military parades were not a thing.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 08, 2019, 11:30:47
It wasn't that long ago that the US was opposed to a large standing professional army. So not surprised that large military parades were not a thing.

Regarding recruitment,

Quote
Trump predicts July 4 rally will cause a 'big spike' in military recruitment
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/05/donald-trump-military-july-fourth-1399147



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 15, 2019, 20:25:22
Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 15, 2019, 20:28:49
Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on July 15, 2019, 20:30:00
His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.
Bloody racists. Unsat!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 15, 2019, 20:57:26
Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a definite portion of his base for whom “Make America White Again” is a perfectly laudable objective. He has been pandering to them for the entire time he has been in office. All the more ironic that this is coming at the same time one of his ‘good people on both sides’ from Charlottesville is eating life + 419 years for ramming his car into a crowd of liberals.

His words to the members of Congress is disgusting. Of course as usual he will have plenty of apologists, sadly including on our side of the border.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 15, 2019, 21:03:21
What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?

He's not an employee. So, he can't be fired. Politicians can say and do what they want. Can't even indict a sitting president.

His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.

Charles de Gaulle had this to say about nationalism,

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Of course as usual he will have plenty of apologists, sadly including on our side of the border.

True.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: cavalryman on July 15, 2019, 21:15:20
Charles de Gaulle had this to say about nationalism,

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."


DeGaulle also (in)famously said "Vive le Quebec libre" on a state visit to Canada.  That pretty much invalidates anything the **** hypocrite had to say about nationalism, no?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 15, 2019, 21:21:14
That pretty much invalidates anything the **** hypocrite had to say about nationalism, no?

How do you  define nationalism?

White nationalists are also part of his base. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 16, 2019, 00:53:54
>What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?

Apparently not many people who matter.  But it sure did twist a lot of panties.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 16, 2019, 10:14:26
It would explain why the polls were so wrong down south in 2016.

Saw the above posted today in Canadian Politics.

He got in last time. My uneducated guess, he will probably get back in next time too.

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” Mueller wrote. This help “favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/05/mueller-can-do-no-more-now-its-congress/157333/

In spite of that, the Democrats got 3 million more votes in 2016. 10 million more in 2018. Maybe even more in 2020.

The Wall Street Journal

‘Putin Has Won’: Mueller Report Details the Ways Russia Interfered in the 2016 Election
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-has-won-mueller-report-details-the-ways-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-election-11555666201








Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 16, 2019, 13:01:42
I doubt Putin cares much who wins.

Many people assume that because interference favoured Trump, it was meant to favour Trump.  Another explanation is that the Russians did what Russians often do and reinforced success.  Their attempts to hack the DNC were more successful than their attempts to hack the RNC.  And prompting the incumbent administration to poke its nose into the challenging party's campaign should always be expected to yield a much higher payload if the intent is to sow discord.

If foreigners want to provoke the US into self-immolation, the task is now much easier (the precedents are established).  All that is needed is to plant credible evidence that the challenging campaign is working with foreigners.  The barriers against intrusive investigations have been ground down to almost nothing in pursuit of short-term political advantage.  So: create the evidence; massage the evidence into the open (media exposure); stoke the calls for investigation.  Then sit back and see whether the challengers are as well-disposed towards investigations when they are the targets.  (Not likely.)  Tap a keg while the US tears itself apart (again).

Democrats should support Barr and push for well-established limits on what is sufficient to start an investigation and what investigative means are acceptable.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 16, 2019, 15:49:07
I doubt Putin cares much who wins.

Many people assume that because interference favoured Trump, it was meant to favour Trump.  Another explanation is that the Russians did what Russians often do and reinforced success.  Their attempts to hack the DNC were more successful than their attempts to hack the RNC.  And prompting the incumbent administration to poke its nose into the challenging party's campaign should always be expected to yield a much higher payload if the intent is to sow discord.

If foreigners want to provoke the US into self-immolation, the task is now much easier (the precedents are established).  All that is needed is to plant credible evidence that the challenging campaign is working with foreigners.  The barriers against intrusive investigations have been ground down to almost nothing in pursuit of short-term political advantage.  So: create the evidence; massage the evidence into the open (media exposure); stoke the calls for investigation.  Then sit back and see whether the challengers are as well-disposed towards investigations when they are the targets.  (Not likely.)  Tap a keg while the US tears itself apart (again).

Democrats should support Barr and push for well-established limits on what is sufficient to start an investigation and what investigative means are acceptable.

I agree with everything but the first para. One needs to look at the context that much of the sanction regime that has been put into place against Russia (and which is particularly hurting Putin's oligarch cabal) was put there by the Obama regime and Clinton. I think Putin very much cared about who won although I also think that he probably didn't in his wildest dreams think that Trump would actually win. He might have hoped that in a close race his efforts might put Trump over the top and it certainly seems that this was the case considering how narrow the vote difference in the key electoral college states were.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Loachman on July 17, 2019, 22:49:45
The claim that Vladimir Putin favoured Donald Trump never made sense to me. Millions had been funnelled to the Clinton Foundation https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/clinton-russia-collusion-evidence/, Obama was caught on an open mike promising Dimitri Medvedev that he could be "more flexible" to Russia after the 2012 election https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/, and Obama had ridiculed Mitt Romney's concerns regarding Russia during the 2012 campaign with his "the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years" retort. If Vladimir Putin preferred either candidate in 2016, I continue believe that he would have preferred Clinton. I'm pretty certain that he's not come out and said who he preferred, so nobody merely speculating knows for sure, but: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/12/russian-hacking-no-credible-evidence-editorials-debates/106566026/.

I watched the internet ads mention in that last article and they were laughable and cringeworthy. Any claim that they influenced anybody is also laughable.

That article also states:

"What the purveyors of this conspiracy theory don’t want to admit is that Donald Trump’s victory, as well as that of other Republicans, aligns with political trends during the Obama presidency.

"Under Obama, the Democratic Party lost more congressional, state legislative and governor’s seats than under any other president. The party is the weakest it has been since the 1920s in the number of political seats it holds nationwide."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/, a couple of weeks before the election, began with the headline "No, the presidential election can't be hacked".

Democrat claims that Russia hacked the DNC server remain unsubstantiated. The DNC refused to turn it over to federal investigators for a proper analysis. Why not? They would almost certainly not have anything to hide, would they? And, if I remember accurately, it was assessed that at least five entities hacked Clinton's illegal private e-mail server.

While I will likely never trust Russia, having actively participated in the Cold War for many years, I am much more worried about China and militant Islam.

The Russian boogeyman was a Democrat diversion then and remains so now. They were certain of a win, and still can't believe that they lost or accept why they lost. They picked a lousy candidate and ran a lousy campaign, in which they took a large group of voters for granted and then insulted them, and failed to generate much interest anywhere outside of their safe areas (compare the sizes, frequency, and energy/enthusiasm levels between Clinton and Donald Trump rallies).

I was caught in an unexpected and lengthy gap between contracts during the 2016 US election and had a lot of free time to watch it closely, and found it highly entertaining on many levels.

I quickly came to the opinion that Donald Trump was likely to win (but not assured) based upon some largely unconventional amateur analysts alongside some more-established and conventional ones. The best, and most accurate, poll was an LA Times one that used larger and more diversified samples and had been accurate in previous elections. It did not favour Clinton as the others did. One amateur specialist tracked the relative sales of anti-Clinton and anti-Trump merchandise; anti-Clinton sales beat anti-Trump sales by eight to one.

I've trimmed down my unconventional amateur analyst list considerably, as I have much less time of late, so only monitor those who performed the best and have the least fluff. Backgrounds vary.

One (HA Goodman), who billed himself as "progressive" in 2016, was a Jill Stein supporter at the start, then switched to Bernie Sanders when she dropped out, got pissed off when the DNC betrayed him, became more critical of Clinton specifically and the Democrats in general over time, and began to predict that Donald Trump would win and gave clear reasons why. It was interesting to watch him repudiate his "progressive" identity, denounce the Democrats, and eventually become an enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter over time.

Another (Bill Still/Still Report) is a much older, retired professional journalist and author with a good network of trusted sources, very Christian and a long-time Republican supporter.

Another (Styxhexenhammer666) is a millenial, libertarian, Christian-cum-satanist-cum-pagan, modern-day hippy who has voted Democrat in the past and is now a fairly solid Donald Trump supporter but will freely switch to whoever most aligns with his own beliefs and opinions.

Another (Tim Pool/Timcast) bills himself as centre-left, would never vote Republican under any circumstances, likes neither Donald Trump nor the socialist-loony side of the Democratic Party (or any of those vying for the Democrat candidacy) but will give both praise and criticism where he sees it due.

Another (Anthony Brian Logan/ABL) is a black former-Democrat who is now also solidly Republican and a Donald Trump supporter.

Another (Bill Whittle, usually with sidekicks Steve Green and Scott Ott) is a mature conservative who was originally not a Donald Trump fan and can still be critical. Scott Ott generally plays the devil's advocate role, and quite well.

Another (Liz Wheeler) is a very conservative and Catholic millennial, who reports for One American News Network which seems to be growing.

And then there's Steven Crowder, a conservative comedian with a strong Canadian connection, including a French Canadian mother.

I still watch Scott Adams (Dilbert author) occasionally; he has some interesting insights.

I also favour National Review Online. Although it's conservative-leaning, there is a wide variety of viewpoints in one source.

I will also, occasionally, check other left-leaning sources that I find credible and interesting even if I disagree with them (Jimmy Dore, for one).

I put less and less faith in mainstream media, but do occasionally find some worthwhile articles or videos therein and will (still) not discount them entirely. In general, I find Canadian MSM to be more credible than their US counterparts, but less so than I'd like.

Overall, though, I find better, deeper analyses and more accurate predictions in the amateur/semi-professional/independent/small operations that I've been watching/reading for almost three years. They also report about many things that the traditional media ignore.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 17, 2019, 23:01:13
The claim that Vladimir Putin favoured Donald Trump never made sense to me.

I think Putin very much cared about who won although I also think that he probably didn't in his wildest dreams think that Trump would actually win. He might have hoped that in a close race his efforts might put Trump over the top and it certainly seems that this was the case considering how narrow the vote difference in the key electoral college states were.

My money is with FJAG.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Loachman on July 17, 2019, 23:33:01
Mine isn't.

But we'll never know unless he tells us.

And I'm pretty certain that he's laughing at almost everybody who's pushing it or believing it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 17, 2019, 23:45:58
Quote
January 2017

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, FBI, CIA, NSA.

President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 18, 2019, 12:16:02
"developed"

Implying "changed over time".  The DNI's opinion is wholly consistent with Russia setting out to stir the pot (the efforts to hack the DNC and RNC allegedly began in 2015, well before any primaries were decided) and following the avenues which yielded results.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 22, 2019, 21:50:05
Quote
Trump meets with Pakistan's PM Imran Khan for the first time offering to help mediate clash with India and claiming he could win Afghan war 'in a week' except he doesn't want to 'kill 10 million people'
-Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan made his first visit to Washington Monday
-He was greeted by a military honor guard at the White House
-Trump offered to help mediate the long-running dispute over Kashmir between Pakistan and India
-He claimed he could end the Afghan war in a week
-In the past he  has accused Pakistan of not doing enough  on terror and the US suspended military aid to Pakistan
-Trump said he could win the war but 'I just don't want to kill 10 million people'
-Said he thinks Pakistan will do 'a lot' and 'save millions of lives' in Afghanistan

See article here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7272757/Trump-meet-Pakistan-PM-talks-focus-Afghanistan.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7272757/Trump-meet-Pakistan-PM-talks-focus-Afghanistan.html)

No. Words.

:brickwall:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 22, 2019, 22:24:36
See article here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7272757/Trump-meet-Pakistan-PM-talks-focus-Afghanistan.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7272757/Trump-meet-Pakistan-PM-talks-focus-Afghanistan.html)

No. Words.

:brickwall:

Just wow.

[extensive self-edit so as not to piss in the pool]

Sadly I’m no longer the least bit surprised to see this kind of thing being uttered by POTUS. There is woeful lack of any depth of understanding of the matter being shown here.

It’s still sad and disappointing to see that America’s foreign policy is in the hands of someone who so consistently doesn’t grasp why what he says matters, and who doesn’t see why it’s hugely concerning for a world leader to so casually and flippantly toss off the idea of genocide as a counterinsurgency approach. We need better guarantors than a man so easily provoked and manipulated just ‘not feeling like it’ this week.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on July 22, 2019, 22:30:55
Just wow. What a blithering idiot. I mean I’m not surprised he says this dumb **** anymore, but still, each time you think he’s reached peak inanity, he manages to lower the bar further.

And if he actually tries to pull that off, I would hope that every single military person from the Joint Chiefs of Staff down to the bomber pilot, ship CO, sub commander or missileer would rather get court-martialled than follow that order.  WTF.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 23, 2019, 12:59:24
I watched the interview and on its face I didnt see a problem with trying to get Pakistan to be a force for peace in Afghanistan. Maybe India and Pakistan can work something out in Kashmir. If they can lower the temp thats a good thing.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 23, 2019, 14:05:33
I watched the interview and on its face I didnt see a problem with trying to get Pakistan to be a force for peace in Afghanistan. Maybe India and Pakistan can work something out in Kashmir. If they can lower the temp thats a good thing.

A desire that Pakistan be force for peace isn't the problem.

Not understanding the complexities of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan and their relationships and instead approaching the issue with jingoism and ridiculous rhetoric that leaves all the main actors confused and/or infuriated is a problem. Surely you can see that.

India and Pakistan have been at odds and at war over Kashmir since Partition. Do you really believe they are about to be swayed to a harmonious solution by this last piece of macabre theatre?

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 23, 2019, 15:22:27
Has anything else worked??
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 23, 2019, 15:31:16
During the presser the issue of Puerto Rican protests came up.Trump said that Congress authorized $92b and Pakistan only gets 10b. Interesting I wonder if Pakistan might get more assistance by playing ball.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 23, 2019, 15:33:34
Has anything else worked??

Nothing he has attempted has worked so far as far as I can see.  His attempts to bring peace to the middle east and the Korean Peninsula haven't worked so I guess there is every reason to think this won't work either. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 23, 2019, 16:00:25
Trump understands nothing about Kashmir, the critical issue between India and Pakistan and one over which neither has even been willing to compromise seriously. In any event Indian Ministry of External (they still use the good old term) has blow Trump off--their tweets:
https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/1153371327371173895

Quote
Raveesh Kumar
@MEAIndia
We have seen @POTUS's remarks to the press that he is ready to mediate, if requested by India & Pakistan, on Kashmir issue. No such request has been made by PM @narendramodi
 to US President. It has been India's consistent position...1/2

Raveesh Kumar
@MEAIndia

Jul 22

...that all outstanding issues with Pakistan are discussed only bilaterally [emphasis added]. Any engagement with Pakistan would require an end to cross border terrorism. The Shimla Agreement & the Lahore Declaration provide the basis to resolve all issues between India & Pakistan bilaterally.2/2

Plus:

Quote
Jaishankar rebuts Trump’s Kashmir claim; Oppn demands PM Modi’s statement
The foreign minister added that it has been India’s consistent position that all outstanding issues with Pakistan are discussed only bilaterally.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/no-such-request-made-by-pm-modi-says-foreign-minister-s-jaishankar-on-trump-s-kashmir-mediation-claim/story-Ne3dLbKC4xSYX0rdZ7eN1M.html

And a parody tweet:

Quote
Belarus News (Eng.)
@BelarusMiniInfo
Prime Minister Imran Khan politely pretends not to be listening as President Trump offers to mediate Spratly Islands dispute between Pakistan & Honduras.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAHH-3WX4AUka1H?format=jpg&name=900x900)
5:53 PM · Jul 22, 2019

Post from 2016:

Quote
The Asian Military Cockpit, Kashmir Section
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/mark-collins-the-asian-military-cockpit-kashmir-section-2/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 24, 2019, 17:24:03
I can't wait to see him win in 2020, just to watch all the heads explode🤯
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 24, 2019, 18:17:59
There has been a lot of buzz lately that not many people have read the Mueller report, including members of Congress. Watching the Mueller testimony today I observed one thing, Mueller never read the Mueller report.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 24, 2019, 19:05:01
There has been a lot of buzz lately that not many people have read the Mueller report, including members of Congress. Watching the Mueller testimony today I observed one thing, Mueller never read the Mueller report.

Why would you say that?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 24, 2019, 19:55:01
I would be surprised if Mueller wrote (alone) the Mueller report, so I would not be surprised if it turns out he did not read every word.  And if I were facing a pack of frustrated politicians with legal powers to punish the missteps of those with whom they are frustrated, I would not rely on mere recollection - I would read every quotation and citation thrown out for myself before answering whatever question ended each speech.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 25, 2019, 10:27:11
Why would you say that?

He looked a unfamiliar with some key points at times.  While I understand that he would not have written all 400+ pages and have intimate knowledge of every entry, he should be the SME on this report.

I don't know, he looked somewhat uneasy at times and other times he was really good.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 25, 2019, 15:51:20

Funny.   ;D

But I don't buy their excuse at all...too convenient given this week's testimony. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/trump-russia-presidential-seal-tpusa-trnd/index.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 25, 2019, 22:06:25
He looked a unfamiliar with some key points at times.  While I understand that he would not have written all 400+ pages and have intimate knowledge of every entry, he should be the SME on this report.

I don't know, he looked somewhat uneasy at times and other times he was really good.

Didn't want to be there; 74 years old; last time he testified before a committee was six years ago; not a good combination.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 25, 2019, 23:03:38
Combat Infantroopen Badge

 :facepalm:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mark-esper-infantroopen_n_5d39ed47e4b020cd99505d05 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mark-esper-infantroopen_n_5d39ed47e4b020cd99505d05)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 26, 2019, 01:47:05
A different badge for each of the 57 states.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 26, 2019, 02:52:14
Combat Infantroopen Badge

 :facepalm:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mark-esper-infantroopen_n_5d39ed47e4b020cd99505d05 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mark-esper-infantroopen_n_5d39ed47e4b020cd99505d05)

 :cheers:

Instantly, legendary Internet humour is born. “Infantroopen” might end up being the most glorious part of his legacy.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on July 26, 2019, 03:04:59
I think he was going to be an infantroopen but bone spurs got in the way.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Colin P on July 26, 2019, 11:58:15
Nothing he has attempted has worked so far as far as I can see.  His attempts to bring peace to the middle east and the Korean Peninsula haven't worked so I guess there is every reason to think this won't work either.

No western politician is likely to solve the ME issue.

As for NK, he actually gotten more traction than the experts, it remains to be seen if the momentum will continue, Kim was an expert at playing the career diplomatic types, Trump is to unpredictable for that game.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 26, 2019, 12:58:52
"Infantroopen" is just what some people are hearing.

It's "infantrymen" spoken with a "short"-sounding "y" (close to a "short i").   The "men" vice "pen" at the end is particularly easy to hear.

However, go on enjoying the new word some other people made up.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 26, 2019, 13:54:05
Combat Infantroopen Badge

 :facepalm:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mark-esper-infantroopen_n_5d39ed47e4b020cd99505d05 (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mark-esper-infantroopen_n_5d39ed47e4b020cd99505d05)

 :cheers:

Huffpo should stick to real news stories in order to reduce their carbon footprint.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 26, 2019, 13:56:31
"Infantroopen" is just what some people are hearing.

It's "infantrymen" spoken with a "short"-sounding "y" (close to a "short i").   The "men" vice "pen" at the end is particularly easy to hear.

However, go on enjoying the new word some other people made up.

Get your ears checked. I know you’re a fan of the man (and I know that I’m not), but what he said and how he enunciated it is plain as day, and readily apparent to many, many people who have heard it.

Is it a big deal? No, it’s just another amusing verbal gaffe from someone who is a reliable source of them. But yeah, we’re gonna get a chuckle at his expense out of this one.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 26, 2019, 15:22:30
Reasoning that his pronunciations might be consistent, I went looking for a similar word which might easily be found in a speech transcript accompanied by video: "countrymen".  Trump has a peculiar pronunciation of the "y" and "m" which gives it the "oop" sound some think they are hearing.  My hearing is fine.

It's not about being pro- or anti-Trump.  This is fake news, propagated by people who want to believe things are a certain way and too lazy to check for themselves.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 26, 2019, 15:46:54
Reasoning that his pronunciations might be consistent, I went looking for a similar word which might easily be found in a speech transcript accompanied by video: "countrymen".  Trump has a peculiar pronunciation of the "y" and "m" which gives it the "oop" sound some think they are hearing.  My hearing is fine.

It's not about being pro- or anti-Trump.  This is fake news, propagated by people who want to believe things are a certain way and too lazy to check for themselves.

In this case ‘checking for ourself’ means watching a brief clip with the speakers on. Reasonably confident most people bothering to comment have done so.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 26, 2019, 16:37:11
Maybe.  But there's a difference between listening to one instance of a word fragment and concluding it's part of a nonsense word, and listening to two or more instances (repeatedly), comparing, and concluding it's just accent.

And you can always ask yourself if you really want to be the kind of person who mocks someone for accent, and therefore which way you should allow the benefit of doubt to dominate your thinking.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 26, 2019, 16:54:31
Is it a big deal? No, it’s just another amusing verbal gaffe from someone who is a reliable source of them.

Unless it's a sign of something more serious,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=A1o7XbSTE4u3tQa4nKe4Cg&q=trump+dementia&oq=trump+dementia&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..69332...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.pzPfFNEDGvg&ved=0ahUKEwj0oPSRrtPjAhWLW80KHTjOCac4ChDh1QMICg

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 26, 2019, 17:31:48
The DOJ is investigating the origin of the Russia collusion hoax and the Fusion GPS dossier. The dossier is known to have been paid by the Democrats and may have been a product of Russian state security ? How did operatives of British, Australian and Italian intelligence get involved spying on a US Presidential campaign ? This may make for a good spy novel once it all comes out. Frankly I doubt allied intelligence would have gotten involved without the blessing of the Obama CIA.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 26, 2019, 17:37:18
Maybe.  But there's a difference between listening to one instance of a word fragment and concluding it's part of a nonsense word, and listening to two or more instances (repeatedly), comparing, and concluding it's just accent.

And you can always ask yourself if you really want to be the kind of person who mocks someone for accent, and therefore which way you should allow the benefit of doubt to dominate your thinking.

It wasn’t a word fragment, it was a complete sentence. I’m not mocking his accent, I’m shaking my head in bemusement at his mistake, and the slight tip of his hand regarding his ignorance of the military.

As I said, it’s not in any way a big deal, but it’s amusing to see people leaping to defend it as if he’s infallible and could not possibly have erred so.

When politicians say dumb things, they will get laughed at. That’s just how she goes.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: YZT580 on July 26, 2019, 17:39:22
One of the ways in which people mock others is by making fun of their accents and mannerisms and is intended to be-little the victims and establish the superiority of the one who does the mocking. 
Rich Little used the same techniques in his imitations and generated a lot of laughs as a result.  His Jack Benny and Richard Nixon copies made him a very rich man but that was comedy and was never really intended to be vicious. 
This word game being played by the press and others is of the first variety.  It is bullying at its worst and demonstrates the shallowness of these so-called pundits and reporters and their resignation to any claim of being objective.  If Trump were to hiccup during a reception the headlines would read 'President drunk'.  Enough I say.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 26, 2019, 17:45:44
And you can always ask yourself if you really want to be the kind of person who mocks someone for accent, and therefore which way you should allow the benefit of doubt to dominate your thinking.

Actually none of us here are that "kind of person" when it comes to people in general and in fact none of us here mock anyone for their "accent".

However, when one deals with a self proclaimed genius who considers himself the epitome of everything excellent, but treats anyone who disagrees with him in a vile, cantankerous way, I can make an exception about exposing his foibles be they big or small. He does provide a rich target environment.

My only hesitation is that I think that marionmike is quite possibly right and that Trump may well be suffering from serious cognitive impairment. (and not just based on this one incident but on hundreds of his habits, mannerisms and utterances.) That, however, is something that he and his bevy of cheerleaders will vehemently deny. That leaves me in a bit of a Catch-22 situation. Until he admits he has a legitimate medical problem, he's fair game for sarcasm, satire and criticism.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 26, 2019, 17:49:15

When politicians say dumb things, they will get laughed at. That’s just how she goes.

Yep.  There are snowflakes on both sides of the political spectrum who will be offended regardless.

The local radio station here regularly plays sound bites from all sorts of politicians.  From Jim Watson’s “on time on budget”, Trudeau’s various verbal gaffes and Trump’s collection of gems. 

My favourite was the whole taking of airports during the revolutionary war and trudeau’s paper water bottle thing.  These are all minor gaffes but still funny.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 26, 2019, 17:54:38
One of the ways in which people mock others is by making fun of their accents and mannerisms and is intended to be-little the victims and establish the superiority of the one who does the mocking. 

Good point,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/nov/26/donald-trump-appears-to-mock-disabled-reporter-video
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on July 26, 2019, 17:56:07
… people who want to believe things are a certain way and too lazy to check for themselves.
… There are snowflakes on both sides of the political spectrum who will be offended regardless …
Yup, on all sides these days ...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 26, 2019, 18:02:48
One of the ways in which people mock others is by making fun of their accents and mannerisms and is intended to be-little the victims and establish the superiority of the one who does the mocking. 
Rich Little used the same techniques in his imitations and generated a lot of laughs as a result.  His Jack Benny and Richard Nixon copies made him a very rich man but that was comedy and was never really intended to be vicious. 
This word game being played by the press and others is of the first variety.  It is bullying at its worst and demonstrates the shallowness of these so-called pundits and reporters and their resignation to any claim of being objective.  If Trump were to hiccup during a reception the headlines would read 'President drunk'.  Enough I say.

Indeed (though I’d not that anyone who pays attention is probably aware that he doesn’t drink).

So can I take it that we’re agreed that bullying, name calling, mockery, making fun of people’s characteristics and such are generally bad things that don’t speak well of someone’s character?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 26, 2019, 18:16:12
Yup, on all sides these days ...

Just to be clear I’m not insinuating anyone here is a snowflake.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 26, 2019, 19:14:24
How did operatives of British, Australian and Italian intelligence get involved spying on a US Presidential campaign ?

Please elaborate.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 26, 2019, 20:07:53
>So can I take it that we’re agreed that bullying, name calling, mockery, making fun of people’s characteristics and such are generally bad things that don’t speak well of someone’s character?

Correct.  That Trump is guilty of all of those doesn't excuse anyone else.  What I observe: socially, people deplore Trump's behaviour; politically, people deplore whatever they imagine amounts to Trump's "undermining of institutions".  But some of those same people are themselves ill-mannered and prone to weakening institutions in their desire to get rid of Trump.

PS: Don't confuse "tickled to see Hillary Clinton sidelined" with "Trump fan".
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 26, 2019, 20:13:02
>How did operatives of British, Australian and Italian intelligence get involved spying on a US Presidential campaign ?

Can't figure out who you mean.  Christopher Steele is a former British spy, not a current one.  Alexander Downer is the only involved Australian that comes to mind; he's a diplomat, not a spy.  Is Joseph Mifsud supposed to be the Italian?  He's a Maltese academic who some people imagine is either a tool of the Russians or a tool of the Americans.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on July 26, 2019, 20:56:41
Just to be clear I’m not insinuating anyone here is a snowflake.
Not meant that way at all -- no worries.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 26, 2019, 22:33:03
Now that the Mueller report didn't live up to expectations the old mental fitness angle reappears. Anyway, seems Nancy Pelosi is upset that Trump is a king. Even though the supreme court gave him permission to go ahead with using defense funds for the border wall. Since when is a supreme court decision anything close to monarchy like?

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1154900257521750017?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1154900257521750017?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 26, 2019, 22:53:07
Now that the Mueller report didn't live up to expectations the old mental fitness angle reappears. Anyway, seems Nancy Pelosi is upset that Trump is a king. Even though the supreme court gave him permission to go ahead with using defense funds for the border wall. Since when is a supreme court decision anything close to monarchy like?

https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1154900257521750017?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet (https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1154900257521750017?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html)

I hope you understand that the court explicitly did not rule on whether Trump has the legal authority to use those funds, but that rather it was a ruling on who has standing to bring a lawsuit on that issue, right? It was not a dismissal of lower court appeals that are still working their way through; it was essentially nullifying an injunction against continuing while those appeals move forward.

By all means a victory at this stage for Trump, but it is not a ruling to the effect that what he did was constitutionally sound. That still remains to be seen.

Obviously some people will be fine with the President being able to end-run around the legislature to the time of billions of dollars, and others will not. Those opinions will in many cases fall along partisan lines. This matter has a long way yet to go.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 26, 2019, 23:18:10
I hope you understand that the court explicitly did not rule on whether Trump has the legal authority to use those funds, but that rather it was a ruling on who has standing to bring a lawsuit on that issue, right? It was not a dismissal of lower court appeals that are still working their way through; it was essentially nullifying an injunction against continuing while those appeals move forward.

By all means a victory at this stage for Trump, but it is not a ruling to the effect that what he did was constitutionally sound. That still remains to be seen.

Obviously some people will be fine with the President being able to end-run around the legislature to the time of billions of dollars, and others will not. Those opinions will in many cases fall along partisan lines. This matter has a long way yet to go.

He can spend the cash. But they have to do it quick, the funds will disappear at the end of the fiscal year on September 30th.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 26, 2019, 23:48:36
Supreme Court actoally says he 
can use Defense funds.

https://www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.

The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 27, 2019, 01:00:58
Supreme Court actoally says he 
can use Defense funds.

https://www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.

The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Technically the Supreme Court did not say that he can use the funds. That suggests that the USSC specifically authorized use of such funds.

What the majority did was issue a stay (without reasons) of a lower court's interim injunction which prevented the use of the funds until a full trial.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/19a60_o75p.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/19a60_o75p.pdf)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 27, 2019, 09:55:06
Supreme Court actoally says he can use Defense funds.

Technically the Supreme Court did not say that he can use the funds.

Remember his campaign promise?

Quote
I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Quote
Throughout his campaign he described his vision of a concrete wall, 30 to 50 feet high and covering 1,000 miles of the 1,900 mile border, with the rest of the border being secured by natural barriers. After taking office he suggested a "steel wall with openings"; starting in 2018 he referred to it as a "steel slat barrier".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/08/trump-wall-concept-timeline/2503855002/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 27, 2019, 11:43:32
That is a tired old canard. There's lot's of way of making people pay and there is absolutely no doubt Mexico has been paying big time.

It's like trotting out the vote numbers, saying Clinton won. It's been proven wrong time and again, but some people just can't get passed it. Four years later and some are still trying to hang their hats on a stale, debunked sound byte. Just like the above.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 27, 2019, 11:53:47
Remember his campaign promise?

His base will selectively forget or forgive it.  Or explain it away with some other definition of what paying means.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on July 27, 2019, 12:01:49
>I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Rumour has it he will rename "DoD" to "Mexico" by executive action.  Et voila.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Dimsum on July 27, 2019, 12:03:23
>I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Rumour has it he will rename "DoD" to "Mexico" by executive action.  Et voila.

I would love to see the look on Cpl Hillbilly Jim Bob's face when he realizes he's now a Mexican.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 27, 2019, 12:03:52
>I will have Mexico pay for that wall.

Rumour has it he will rename "DoD" to "Mexico" by executive action.  Et voila.

Ha!  That works too.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 27, 2019, 12:52:59
That is a tired old canard. There's lot's of way of making people pay and there is absolutely no doubt Mexico has been paying big time.

Yes there is.

The US had a $63b trade deficit with Mexico at the end of 2016. That increased to a $69b trade deficit by the end of 2017, and an $80b trade deficit by the end of 2018. So far every month in 2019 for which there is data shows that the US trade deficit with Mexico continues to grow quickly, and as of the end of May America has $10b more trade deficit than it did in the first five months of 2018. So not only is the trade deficit increasing, but the rate of trade deficit growth is accelerating.

Source: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

In addition to trade in goods and services, Rrmittances from the US to Mexico also hit a record high of $33b in 2018, up more than 10% from the year before. You’ll recall, I’m sure, that Trump threatened taxation of remittances to strongarm the Mexican government into paying for his wall. Doesn’t look like he followed through on that any more than his claim he could tackle the trade deficit to fund it.

Source: https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/remittances-hit-a-new-record-high/

So it looks like Mexico continues to come out very much ahead over the US in both trade and non-trade cash flows. Facts do not appear to be in your favour on this one.

“I’m gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay for it” was not a sound byte; it was a core position of his platform. The only part you got right is that such pledges are now ‘stale and debunked’. Failing to achieve something doesn’t make the promises made suddenly not count.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 27, 2019, 15:00:09
Most people care that a wall is built no matter what it takes. If Congress stonewalls the public will know the cause. If it were me I would have levied a tax on remittances and that could still happen. That alone wont pay for the wall but it would help. Getting more US companies to move plants back to the US would also help.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: PPCLI Guy on July 27, 2019, 15:43:50
Most people care that a wall is built no matter what it takes. If Congress stonewalls the public will know the cause. If it were me I would have levied a tax on remittances and that could still happen. That alone wont pay for the wall but it would help. Getting more US companies to move plants back to the US would also help.

Let's unpack this:

Quote
Most people
   

As in a majority?  Ascertained in some sort of verifiable manner?  Or the Trumpian "most people / a lot of people" manner?  The Spicer counting method?

Quote
If Congress stonewalls the public will know the cause
 

They have already stonewalled (only wall they like) multiple times.....with A republican House as well with a Democratic House.  And the public already knows that.  The public voted for those representatives.....

Quote
If it were me I would have levied a tax on remittances and that could still happen
 

Why not a Head Tax.  That would work too - indeed it has in the past.

Quote
Getting more US companies to move plants back to the US would also help

I thought Republicans were all about small government and less intervention in markets.  That smacks of interventionist if not socialist (albeit nationalist socialist) policies to me.  Can't have it both ways. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 27, 2019, 16:02:59
Most people care that a wall is built no matter what it takes.

Most people did not vote for him even when he promised, "I will have Mexico pay for that wall."

What he described as a concrete wall during his election campaign is now simply "a barrier".

Quote
Throughout his campaign he described his vision of a concrete wall, 30 to 50 feet high and covering 1,000 miles of the 1,900 mile border, with the rest of the border being secured by natural barriers. After taking office he suggested a "steel wall with openings"; starting in 2018 he referred to it as a "steel slat barrier".

In today's news. Regarding the young man in the MAGA hat,

Quote
A federal judge on Friday dismissed a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post over its coverage of an interaction between a Kentucky high school student and a Native American activist on the National Mall, which gained national attention after the video went viral.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/26/washington-post-covington-high-school-student-defamation-case-dismissed-1437881





Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on July 28, 2019, 09:20:40
Let's unpack this:
Quote
Getting more US companies to move plants back to the US would also help
Many of these companies moved operations out of the US because Trump arbitrarily applied sanctions against many of the US' allies and trading partners;  these countries responded with counter-tariffs and -sanctions.  In order to stay in business, companies moved to more economically rational countries.

People with their MAGA hats on sideways can claim that Bernie Sanders is some crazy socialist, but believing that businesses owe  American workers jobs IS socialism.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 28, 2019, 12:00:22
"The American people like to be humbugged." P.T. Barnum.

 ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 28, 2019, 17:58:02
Sorry for the double post but this needed telling:

Quote
Dan Coats to leave post as director of national intelligence as Trump selects Rep. John Ratcliffe as replacement
By Gregg Re | Fox News

President Trump on Sunday announced that Texas GOP Rep. John Ratcliffe, a staunch White House ally, will replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence (DNI), following months of speculation and public spats between the president and the intelligence community.

"I am pleased to announce that highly respected Congressman John Ratcliffe of Texas will be nominated by me to be the Director of National Intelligence," Trump wrote.

...

See rest of article here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dan-coats-dni-director-national-intelligence-expected-resign (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dan-coats-dni-director-national-intelligence-expected-resign)

and also here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/28/politics/dan-coats-national-intelligence-director/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/28/politics/dan-coats-national-intelligence-director/index.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 28, 2019, 18:44:36
Quote
     Dan Coats to leave post as director of national intelligence as Trump selects Rep. John Ratcliffe as replacement
    By Gregg Re | Fox News

    President Trump on Sunday announced that Texas GOP Rep. John Ratcliffe, a staunch White House ally, will replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence (DNI), following months of speculation and public spats between the president and the intelligence community.

    "I am pleased to announce that highly respected Congressman John Ratcliffe of Texas will be nominated by me to be the Director of National Intelligence," Trump wrote.

So another Trump lapdog as the head intelligence guru. What could go wrong?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on July 29, 2019, 00:28:09
So another Trump lapdog as the head intelligence guru. What could go wrong?

Drain that swamp!
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 29, 2019, 08:44:23
Drain that swamp!

He own land in a swamp in Florida.  Maybe he just wants to add to it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/25/donald-trump-florida-property-sebring
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 29, 2019, 19:48:55
He own land in a swamp in Florida.  Maybe he just wants to add to it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/25/donald-trump-florida-property-sebring

More than two years old, from 2017.
It could go under the heading 'How to keep people with nothing better to do, busy"
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 31, 2019, 00:33:23
The real SWAMP creature is Christopher Wray. There has to be someone decent to be FBI Director.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on July 31, 2019, 11:07:52
The real SWAMP creature is Christopher Wray. There has to be someone decent to be FBI Director.
Don't worry, since the FBI has had EIGHT Directors since 2017 so far, I'm sure plenty of people will get a chance until they get to the bottom of the barrel.

… you know, like appointing someone completely unqualified (https://www.wired.com/story/john-ratcliffe-dni-trump-nominee-danger) to be the Director of National Intelligence.   ::)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on July 31, 2019, 11:19:23
Don't worry, since the FBI has had EIGHT Directors since 2017 so far, I'm sure plenty of people will get a chance until they get to the bottom of the barrel.

… you know, like appointing someone completely unqualified (https://www.wired.com/story/john-ratcliffe-dni-trump-nominee-danger) to be the Director of National Intelligence.   ::)

Simple.  Just change the qualification requirements.  Seems to work for this POTUS right now.  Jared is bringing peace to the middle east, Ivanka is, well, Ivanking.

Basically if you are actually qualified you will just get in the way so qualified pers need not apply.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on July 31, 2019, 11:28:59
Simple.
Don't forget the "sarcasm" emoji;  otherwise some people will take it as endorsing the current 'thinking.'
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on July 31, 2019, 21:48:29
 :not-again:

Quote
Trump directs Navy to rescind medals for Eddie Gallagher's prosecutors
By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News

President Trump on Wednesday directed the Navy to rescind medals that had been awarded to the lawyers who prosecuted Edward "Eddie" Gallagher, just weeks after a jury in San Diego found the Navy SEAL not guilty on six of seven charges for his connection to the killing of a teenage Islamic State member in Iraq.

“The Prosecutors who lost the case against SEAL Eddie Gallagher (who I released from solitary confinement so he could fight his case properly), were ridiculously given a Navy Achievement Medal,” Trump tweeted. “Not only did they lose the case, they had difficulty with respect to information that may have been obtained from opposing lawyers and for giving immunity in a totally incompetent fashion."

The president added: “I have directed the Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer & Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson to immediately withdraw and rescind the awards.”

Navy officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case, said the Navy secretary is authorized to pull such awards and would be doing so.

Three lieutenants -- George O. Hageman, Brian P. John and Scott I. McDonald -- and a female officer whose name and rank were redacted by the Navy received Navy Achievement Medals just eight days after Gallagher was found not guilty on all but one charge.
...

See rest of article here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-navy-to-rescind-medals-for-eddie-gallaghers-prosecutors (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-navy-to-rescind-medals-for-eddie-gallaghers-prosecutors)

 :brickwall:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on July 31, 2019, 22:31:30
The sad thing is, if the Democrats do not get their crap together and come up with a candidate less crazy, he could win again. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on July 31, 2019, 22:40:45
The sad thing is, if the Democrats do not get their crap together and come up with a candidate less crazy, he could win again.

That's a pretty low bar. He's ranked at the absolute bottom of the list of every man who ever got the job since George Washington.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

Simple.  Just change the qualification requirements.  Seems to work for this POTUS right now.  Jared is bringing peace to the middle east, Ivanka is, well, Ivanking.

Basically if you are actually qualified you will just get in the way so qualified pers need not apply.

They are the only ones with guaranteed job security. Well, maybe Jared not so much.  :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on July 31, 2019, 23:56:42
That's a pretty low bar. He's ranked at the absolute bottom of the list of every man who ever got the job since George Washington.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

The tables in this wiki page are done from number 1 to 45, by time in office. Most of the polls at the end are old and don't even include Trump.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 01, 2019, 00:04:25
Most of the polls at the end are old and don't even include Trump.

He was in two polls.

First one rated him #44. Second one #42.

Quote
Note: Grover Cleveland was elected to two non-consecutive terms, serving as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States—to date he is the only person to have achieved this distinction. Because of it, the total number of people who have served as president is one fewer than the number of presidents in order of succession.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on August 01, 2019, 01:11:16
That's a pretty low bar. He's ranked at the absolute bottom of the list of every man who ever got the job since George Washington.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

They are the only ones with guaranteed job security. Well, maybe Jared not so much.  :)

That just makes it worse - I fear they are going to screw up what could be a one pony show.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on August 01, 2019, 01:51:27
:not-again:

See rest of article here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-navy-to-rescind-medals-for-eddie-gallaghers-prosecutors (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-calls-for-navy-to-rescind-medals-for-eddie-gallaghers-prosecutors)

 :brickwall:

More info on this is in this navy Times article.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/07/30/their-case-collapsed-in-court-but-4-navy-prosecutors-still-netted-nams/ (https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/07/30/their-case-collapsed-in-court-but-4-navy-prosecutors-still-netted-nams/)

Quote
Signed by Capt. Meg Larrea, the commanding officer for RLSO Southwest, McDonald’s NAM citation praised him for his “superior performance” after reviewing a (redacted) number of hours of video and reading a (redacted) number of pages of discovery to prep for a trial where he “brilliantly cross-examined defense witnesses” and “expertly delivered the government’s case in rebuttal.”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 01, 2019, 13:29:26
Jared is bringing peace to the middle east, Ivanka is, well, Ivanking.

Speaking of bringing your kids to work,

Quote
NBC

31 July, 2019

Watchdog tells Democrats he can't probe White House security clearances until Trump asks.

Four top Senate Democrats responded by asking Trump himself to order an investigation into White House security clearances for Kushner, Ivanka and others.

The real SWAMP creature is Christopher Wray. There has to be someone decent to be FBI Director.

Quote
FBI Director Wray: Russia intent on interfering with U.S. elections
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-security/fbi-director-wray-russia-intent-on-interfering-with-u-s-vote-idUSKCN1UI1XW





Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 01, 2019, 22:06:31
Further to Trump's order to rescind Navy Achievement Medals:

Quote
Thousands of officers with Bronze Stars terrified after Trump rescinds four bullshit awards

By Paul Sharpe

WASHINGTON — Officers across the military who have been awarded Bronze Stars say they are terrified for the future after learning that President Donald Trump had on Wednesday rescinded four bullshit awards handed out to Navy prosecutors who lost the murder trial of SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher.

“If POTUS figured out these guys don’t deserve a [Navy Achievement Medal], can you just imagine if he found out about how I got a Bronze Star for processing soldiers’ leave requests in theater?” said one officer, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. “Oh Christ, I can’t believe they even gave me a Combat ‘V’ for this for going on one patrol.”

Trump tweeted on Wednesday that he had ordered Navy Secretary Richard Spencer to claw back awards given to the prosecutors in the Gallagher trial, which critics say sets a dangerous precedent that military awards may require officers to earn them.

“I mean, hell, how many senior officers will this take out if Trump starts looking?” said one general officer with three Bronze Stars, all awarded for successfully not getting fired from command or not banging a subordinate over prior command tours.

“What’s next? Will they start taking away retirement Legion of Merit awards from command sergeants major?” asked one very high-ranking enlisted soldier while preparing for retirement.

Other soldiers feared that their Combat Action Badges could be next to go.

“Will Trump change the rules of engagement so that we had to actually do like combat infantryman stuff instead of just diving into a shelter when a rocket hits the FOB?” asked one soldier while rubbing his CAB as if it were a talisman.

At press time, at least one Navy prosecutor was seen removing his recently-purchased Navy Achievement Medal license plate frame from his car at Naval Base San Diego.

Lieutenant Dan and Grumpy contributed reporting.

https://www.duffelblog.com/2019/08/trump-awards/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Duffel%20Blog&utm_content=Thousands%20of%20officers%20with%20Bronze%20Stars%20terrified%20after%20Trump%20rescinds%20four%20bullshit%20awards&fbclid=IwAR24muhsbW7hK-IaKcvLweNtNJCzy3vHmShrTXj1X7lb_VQclaTDx-sdlQg (https://www.duffelblog.com/2019/08/trump-awards/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Duffel%20Blog&utm_content=Thousands%20of%20officers%20with%20Bronze%20Stars%20terrified%20after%20Trump%20rescinds%20four%20bullshit%20awards&fbclid=IwAR24muhsbW7hK-IaKcvLweNtNJCzy3vHmShrTXj1X7lb_VQclaTDx-sdlQg)

 ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 02, 2019, 02:05:00
Quote
Nancy Pelosi Slams Jared Kushner As A Baltimore ‘Slumlord’

The House speaker says Trump’s son-in-law and White House adviser knows all about the rodent infestations in Baltimore that the president has griped about.

By Mary Papenfuss

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday bashed senior White House adviser Jared Kushner as a Baltimore “slumlord.” It was the latest parry against President Donald Trump’s relentless attacks, widely denounced as racist, on popular Rep. Elijah Cummings and his Baltimore district.

Trump has ripped the Maryland Democrat’s district as a “rodent infested mess” where “no human being” would “want to live.” Yet apartments owned by Kushner and his family in Baltimore County were hit with hundreds of building code violations, including for rodent infestation, and have been the target of tenant lawsuits. One tenant described in a court case a leaking ceiling, maggots in the living room carpeting and “raw sewage” spewing from the kitchen sink.

“The president — this comes as no surprise — really doesn’t know what he’s talking about” regarding Baltimore, Pelosi told journalists, Politico reported.  “Maybe you could ask his son-in-law, who’s a slumlord there, if he wants to talk about rodent infestations.”

Kushner’s Baltimore-area complexes were the target of a scathing investigation in ProPublica, which was co-published by The New York Times in 2017, headlined “The Beleaguered Tenants of Kushnerville.” When the apartments were cited for violations, Baltimore County issued a statement at the time noting: “We expect all landlords to comply with the code requirements that protect the health and safety of their tenants — even if the landlord’s father-in-law is President of the United States.”

Complaints about mice and rat infestations in the Kushner apartments are ongoing.
...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jared-kushner-rodent-infestations-white-house-balitmore-elijah-cummings_n_5d43829fe4b0acb57fc9cf4d (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jared-kushner-rodent-infestations-white-house-balitmore-elijah-cummings_n_5d43829fe4b0acb57fc9cf4d)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Blackadder1916 on August 06, 2019, 01:19:58
So another Trump lapdog as the head intelligence guru. What could go wrong?

Seems like the checks and balances of the system sometimes check and balance.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49200241
Quote
John Ratcliffe: Trump withdraws pick for US intelligence director

2 August 2019

US President Donald Trump has withdrawn his choice for director of national intelligence amid criticism that the Texas congressman was under-qualified.

Mr Trump tweeted that he told Texas Republican John Ratcliffe that the nomination process would be "miserable" for him due to unfair media coverage.

Mr Ratcliffe thanked Mr Trump and said he did not want the job to become "a purely political and partisan issue".

Critics have accused Mr Ratcliffe of padding his intelligence credentials

Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Friday, Mr Trump said Mr Ratcliffe was "treated very badly, very harshly by the press" and that he believes Mr Ratcliffe "made the right decision".

But he added the media was "part of the vetting process" for nominees, and told reporters, "a lot of times you do a very good job".

"I give out a name to the press and they vet for me," Mr Trump went on to say. "We save a lot of money that way. But in the case of John, I believe he was being treated very harshly and unfairly."

Mr Ratcliffe was appointed by Mr Trump days after his aggressive questioning of former-Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the ex-FBI director who led an inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Last Tuesday, after Mr Ratcliffe was picked, Mr Trump defended him as the best man to control US intelligence agencies - a frequent target of criticism by Mr Trump.

"We need somebody strong that can really rein it in, because as I think you've all learned, the intelligence agencies have run amok," Mr Trump said. "They run amok."

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the US Senate.

The position was created in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terror attacks. The DNI oversees the 16 civilian and military agencies that make up the US intelligence community.




Why was it withdrawn?

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, North America reporter

Donald Trump never has been one to back away from a fight with the press. Yet here he is, publicly telling his selection for director of national intelligence that the appointment is not worth enduring the "slander and libel" of the "LameStream Media".

Perhaps the president has had a change of view. More probable, however, is that John Ratcliffe's chances of being successfully confirmed by the US Senate were diminishing by the day.

The drumbeat of negative information about Mr Ratcliffe's credentials-inflation was only exacerbating existing Senate concerns about his qualifications for the intelligence post. Some prominent Republicans were signalling reluctance to support the president's choice.

It wouldn't take too many Republican defections to sink Mr Ratcliffe's nomination if it came to a vote.

This is far from the first time the president has seen a political appointment founder - either before or after confirmation - because of insufficient vetting or objections from unexpected sources.

At this point in his presidency it seems unlikely that Mr Trump will back away from his nominate-from-the-hip style of personnel selection, but it's also clear at this point that such an approach comes at a price.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on August 06, 2019, 09:34:52
Wired  posted an interesting article last week on Ratcliffe, and his lying resume padding: "The Danger of John Ratcliffe."  LINK (http://www.wired.com/story/john-ratcliffe-dni-trump-nominee-danger)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 06, 2019, 12:16:24
Wired  posted an interesting article last week on Ratcliffe, and his lying resume padding: "The Danger of John Ratcliffe."  LINK (http://www.wired.com/story/john-ratcliffe-dni-trump-nominee-danger)

I didn't realize that the technonerds at Wired had moved into the political arena. They used to be known for their reviews and articles on technological advances, not politics.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Blackadder1916 on August 06, 2019, 13:07:46
. . .  the technonerds at Wired had moved into the political arena. . . .

The author of the Wired piece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Graff
Quote
Garrett M. Graff (born 1981) is an American journalist and author. He is a former editor of Politico Magazine,[1] editor-in-chief of Washingtonian magazine in Washington, D.C., and instructor at Georgetown University in the Masters in Professional Studies Journalism and Public Relations program.

Graff was born in 1981 and raised in Montpelier, Vermont. As an undergraduate at Harvard University, Graff was an editor of the Harvard Crimson. He also held internships at ABC News' Political Unit and Atlantic Monthly. He served as deputy national press secretary on Howard Dean's presidential campaign; he helped create and maintain Dean's website.

He later took a job as the Vice President of Communications at EchoDitto, Inc. a Washington, D.C.-based technology consulting firm.[4] Graff also ran FishbowlDC for the blog Media Bistro. In 2005, Graff became the first blogger to receive credentials to cover the White House.
 

Well, he's probably a technonerd, but also has legitimate political reporting credentials.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on August 06, 2019, 15:46:22
I didn't realize that the technonerds at Wired had moved into the political arena. They used to be known for their reviews and articles on technological advances, not politics.

Realizing things is often easy with even basic research. Meaningfully critiquing a position or claim on its merits will take a bit more work, I’m afraid.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 06, 2019, 17:01:03
Meanwhile, in today's news,

Quote
Peter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump texts
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/06/peter-strzok-lawsuit-firing-trump-texts-1448615

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 06, 2019, 17:06:04
Realizing things is often easy with even basic research. Meaningfully critiquing a position or claim on its merits will take a bit more work, I’m afraid.

I was simply commenting on the magazine used for the source.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on August 06, 2019, 17:09:54
I was simply commenting on the magazine used for the source.

Sure you were.  ::)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 06, 2019, 17:13:19
Sure you were.  ::)

Yes I was.  ::) ::). Mind reading is a parlour trick.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 06, 2019, 17:40:54
The author of the Wired piece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Graff
Well, he's probably a technonerd, but also has legitimate political reporting credentials.

Wired has a whole section on culture, politics and current events.  Security being at another thing they regularly cover.  The magazine commenting on this or having an op ed on subjects like this is not uncommon.  I don’t normally read that magazine but a quick search confirms it.   
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 07, 2019, 16:36:38
Terry Glavin lets both sides have it with both barrels (whilst taking shots at our own pols):

Quote
Quote
As the Democrats show, America lost its way long before Trump
The country is convulsing in an epidemic of mass-shootings, a recrudescence of white racism, and divisions as deep as the depths of the 1960s.

We’re all going to have wait another 15 months to learn whether Americans have had their fill of the depraved presidency of Donald J. Trump, and because there’s no telling what further damage he might yet do to the cause of liberal democracy in the world, or to democratic norms and civic decency in America itself, it’s going to seem like an eternity.

Here in Canada, we will have plenty of frivolous matters to concern ourselves with in the 10 weeks that remain before we go to the polls, and plenty of opportunity to be amused by the occasional exertions our party leaders make in their efforts to convince us all that the choice we make on Oct. 21 will somehow matter to the course of global affairs. It won’t.

America’s afflictions, meanwhile, are chronic and debilitating. They did not begin with Trump, and they will not end on Nov. 3, 2020, but in the meantime there will be all sorts of opportunities to resort to the annoying Canadian habit of flattering ourselves by way of comparison to the American predicament. It’s like Tourette’s syndrome, and we’re especially susceptible to it now that our prime minister is the dashingly woke, tousle-haired Justin Trudeau.

But America’s problem is not just that its president is a louche bigot and something of a maniac, or that his most devoted constituencies tend to run along a spectrum that stretches well into the netherworld of the far right. It’s the opposition leadership, too, and it doesn’t help that the Democratic Party’s frontrunners embrace policies that would not be out of place among Canadian Liberals, New Democrats, Greens or even Conservatives.

In a survey of the contestants for the Democratic Party ticket and their various televised-debate performances, here’s the fervently liberal polemicist Peter Beinart, a journalism professor at the City University of New York, writing in the Atlantic: “It was almost as if these Democratic candidates were running for prime minister of Canada.” This was not intended as flattery.

It was intended to suggest that Canadian politicians can afford to be unserious in their detachment from the burdens of global responsibility
[emphasis added], whereas contenders for the Oval Office office cannot be so frivolous. The Trump administration is cleaving to a balance-of-power strategy in its approach to China that is more suited to the 1930s. China, dangerously, is dead set against it. None of the Democratic front-runners have had anything of consequence to contribute to the debate about what to do.

“That might be okay if the United States were Canada,” writes Beinart. “But the next president will make decisions that could determine whether there’s a World War III.”

In the Washington Post, columnist Anne Applebaum has noticed the same thing about the Democratic candidates’ debates, in “the near-total absence of the rest of the world. There was no Europe, no China, no Venezuela. The glancing references to the Middle East mostly involved posturing about the past — specifically about how the candidates did or didn’t support the Iraq War more than 16 years ago.”

This might be explained by the awkwardness any leading Democrat would have to navigate in articulating any robust critique of a president whose foreign trade policies meet or exceed the anti-globalization rhetoric that animated the Democratic Party’s liberal-left activists over the past quarter of a century. And Trump is every bit as isolationist as any of the “anti-war” blowhards in the Democratic Party’s élite constituencies.

If the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism, pacifism must be the second-to-last. For all the gargoyles the Trump administration has attracted to itself, you would be hard-pressed to identify anyone as morally unhygienic as the glamorous Democratic Party ticket contender Tulsi Gabbard, whose excuse-making for the fascist mass-murderer Bashar Assad has until recently gone almost unnoticed. That’s to say nothing of her support for Trump’s attempts at restricting Muslim immigration, or the support she’s garnered from Russian diplomats and the 9/11-conspiracy fringe. Just because Republicans have been happy to point out these unpleasant facts about Gabbard does not make them untrue.

It is as if Trump’s leading and loudest detractors are afflicted by some strange Pavlovian malady. If Trump were to depart from demonizing Muslims and Mexicans for a moment and say something about the sky being blue, you can count on it, the New York Times and the Washington Post would be pleased to disabuse the American public of the notion. You’d be reading opeds arguing that the sky is rather more violet, and only seems to be blue because of the way sunlight enters Earth’s upper atmosphere.

In one of those Twitter eruptions that nowadays punctuate the erratic flow of American political discourse, just the other day Trump singled out, in his customarily ugly way, the dubiously credentialed civil rights celebrity Al Sharpton. Without an ear for irony, in the same statement confessing a 25-year friendship with Sharpton, Trump called him a con man and a troublemaker, “always looking for a score … Hates Whites & Cops!”

Straight away, the leading Democratic Party ticket contender Joe Biden, the former vice-president, rushed to Sharpton’s defence, calling him “a champion in the fight for civil rights.” Other contenders weighed in similarly blasting Trump’s comments as racist. California Sen. Kamala Harris declared that Sharpton “has spent his life fighting for what’s right and working to improve our nation,” and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed Sharpton has “dedicated his life to the fight for justice for all.”

These résumé embellishments leave out a more sordid history of Sharpton’s pandering to anti-semitic hysteria and his descents into mob-incitement, not least the deadly 1991 riots in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, which were as close as recent American history comes to anti-Jewish pogroms.

America is in the throes of a debilitating culture war. The country is mired in the abyss of chronic gun-violence that only a constitutional amendment could come close to addressing – and which nobody expects will be possible. It’s a country convulsing in an epidemic of mass-shootings, a recrudescence of white racism, and divisions as deep as the depths of the 1960s. It’s true that Trump has pandered to racists in his deranged alarms about an “invasion” on the Mexican border. But it’s also true that asylum claims from the United States’ southern frontiers have more than doubled in the past four years, the courts have introduced unmanageable complexity into the American asylum system, and more than half a million people have been apprehended crossing the border so far this year, exceeding the annual figures for the past five years.

The international liberal-democratic order will offer up hosannas if Trump is evicted from the White House next year, but the America that was once a beacon of hope to the unfree and the persecuted around the world is already gone. It was gone before Trump. And there’s no telling whether that America will ever return again.
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-as-the-democrats-show-america-lost-its-way-long-before-trump

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 07, 2019, 17:43:10
Reply #616,

Quote
the deadly 1991 riots in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, which were as close as recent American history comes to anti-Jewish pogroms.

I remember that. Two little African-American kids were run over. Members of the community were outraged because Hatzolah took care of the driver ( who was Jewish ), while the City of New York paramedics were still rescuing the children pinned under his station-wagon. One child died. The other was severely injured.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 07, 2019, 20:36:32
Quote
America’s afflictions, meanwhile, are chronic and debilitating. They did not begin with Trump, and they will not end on Nov. 3, 2020, but in the meantime there will be all sorts of opportunities to resort to the annoying Canadian habit of flattering ourselves by way of comparison to the American predicament. It’s like Tourette’s syndrome, and we’re especially susceptible to it now that our prime minister is the dashingly woke, tousle-haired Justin Trudeau.


I love when Canadians look down their noses at the US, or the world, when we watch from our morally superior perch atop the rubbish heap the liberals have given us. We have a PM that has many of the same traits as Trump, when it comes to honesty, blame, taking responsibility and doing whatever he wants, regardless of what anyone but himself, thinks. At least the US isn't bleeding employment, money, trade and respect like we are. Nor is Trump emptying the treasury and giving it away, without qualification or oversight, to fixing the world's social problems, (if that is where it is really going) while ignoring his own citizens. While Trump may be a neophyte to politics and have that as some small excuse, trudeau can't use that crutch. So who is really doing the damage and further ruining their country? Which country is really the worse mess. We are not far from the same predicaments as the US. The difference being, the US is like a huge metropolis with problems. Canada is like the quaint country town that nobody believes can have big city problems, but we have them just the same and each citizen feels the pinch even worse.

I don't think our glass house will hold when someone decides to throw our rocks back at us. However, I'm sure our journalist of foreign affairs will sort it out for us. I mean, she's one of trudeau's wizards right?

Let's not kid ourselves, we are in as bad a shape as the US, if not worse. We shouldn't be pointing fingers or lecturing anyone given the state of our own government and country. Moralistic hypoctites, it's what we do best isn't it.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 07, 2019, 20:39:15

I love when Canadians look down their noses at the US, or the world, when we watch from our morally superior perch atop the rubbish heap the liberals have given us. We have a PM that has many of the same traits as Trump, when it comes to honesty, blame, taking responsibility and doing whatever he wants, regardless of what anyone but himself, thinks. At least the US isn't bleeding employment, money, trade and respect like we are. Nor is Trump emptying the treasury and giving it away, without qualification or oversight, to fixing the world's social problems, (if that is where it is really going) while ignoring his own citizens. While Trump may be a neophyte to politics and have that as some small excuse, trudeau can't use that crutch. So who is really doing the damage and further ruining their country? Which country is really the worse mess. We are not far from the same predicaments as the US. The difference being, the US is like a huge metropolis with problems. Canada is like the quaint country town that nobody believes can have big city problems, but we have them just the same and each citizen feels the pinch even worse.

I don't think our glass house will hold when someone decides to throw our rocks back at us. However, I'm sure our journalist of foreign affairs will sort it out for us. I mean, she's one of trudeau's wizards right?

Let's not kid ourselves, we are in as bad a shape as the US, if not worse. We shouldn't be pointing fingers or lecturing anyone given the state of our own government and country. Moralistic hypoctites, it's what we do best isn't it.
Sure bud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 01:35:11
Terry Glavin lets both sides have it with both barrels (whilst taking shots at our own pols):
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-as-the-democrats-show-america-lost-its-way-long-before-trump

Mark
Ottawa

Pretty good take on it.  America is having a serious culture war. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 01:42:25
Pretty good take on it.  America is having a serious culture war.

...and Canada's not?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 08, 2019, 01:43:11
...and Canada's not?
Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 01:45:07
 :rofl:
Nope.
:rofl:

We seriously need a head in the sand emoji at milnet.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Good2Golf on August 08, 2019, 06:39:24
:rofl: :rofl:

We seriously need a head in the sand emoji at milnet.

...or fingers in ears singing “la la la la la....I can’t hear you...”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 09:42:22
The Atlantic offers a good article on White Identity Politics


In the interview it covers some misconceptions, identifies two types of White Identity, how Trump is using both sides to his advantage and how he risks alienating a portion of that support.  A good article on a study that sheds some light on the subject which I think helps the reader better understand part of the political environment in the US right now. 


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/who-does-trumps-white-identity-politics-reach/595189/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 08, 2019, 10:03:34
:rofl: :rofl:

We seriously need a head in the sand emoji at milnet.
Good one, very original.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 11:18:24
...or fingers in ears singing “la la la la la....I can’t hear you...”
Well, there is enough alumni, here, on both sides to warrant it. ;)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 08, 2019, 12:11:25
Presidential rhetoric as a legal defence?

Quote
Aug 08, 2019

Attorney: Montana man thought he was acting on Trump's orders when he assaulted 13-year-old during national anthem
https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/Attorney-Montana-man-thought-he-was-acting-on-Trumps-orders-when-he-assaulted-13-year-old-during-national-anthem-527758831.html
His attorney said his client believed he was acting on orders from the commander in chief.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 12:21:10
Presidential rhetoric as a legal defence?

I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that type of defense.  Also the thinking that the current POTUS might pardon them.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 08, 2019, 13:05:38
:rofl: :rofl:

We seriously need a head in the sand emoji at milnet.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Canada has problems as well, but there is a major difference in degree.

The magnitude of the fracture that exists in the US society is deep and divides there society into two large, polar opposite camps. Perhaps we in Canada are saved by the fact that there are three major political parties which allows us to spread our differences more widely and less deeply.

On the other hand, a "head in the sand" emoji would be a nice addition. As would an "incredulous disbelief" one.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 13:19:45
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Canada has problems as well, but there is a major difference in degree.

The magnitude of the fracture that exists in the US society is deep and divides there society into two large, polar opposite camps. Perhaps we in Canada are saved by the fact that there are three major political parties which allows us to spread our differences more widely and less deeply.

On the other hand, a "head in the sand" emoji would be a nice addition. As would an "incredulous disbelief" one.

 :cheers:

On paper we have three, four, whatever. In reality, we have two, with fair weather allies. The gap between is increasing as the left moves further left, like the democrats. Alberta is starting to simmer with separation talk, which includes Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in varying degrees. There is a strong west vs east movement growing. We have a governing liberal party who's main election platform consists of members calling anything right of them racists and white supremacists. They have been, since 2016 driving a wedge between muslims and the rest of Canada. They believe in open borders. They want to give everything away for free. We shouldn't kid ourselves. Our liberals and their democrats have the same interests, even some of the same financial backing and strong working relationships. It's really just below the surface and not really hiding. You just got to scratch the surface a little bit. We really aren't that much different at all.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 08, 2019, 13:40:35
Deleted as not a fan of the language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 14:24:35
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that Canada has problems as well, but there is a major difference in degree.

The magnitude of the fracture that exists in the US society is deep and divides there society into two large, polar opposite camps. Perhaps we in Canada are saved by the fact that there are three major political parties which allows us to spread our differences more widely and less deeply.


 :cheers:

It's imbedded in their society and has been since day one.  Every so often it bubbles up.  The revolution had two camps.  A good chunk of the loyalists got out of dodge and moved to Canada but some stayed.  Then the Civil War breaks out North vs South but it was really about Slaves anyway you look at it and ways of life.  Intersperse immigrant resentment here and there in the last few hundred years, civil rights clashes in the 60's etc.  They are now back at it.  like a cycle.  Race is still an issue, immigrants are an issue, left vs right.  You now have a POTUS who has used all of those wedge issues to his advantage, stable genius in that regard for sure.  The problem right now is how normalised the language is on both sides now. 

We never had a race war per se.  Racism exists yes but Canada never had a slave society like the US did.  We also had a system where three cultures had to co-exist or face annexation or another revolution or civil war or whatever.  The Brits had to accommodate the French.  The French had always had to coexist with Indigenous peoples and that extended when the Brits took over.  It was not perfect but at least we don't have near what is happening south of us.  Canada's history is what makes us different.  That isn't to say that attempst to assimilate minorities or that armed conflicts didn't happen but they were smaller scale and localised. 

We also did not have near the religious zealotry that existed when the US created things like manifest destiny, god given rights and all that.  We did have some but not nearly what the US had and still has.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 08, 2019, 14:47:21
Canada's history is what makes us different. 

We seem to prefer our hockey riots.  :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 14:50:33
We seem to prefer our hockey riots.  :)

Leaf's fans vs Habs seems to be the biggest divide over our history.   ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on August 08, 2019, 16:57:02
Leaf's fans vs Habs seems to be the biggest divide over our history.   ;D

Or Vancouver fans vs the city of Vancouver.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 08, 2019, 17:27:34
On paper we have three, four, whatever. In reality, we have two, with fair weather allies. The gap between is increasing as the left moves further left, like the democrats. Alberta is starting to simmer with separation talk, which includes Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in varying degrees. There is a strong west vs east movement growing. We have a governing liberal party who's main election platform consists of members calling anything right of them racists and white supremacists. They have been, since 2016 driving a wedge between muslims and the rest of Canada. They believe in open borders. They want to give everything away for free. We shouldn't kid ourselves. Our liberals and their democrats have the same interests, even some of the same financial backing and strong working relationships. It's really just below the surface and not really hiding. You just got to scratch the surface a little bit. We really aren't that much different at all.

Alberta is starting to simmer with separation talk

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/08/majority-of-canadians-support-countrys-separation-from-jason-kenney/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 08, 2019, 17:47:13
Quote
Peter Strzok sues over firing for anti-Trump texts
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/06/peter-strzok-lawsuit-firing-trump-texts-1448615

And today another,

Quote
Ex-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe Sues Over What He Calls Wrongful Firing
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/693598382/ex-deputy-fbi-director-andrew-mccabe-sues-over-what-he-calls-wrongful-firing
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 17:54:51
If I thought for a minute that they were financing the suits themselves, I'd be inclined to think about it. But my gut says they are not. If I'm correct, it may be it's just another hopeless, time consuming straw to throw on the anti Trump hay wagon.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 08, 2019, 18:55:17
And today another,


Bet you these get settled with non disclosure agreements.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 20:21:30
Bet they don't.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 21:02:57

Alberta is starting to simmer with separation talk

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/08/majority-of-canadians-support-countrys-separation-from-jason-kenney/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love the Beaverton. I think their TV program starts here this week.

Here's some real numbers.
Now, these are just stats, from polls. I'm not attributing great accuracy or honest collection. I also don't know how the poll was conducted, or how it was worded. These are just the results.

25% of Albertans agree with leaving Canada, second only to Quebec at 28%
https://abacusdata.ca/has-canada-been-worth-it-views-on-leaving-confederation/

Angus Reid has it at 50% of Albertans think Alberta separation is a real possibility ( Feb 19)
http://angusreid.org/western-canada-separatism/

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 08, 2019, 21:09:33
Bet you these get settled with non disclosure agreements.

Bet they don't.

Some background on the McCabe and Strzok cases:

Quote
  Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok are both suing the Justice Department

By Andrew Prokopandrew@vox.com Aug 8, 2019, 7:00pm EDT

Former FBI officials Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, who were each fired by the Trump administration after facing intense criticism from the president, both filed lawsuits against the Justice Department this week alleging unlawful political retaliation.

McCabe filed his lawsuit Thursday, arguing his January 2018 demotion from the deputy FBI director position and his March 2018 firing from the FBI were “politically motivated and retaliatory.” He added that they harmed his “reputation, professional standing, and dramatically reduced his retirement benefits.”

Just two days earlier, Strzok had filed his own suit, arguing that his firing from the FBI in August 2018 was “because of his protected political speech” and violated his First Amendment rights. Both men are seeking reinstatement of their positions and lost pay.

Both McCabe and Strzok had spent decades in the FBI before becoming involved in the politically charged investigations related to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — and then in their individual controversies.

Even before Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and went to war with his own Justice Department in 2017, the president was fixated on McCabe due to his wife Jill’s previous unsuccessful campaign for a state Senate seat as a Democrat in Virginia. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA), a longtime close ally of the Clintons, had helped her raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for her campaign.

McCabe rose to acting FBI director after Comey’s firing, and was in that role for the first few months of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. He returned to the deputy role once Chris Wray was confirmed by the Senate as Comey’s replacement.

But McCabe became embroiled in a leak investigation as the Justice Department sought to find the source behind an October 2016 Wall Street Journal story about internal deliberations about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. McCabe had in fact authorized these leaks, and the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, concluded he lacked candor when asked about them by investigators.

Strzok, meanwhile, was assigned as the lead FBI agent to Mueller’s team. But he didn’t last long there. Stzrok had been having an affair with his FBI colleague Lisa Page, and they had exchanged thousands of politically charged text messages — including many disparaging comments about then-candidate Trump — on FBI devices. While investigating those leaks, Horowitz’s team found those Strzok-Page messages, and Mueller quickly removed Strzok from his team.

Both McCabe and Strzok came under intense criticism from conservative commentators, Republican members of Congress, and the president himself.

    FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

    FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who headed the Clinton & Russia investigations, texted to his lover Lisa Page, in the IG Report, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from becoming President. Doesn’t get any lower than that!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2018

Eventually, both McCabe and Strzok were fired, in somewhat strange circumstances.

First, McCabe had let it be known in 2017 that he was planning to retire — but only once he became fully eligible for his pension, in March. But, a little more than 24 hours before he became eligible, the Justice Department fired McCabe, citing the inspector general’s findings in the leak investigation. The timing is certainly curious, and the consequence is that McCabe won’t be able to draw his pension for several years.

Second, Strzok had been moved to the FBI’s human resources division as the Justice Department reviewed his conduct with regard to those politically charged text messages. On August 8, 2018, an FBI official in the Office of Professional Responsibility decided that he shouldn’t be fired, but rather demoted and suspended for 60 days. But then, the very next day, Strzok was fired immediately, without being given a chance to appeal the decision.

Now both McCabe and Strzok have filed lawsuits arguing that politics was the real reason behind both of the firings.


 Link (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/8/20797421/andrew-mccabe-peter-strzok-lawsuits-trump-barr)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 08, 2019, 21:21:52
Quote
Former FBI officials Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, who were each fired by the Trump administration after facing intense criticism from the president, both filed lawsuits against the Justice Department this week alleging unlawful political retaliation.
   

Fired by the Justice Dept., which they would argue is the Trump administration. That, though is disingenuous and decietful. Now, did Trump have anything to do with it? That'll be for the court to decide.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 08, 2019, 21:50:21
>The Atlantic offers a good article on White Identity Politics

It reads about the same if you substitute black, hispanic, feminist, aboriginal, gay, etc for white.  The author has discovered what people were saying immediately after the last election - after decades of being treated as an identifiable group, a bloc of whites seemed to vote like one*.  The key difference the interviewee noted is that the "ex-European" faction is protecting status that pretty much every other group still feels it has to attain.

The underlying question to answer is whether division of political power and privileges is zero-sum.  If it is not, and people can be convinced that it is not, then the path forward is easy.  If is it zero-sum, then the US - in which the political "prize" is huge - will continue to see more strongly expressed division than nearly all other countries.

*Given that vote counts moved away from the Democrat and Republican candidates toward the Green and Libertarian candidates between 2012 and 2016, "seemed" is a necessary qualifier.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on August 08, 2019, 21:55:02
   

Fired by the Justice Dept., which they would argue is the Trump administration. That, though is disingenuous and decietful. Now, did Trump have anything to do with it? That'll be for the court to decide.

It’s certainly part of the executive branch, and he was high enough to be fired by an appointed deputy director, so there’s merit to the claim.

Trump nominated the director for appointment. That director appointed the deputy who then fired Strzok. It’s certainly conceivable that there was political influence in his firing. Disingenuous? Not at all. Deceitful? Only if the claim is known not to be true by those making it. Given how much Trump et al railed against Strzok and alleged corruption while calling for him to be fired, there is certainly a case to be made for political retaliation.

As you say- it’s ultimately for the court to decide, if the administration doesn’t settle.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 08, 2019, 22:10:27
>We also did not have near the religious zealotry that existed when the US created things like manifest destiny, god given rights and all that.

At the time of founding, the US didn't have the religious zealotry some people imagine.  You might find it ironic that writers on the left and slightly extreme right (libertarians) have done much of the heavy lifting to dispel that myth. 

The idea of the US as two strong opposing factions suffers from the fact that the factions are not immutable; the identities change over time.  Canada escapes more divisive politics because the provinces still have a lot of power; in the US, the presidency holds an enormous amount of power.  The bigger the stakes; the bigger the fight.  (Western separatists in Canada are nowhere near achieving a critical mass for defection.)

As power increasingly accrues to a federal government, I'd expect politics to become increasingly adversarial.  This is what we observe in the US.  What progressives want ("more government") militates strongly against peace.  For collegial government to resume, progressives have to "lose".  If they "win" (achieve a more or less permanent but small majority which can control the presidency and House), I suppose the US will fracture.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 08, 2019, 23:38:54
It's imbedded in their society and has been since day one.  Every so often it bubbles up.  The revolution had two camps.  A good chunk of the loyalists got out of dodge and moved to Canada but some stayed.  Then the Civil War breaks out North vs South but it was really about Slaves anyway you look at it and ways of life.  Intersperse immigrant resentment here and there in the last few hundred years, civil rights clashes in the 60's etc.  They are now back at it.  like a cycle.  Race is still an issue, immigrants are an issue, left vs right.  You now have a POTUS who has used all of those wedge issues to his advantage, stable genius in that regard for sure.  The problem right now is how normalised the language is on both sides now. 

We never had a race war per se.  Racism exists yes but Canada never had a slave society like the US did.  We also had a system where three cultures had to co-exist or face annexation or another revolution or civil war or whatever.  The Brits had to accommodate the French.  The French had always had to coexist with Indigenous peoples and that extended when the Brits took over.  It was not perfect but at least we don't have near what is happening south of us.  Canada's history is what makes us different.  That isn't to say that attempst to assimilate minorities or that armed conflicts didn't happen but they were smaller scale and localised. 

We also did not have near the religious zealotry that existed when the US created things like manifest destiny, god given rights and all that.  We did have some but not nearly what the US had and still has.

You make some excellent points.

On the "manifest destiny, god given rights" issue, I've just been re-watching the 1996 PBS series "Ken Burns Presents: The West" on Netflix. It leaves me shaking my head at how one people could/can treat others (in this case specifically Native Americans, Mexicans and Chinese in that order) in the name of progress and God.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 11, 2019, 22:17:43
Quote
The cost of Trump's new Air Force One has skyrocketed nearly $2 billion from the original estimate

Ellen Ioanes Aug. 5, 2019, 4:07 PM


The new Air Force One will cost the Pentagon $5.2 billion, according to the Defense Department's first formal acquisition report for the aircraft.
In 2016, it was estimated that the new aircraft would cost $3.2 billion. A year later, President Donald Trump said he negotiated the planes' cost down by $1 billion.
The converted Boeing 747s are set to be delivered in 2024, although Trump has requested that they be delivered in 2021.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
According to Air Force Magazine, President Donald Trump's new Air Force One fleet will cost a total of $5.2 billion, up from the 2016 estimate of $3.2 billion.

Two Boeing 747-8s are being converted into VC-25s, the model used for VIP transport. They will serve as the "flying White House" starting in 2024, although Trump requested that they be ready for use in 2021.

Trump had boasted that he struck a deal with Boeing to lower the cost of renovating the jets, which were originally built for a now defunct Russian airline, by $1 billion. Boeing will be paid $3.9 billion to build the jets for the White House. The additional $1.3 billion comes from associated costs, like building hangars for the new jets. INSIDER reached out to the Air Force for comment on the new budget estimate but did not receive a response by press time.

The new estimate is the first time the Pentagon has actually provided a complete budget for the project; the number was included in its first formal acquisition estimate for the project, Air Force Magazine reported.

While Trump has said his new designs for Air Force One were for the benefit of future presidents, there's been little discussion about what the upgrades actually are, besides a new paint job.

In a June interview with George Stephanopoulos, Trump showed off four variations of the same red, white, and blue paint jobs for the new Air Force One, departing from the baby-blue color scheme that has been in use since the Kennedy era.

INSIDER previously reported that the new paint job looks quite a bit like the one on Trump's personal jet, a Boeing 757.

"It's going to be the top of the line, the top in the world. And it's going to be red, white, and blue, which I think is appropriate," Trump said.

In the same interview, Trump said the new Air Force One "is going to be incredible."

"We added things," he said, without elaborating.

https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-one-pentagon-52-billion-2019-8 (https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-one-pentagon-52-billion-2019-8)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on August 16, 2019, 21:34:02
RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSS ...... RACISM! RACISM RACISM! Seems the New York Times needs to refocus their efforts in light of the dud the Mueller report was. Don't you love it when a paper has a plan, go for one thing with tremendous effort.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-york-times-chief-outlines-coverage-shift-from-trump-russia-to-trump-racism (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-york-times-chief-outlines-coverage-shift-from-trump-russia-to-trump-racism)

Quote
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president's alleged racism.
"We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," Baquet said. "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story."

Quote
The town hall was spurred by angry reaction, both inside and outside the Times, to a headline that many on the Left faulted for being insufficiently anti-Trump. After the El Paso shootings, when the president denounced white supremacy, the Times published a page-one story with the heading, "Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 17, 2019, 06:28:26
RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSS ......

Not a "witch hunt"?
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=2c1XXY6FDsy5ggfQ1ZuoCQ&q=trump+%22witch+hunt%22&oq=trump+%22witch+hunt%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6344.9835..10340...0.0..0.211.387.0j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.x_1HnlzrWXQ&ved=0ahUKEwjO1f_F0InkAhXMnOAKHdDqBpUQ4dUDCAo&uact=5#spf=1566035429521


RACISM! RACISM RACISM!

Not a "hoax"?
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=5c1XXeSeDebH_QauspHQAw&q=%22white+supremacy%22+hoax&oq=%22white+supremacy%22+hoax&gs_l=psy-ab.3...39502.49529..51423...0.0..0.370.3061.1j20j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i67j0i131j0j0i20i263.ce1CGfk098s&ved=0ahUKEwikpdvL0InkAhXmY98KHS5ZBDoQ4dUDCAo&uact=5#spf=1566035482515
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 19, 2019, 13:40:02


Looks like Fox News might be heading into fake news territory for Donald Trump...



https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fox-news/index.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on August 21, 2019, 22:32:20
Edit: removed .jpg



Why didn't you just link to the original WaPo opinion piece?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/21/trump-just-nixed-denmark-trip-does-he-fear-contrast-with-obama/?noredirect=on (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/21/trump-just-nixed-denmark-trip-does-he-fear-contrast-with-obama/?noredirect=on)
Quote
Some observers have offered another possible explanation: Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, plans to visit Denmark at the end of September, and Trump feared the contrasting optics.

“Trump was scared of the likely contrast,” opined David Frum. “Trump knows Obama is bigger than he is, around the world as well as in the United States. That knowledge tortures Trump.”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 22, 2019, 01:31:58
I thought we weren't doing memes in the politics threads. It's about to get crowded in here, because I have lots.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 22, 2019, 02:55:12
>Why didn't you just link to the original WaPo opinion piece?

What would be the point?  It's an opinion of Trump's state of mind written by someone who is not Trump and doesn't like Trump.  There is a universe of potential opinions; why waste time on one?

I saw a forgettable movie about a long car chase (that was the whole movie) years ago.  Cary Elwes did an amusing send-up of a news anchor endlessly speculating about what was going on with the drama-in-the-making.  That is pretty much the state of reporting on Trump.  I can't conceive of wasting time trying to fathom someone that erratic.  It's all a bit Walter Mitty - people imagining things they want to imagine.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: garb811 on August 22, 2019, 10:00:13
I thought we weren't doing memes in the politics threads. It's about to get crowded in here, because I have lots.
No change to the rules.

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on August 22, 2019, 11:44:15
>Why didn't you just link to the original WaPo opinion piece?

What would be the point?  It's an opinion of Trump's state of mind written by someone who is not Trump and doesn't like Trump.  There is a universe of potential opinions; why waste time on one?

I saw a forgettable movie about a long car chase (that was the whole movie) years ago.  Cary Elwes did an amusing send-up of a news anchor endlessly speculating about what was going on with the drama-in-the-making.  That is pretty much the state of reporting on Trump.  I can't conceive of wasting time trying to fathom someone that erratic.  It's all a bit Walter Mitty - people imagining things they want to imagine.

I agree with all of your points. I just posted it to help out a fellow member, he posted a meme that didn't make any sense.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 22, 2019, 13:35:34
Interesting take in the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/trump-denmark/596557/

The second to last paragraph hits the nail on the head I think.

Michael Jarlner, the international editor for Politiken, agrees. “What Denmark has learned with the cancellation is that this really is about the Arctic: The U.S. wants full control,” he says. “And that puts us in a very difficult situation, trying to balance between the three major players there.”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on August 22, 2019, 13:45:28
Apparently Mr Trump’s feelings are hurt that buying Greenland was described as ‘absurd’. This is beginning to devolve into a tantrum.

Quote
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49423968

US President Donald Trump has called the Danish leader "nasty" after she rebuffed his idea of buying Greenland.
He lashed out hours after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was "sorry" that Mr Trump had abruptly called off a state visit to Denmark.
She has dismissed the suggestion of such a land deal as "absurd".
Queen Margrethe II invited Mr Trump to visit Denmark on 2 September, and the manner of his cancellation has stunned the Scandinavian nation.
What did the US president say?
Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn on Wednesday afternoon, Mr Trump took umbrage at Ms Frederiksen's remarks.

"I thought that the prime minister's statement that it was absurd, that it was an absurd idea was nasty," he said.

"I thought it was an inappropriate statement. All she had to do is say no, we wouldn't be interested."

He added: "She's not talking to me. She's talking to the United States of America. You don't talk to the United States that way, at least under me."
Mr Trump pointed out that US President Harry Truman once considered making an offer for Greenland, which is an autonomous Danish territory.

He continued to make digs at Denmark online.

What did the Danish PM say?
Earlier on Wednesday, Ms Frederiksen reiterated that Greenland could not be bought.
She told reporters the idea of selling the resource-rich Arctic island had "clearly been rejected" by its leader, Kim Kielsen, "a position I share of course".

Ms Frederiksen also said the American president's visit would have been an "opportunity to celebrate Denmark's close relationship to the US".

"This does not change the character of our good relations and we will continue our dialogue on how we can deal with challenges we are facing," she said, adding that the invitation to Mr Trump "remains open".

She has said Mr Trump's no-show was a matter of regret because "our preparations were well under way".

How did we get here?

While praising Denmark as a "very special country", Mr Trump said in a tweet on Tuesday that his planned visit would no longer go ahead because Ms Frederiksen had "no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland".

Mr Trump had earlier confirmed reports that he was interested in buying Greenland. When asked on Sunday if he would consider trading a US territory for the island, he replied: "Well, a lot of things could be done."

"Essentially it's a large real estate deal," he said.

On Monday, the US president tweeted a jokey image showing a tall golden skyscraper among the homes of a small village on the island.

How have Danes reacted?

The cancellation was described as a "farce" by the leader of the populist Danish People's Party, Kristian Thulesen Dahl.

"What is this man thinking of though? And with grounds that are worthy of an April Fools' joke," he tweeted.

Danish Conservative MP Rasmus Jarlov accused Mr Trump of lacking respect for his country.

Former foreign minister Kristian Jensen said Mr Trump's move had resulted in "total chaos".

A spokeswoman for the leftist Red-Green Alliance, Pernille Skipper, said: "Trump lives on another planet."

Pia Kjaersgaard, the populist former speaker of the Danish parliament, said it showed "rude behaviour to the Danish people and the Queen, who invited him."

Why might Greenland appeal to the US?

Mr Trump has reportedly taken an interest in Greenland, in part, because of its resources, such as coal, zinc, copper and iron ore.
But while Greenland may be rich in minerals, it relies on Denmark for two-thirds of its budget revenue. It has high rates of suicide, alcoholism and unemployment.

The US has long seen the island, which sits along a direct route from Europe to North America, as being strategically important. It established the Thule air force and radar base there at the start of the Cold War, which now covers space surveillance and forms the northernmost part of the US ballistic missile early warning system.

Meanwhile, new Arctic sea routes are opening up as climate change is blamed for the accelerating thaw of ice in the region.

China has recently been taking an interest in the area, too.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 22, 2019, 14:47:24
>This is beginning to devolve into a tantrum.

Of course it is.  Few heed the wisdom of "avoid the unnecessary battle" or "never wrestle with a pig".  Confronted by one of Trump's irregular, insulting, or ridiculous demands, proposals, or claims, a prudent response is a diplomatically-phrased rejection followed by studied inattention while Trump wanders onto his next fixation.  Instead, we see...a host of irregular, insulting, or ridiculous responses.

Then the press winds itself up with long-winded denunciations of the irregular, insulting, or ridiculous item, when they could instead be writing about substantive matters concerning the administration and Congress.

Waste of ******* time, and it's all the "experts" and "elites" who are playing the game.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Chris Pook on August 22, 2019, 15:33:16
Quote
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The United States in 1946 proposed to pay Denmark $100 million to buy Greenland after flirting with the idea of swapping oil-rich land in Alaska for strategic parts of the bleak Arctic island, documents in the National Archives show.

The $100 million was to be in gold. And even though the sale did not go through, the United States ended up with the military bases it wanted anyway.

Discovery of the documents, which have been declassified since the early 1970s, was first reported Sunday by the Copenhagen newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

W. DALE NELSON
May 2, 1991
https://apnews.com/9d4a8021c3650800fdf6dd5903f68972

Greenland for dollars
Bases for ships
Autopact for nukes

It is a transactional world.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 22, 2019, 15:35:19
...
Waste of ******* time, and it's all the "experts" and "elites" who are playing the game.

That would be the "experts" and "elites" and "some very fine people" from both sides.

 ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Infanteer on August 22, 2019, 15:40:17
>This is beginning to devolve into a tantrum.

Of course it is.  Few heed the wisdom of "avoid the unnecessary battle" or "never wrestle with a pig".  Confronted by one of Trump's irregular, insulting, or ridiculous demands, proposals, or claims, a prudent response is a diplomatically-phrased rejection followed by studied inattention while Trump wanders onto his next fixation.  Instead, we see...a host of irregular, insulting, or ridiculous responses.

Then the press winds itself up with long-winded denunciations of the irregular, insulting, or ridiculous item, when they could instead be writing about substantive matters concerning the administration and Congress.

Waste of ******* time, and it's all the "experts" and "elites" who are playing the game.

You're 100% right.  When kids have tantrums, the right move is to ignore it to prove that tantrums don't work.  Not escalate.

Too bad CNN has dedicated 99% of its bandwidth to having a tantrum back...it just feeds the flames that the President loves to stoke.  What would he do if nobody responded to his antics?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 22, 2019, 18:08:26
You're 100% right.  When kids have tantrums, the right move is to ignore it to prove that tantrums don't work.  Not escalate.

Too bad CNN has dedicated 99% of its bandwidth to having a tantrum back...it just feeds the flames that the President loves to stoke.  What would he do if nobody responded to his antics?

That's such a brilliant observation. They feed off each other so bad.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 22, 2019, 18:32:15
That's such a brilliant observation. They feed off each other so bad.

It borders on obsession. 
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 22, 2019, 19:02:02
Stephen Colbert's numbers have gone up dramatically ever since Trump announced his candidacy and his presidency.

One should never lose sight of the fact that these outfits are entertainment mediums first and advertising dollars matter.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 22, 2019, 19:35:04
NRO editor Rich Lowry, writing at Politico, has some observations (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/21/trump-2020-227854) about all the empty noise.

"Trump reportedly told aides before taking office that they should think of each presidential day as an episode in a TV show, a goal that turns out to have been too modest. Trump acts like he need to produce enough programming to fill a 24-hour news network, with outrages, internal melodrama, legal fights and endless plot twists that are, indisputably, ratings gold."

"What all these controversies have in common is that they fill the hours while nothing much really happens. Is Anthony Scaramucci actually going to organize a primary challenge against Trump? No. Is Greenland going to be sold, or Denmark fall off as a U.S. ally? No. Is Israel’s fate going to rise or fall on the travels of a couple left-wing backbench U.S. congresswomen? No."
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 22, 2019, 22:30:27
In today's news,

Quote
CBC
Aug 22, 2019
Trump's disloyalty slur is about shoring up support from evangelicals, not American Jews: Neil Macdonald
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trump-disployalty-1.5255203
The attack was not really about Jewish American voters at all. Trump wrote them off long ago

For reference,

In 2018, voters who identified as Jewish voted 79% Democrat, and 17% Republican.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/07/how-religious-groups-voted-in-the-midterm-elections/
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on August 23, 2019, 11:10:06
When kids have tantrums, the right move is to ignore it to prove that tantrums don't work.
Kids having tantrums is to be expected.  I have a hard time blithely accepting tantrums associated with compulsive lying, childish name-calling/bullying, trade wars, alienating allies, and embracing autocrats as "the norm."  Perhaps I had higher expectations of "the chosen one."  ::)

The media failing to report on it would be seen as tacit acceptance, rather than curbing such behaviours.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on August 23, 2019, 12:16:57
The media failing to report on it would be seen as tacit acceptance, rather than curbing such behaviours.
… or as censoring said statements/behavior due to media bias.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 23, 2019, 13:26:37
Kids having tantrums is to be expected.  I have a hard time blithely accepting tantrums associated with compulsive lying, childish name-calling/bullying, trade wars, alienating allies, and embracing autocrats as "the norm."  Perhaps I had higher expectations of "the chosen one."  ::)

The media failing to report on it would be seen as tacit acceptance, rather than curbing such behaviours.

Yet it is accepted from our PM.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on August 23, 2019, 13:58:06
Yet it is accepted from our PM.

I thought he meant our PM.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 23, 2019, 14:25:26
>The media failing to report on it would be seen as tacit acceptance, rather than curbing such behaviours.

Report, good; pitch a fit, bad.  Discourage, good; goad, bad.

Even kids manage to figure out when to stop pushing other kids' buttons.  Would that the adults of the international and media communities could figure this out.

Trump is a kid; various Danish politicians are kids; many media talking heads and writers are kids.  The way to defeat your foe is to become him - probably something they read in Art of War.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 23, 2019, 14:30:34
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/business/china-tariffs-trade-war/index.html

So Trump is telling companies to immediately look for alternatives to China...

Canada?  Mexico?  Great Britain? France?  Europe?  How about Denmark?  He's managed to get into it with all the US traditional allies.  The good thing is that regardless of what he says, these countries are more than happy to do business with the US.  But he might not get the deals he thinks he can get now.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on August 23, 2019, 15:31:22
…. regardless of what he says, these countries are more than happy to do business with the US. 
As quick examples:
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) -- 10 ASEAN nations; no US.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership -- 11 Nations; no US.
European Single Market -- EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway; no US.

More and more trade agreements keep coming into force, which exclude the US.  Why could that be?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on August 23, 2019, 17:35:22
There’s more than a semantic difference between treaties that “exclude “ the US and those to which the US has declined participation or ratification. In any event, there aren’t many countries that don’t do business with the US under some form of trade arrangement, regardless if the US is a signatory to other multi lateral trade treaties they may bind themselves to. Hegemony is alive.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on August 23, 2019, 17:39:01
True enough, business will go on since everyone looks to their own interests.  But the rates are unlikely to be as favourable outside of the various agreements' signatories;  ie - it will cost consumers more.... for which blame will be placed on those evil people taking advantage of American kindness and generosity.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 23, 2019, 18:01:31
In case anyone thinks the POTUS tweeting is harmless...

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-stocks-aug-23-2019

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 26, 2019, 11:31:57

So the POTUS asked about nuking hurricanes in a meeting.

Just food for thought but it is an idea (although not feasible) that has been studied before.  And at least he didn't just tweet something about it.

CNN posted this fair op ed about asking that question.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/weather/hurricane-nuclear-bomb-noaa-wxc-trnd/index.html
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 26, 2019, 11:45:52
So the POTUS asked about nuking hurricanes in a meeting.

Regarding that,
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=8O9jXcabMurD_QaqsKuYAQ&q=trump+denies+hurricanes&oq=trump+denies+hurricanes&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2094.8294..8504...0.0..2.1090.7748.1j15j0j2j6-2j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i67j0i131i67j0i131j0.E4KUbYWMKPE&ved=0ahUKEwjG09Hf4qDkAhXqYd8KHSrYChMQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1566830588477
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 26, 2019, 12:11:07
Regarding that,
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=8O9jXcabMurD_QaqsKuYAQ&q=trump+denies+hurricanes&oq=trump+denies+hurricanes&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2094.8294..8504...0.0..2.1090.7748.1j15j0j2j6-2j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i67j0i131i67j0i131j0.E4KUbYWMKPE&ved=0ahUKEwjG09Hf4qDkAhXqYd8KHSrYChMQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1566830588477

Fair enough.  my point though  is even if he did, it is something that was studied before and proposed.  I don't think it was a absurd thing to inquire about if he did.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Blackadder1916 on August 26, 2019, 16:15:47
Fair enough.  my point though  is even if he did, it is something that was studied before and proposed.  I don't think it was a absurd thing to inquire about if he did.

But there is a significant difference (or there should be) between ill or non-informed Joe Lunchbucket who regularly emails NOAA suggesting nuclear explosions as a possible counter to a hurricane and a septagenarian "best brain" with the "best education" who if he had any interest in the world past his personal gratification would have already been aware of the very public discussion during and after his high school and college years of "peaceful nuclear explosions" and "Project Plowshare".  Yes, it was something that was studied and proposed, a half century ago, when nuclear bombs were shiny new toys and all sorts of ideas were floated about, mining, digging a new Panama Canal, oil and gas exploration, . . . , however, after several underground and atmospheric tests in the continental United States the absurdity and dangers of such uses were finally recognized.  There's nothing wrong with the chief executive questioning his agency heads about alternatives to ameliorate the destruction from a weather phenomenon, however, if the reporting that the president spontaneously raised the "nuclear bomb proposal" is accurate, then it suggests a baseline of common knowledge more in line with a regular National Enquirer reader than someone who aspired to the presidency.

It may be low hanging fruit for certain media outlets to latch onto some of the things that the current US president says and use them as an example of either poor judgement or lack of knowledge, but such use is valid and is not something new.  It's just that the current president provides more opportunities than his predecessors.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 28, 2019, 12:57:39
Quote
Ex-Pentagon chief Mattis says bitter politics threaten US
By ROBERT BURNS, ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — Aug 28, 2019, 11:10 AM ET

Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warns in a book excerpt of the bitter political divisions that seem to be tearing apart American society, echoing themes he often cited before he resigned from the Trump administration in protest.

The retired Marine general, who quit in December amid policy disagreements with President Donald Trump, says he is concerned about the state of American politics.

"We all know that we're better than our current politics," Mattis wrote in the excerpt published Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal. "Tribalism must not be allowed to destroy our experiment."

Mattis said that "our own commons seems to be breaking apart" to a degree not seen in the past.

"What concerns me most as a military man is not our external adversaries; it is our internal divisiveness," he wrote.

Much of the excerpt is a recitation of the reasons Mattis has previously given for agreeing to become the Pentagon chief despite not having known or spoken to Trump before being interviewed for the position in November.

Regarding his reasons for leaving, Mattis offered a slightly more pointed explanation than what his resignation letter outlined.

"When my concrete solutions and strategic advice, especially keeping faith with our allies, no longer resonated, it was time to resign, despite the limitless joy I felt serving alongside our troops in defense of our Constitution," he wrote.

Mattis resigned shortly after Trump announced he was pulling all U.S. troops from Syria. In Mattis' view this amounted to betraying the Syrian Kurdish fighters who'd partnered with American troops to combat the Islamic State group.

Mattis' book, "Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead," is scheduled to be published Sept. 3.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/defense-secretary-jim-mattis-us-breaking-point-65240981?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/defense-secretary-jim-mattis-us-breaking-point-65240981?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on August 28, 2019, 15:08:56
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/defense-secretary-jim-mattis-us-breaking-point-65240981?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/defense-secretary-jim-mattis-us-breaking-point-65240981?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed)
Excerpt from Mattis' book, as appeared in the Wall Street Journal, downloadable here (http://tonyprudori.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/135205191/wsj-com-Jim-Mattis-Duty-Democracy-and-the-Threat-of-Tribalism.pdf) (PDF) under the fair dealing provisions of Canada's Copyright Act (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-9.html#h-103270).
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on August 28, 2019, 17:03:50
"When my concrete solutions and strategic advice..."

Did Mattis really say that??  No wonder he's gone.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: PPCLI Guy on August 28, 2019, 20:53:03
"When my concrete solutions and strategic advice..."

Did Mattis really say that??  No wonder he's gone.

I am confused.  What part of this is worthy of your disdain?  That the solutions were concrete (ie not abstract)?  Or that the advice offered by a strategic leader was strategic in nature?

For the record, here is the whole sentence: 

Quote
When my concrete solutions and strategic advice, especially keeping
faith with our allies, no longer resonated, it was time to resign, despite the limitless joy I felt
serving alongside our troops in defense of our Constitution.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on August 28, 2019, 21:44:46
"When my concrete solutions and strategic advice..."

Did Mattis really say that??  No wonder he's gone.

A defense secretary is appointed basically to provide exactly those things, are they not? Any executive with any modest amount of professional quality endeavors to surround themselves with the necessary experts to allow them to make sound and informed decisions. There’s a reason the former commandant of the Marine Corps was appointed. It wasn’t for his looks. If the president thought he could mould Mattis into just another sycophantic clapping seal, he blundered.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 28, 2019, 22:10:25
Reports say he had more turnover in his Cabinet in the first two and a half years than any of his five predecessors had in their entire first terms in office.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on August 29, 2019, 09:39:09
Mattis is interviewed by The Atlantic:

Quote
The Man Who Couldn’t Take It Anymore
“I had no choice but to leave,” General James Mattis says of his decision to resign as President Trump’s secretary of defense.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG  OCTOBER 2019 ISSUE 

On December 19 of last year, Admiral Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met James Mattis for lunch at the Pentagon. Mattis was a day away from resigning as Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, but he tends to keep his own counsel, and he did not suggest to Mullen, his friend and former commander, that he was thinking of leaving.

But Mullen did think Mattis appeared unusually afflicted that day. Mattis often seemed burdened in his role. His aides and friends say he found the president to be of limited cognitive ability, and of generally dubious character. Now Mattis was becoming more and more isolated in the administration, especially since the defenestration of his closest Cabinet ally, the former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, several months earlier. Mattis and Tillerson had together smothered some of Trump’s more extreme and imprudent ideas. But now Mattis was operating without cover. Trump was turning on him publicly; two months earlier, he had speculated that Mattis might be a Democrat and said, in reference to NATO, “I think I know more about it than he does.” (Mattis, as a Marine general, once served as the supreme allied commander in charge of NATO transformation.
...
I thought back to what he’d told me earlier in the summer, when I had asked him to describe something Trump could say or do that would trigger him to launch a frontal attack on the president. He’d demurred, as I had expected. But then he’d issued a caveat: “There is a period in which I owe my silence. It’s not eternal. It’s not going to be forever.”

See rest of article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/10/james-mattis-trump/596665/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/10/james-mattis-trump/596665/)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on August 29, 2019, 12:00:50
I am confused.  What part of this is worthy of your disdain?  That the solutions were concrete (ie not abstract)?  Or that the advice offered by a strategic leader was strategic in nature?

For the record, here is the whole sentence:

If concrete = not abstract, then I have no disdain.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on August 29, 2019, 13:17:03
If concrete = not abstract, then I have no disdain.

General Mattis does not seem like he’s an “abstract” kind of guy.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 29, 2019, 17:16:27
Taylor Swift Will “Do Everything I Can” to End Donald Trump’s Autocracy
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/08/taylor-swift-donald-trump-autocracy-gaslighting

Big guns have been called out!

Quote
Taylor Swift Fans 'Take Down' Kellyanne Conway After Aide Says Singer Lost 'Handily' to Trump
https://people.com/politics/taylor-swift-fans-slam-kellyanne-conway-says-singer-lost-trump/
“SWIFTIES IT’S TIME. WE’VE BEEN TRAINING FOR THIS MOMENT. THIS IS THE BOSS LEVEL. WE MUST TAKE DOWN KELLYANNE CONWAY,” user @ryanferreira wrote.


Boss level! Say goodbye to Mr President







Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on August 29, 2019, 17:41:56
Say goodbye to Mr President

Not to worry as long as the Kremlin continues to find him useful .  :)

Quote
08/29/19

Kremlin-backed TV runs mashup of Trump singing 'Señorita' to Putin
https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/459322-kremlin-backed-tv-runs-mashup-of-trump-singing-senorita-to-putin
Trump's Praise of Putin Mocked On Russian TV With 'Señorita' Mash-up

Quote
Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,.....
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1134066371510378501?lang=en





Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: RomeoJuliet on August 29, 2019, 19:39:11
Taylor Swift Will “Do Everything I Can” to End Donald Trump’s Autocracy
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/08/taylor-swift-donald-trump-autocracy-gaslighting

Big guns have been called out!
https://people.com/politics/taylor-swift-fans-slam-kellyanne-conway-says-singer-lost-trump/
“SWIFTIES IT’S TIME. WE’VE BEEN TRAINING FOR THIS MOMENT. THIS IS THE BOSS LEVEL. WE MUST TAKE DOWN KELLYANNE CONWAY,” user @ryanferreira wrote.


Boss level! Say goodbye to Mr President
And good riddance. Thanks T Swift and crew!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on September 09, 2019, 08:30:46
#POTUS45 meeting with Taliban leaders firing alright, meeting - STOPS (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/peace-talks-with-afghans-taliban-dead-after-trump-cancels-secret-meeting)!
Quote
Peace talks between the U.S. and leaders from Afghanistan and the Taliban have been called off, after the Taliban admitted they were behind a deadly bombing in Kabul last week that resulted in the death of a U.S. soldier.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this Sunday the Taliban “overreached” and showed that they cannot be trusted to move forward with a peace process at this point in time.

“What they did here was they tried to use terror to improve their negotiating position,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”

President Trump revealed the existence of the planned talks and their cancellation Saturday night, announcing that he had intended to hold a secret meeting at Camp David on Sunday, but called it off due to the Taliban’s role in the attack.

Trump added that if the Taliban cannot agree to a ceasefire, "then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway."

Pompeo echoed this, saying the administration is “looking for more than words on paper,” and that the Taliban has demonstrated that they cannot commit to peace at this time. Still, he said peace talks could pick back up again if this changed.

“I hope we get them started,” he said, saying it was up to the Taliban.

Host Chris Wallace pressed Pompeo about the idea that the president of the United States was willing to meet with the Taliban on U.S. soil just days before Sept. 11. The secretary did not address the timing but defended inviting the Taliban to Camp David.

“It’s almost always the case,” he said, “that you don’t get to negotiate with good guys.” Pompeo noted that President Trump “has always been someone … willing to take risks if he believes he can deliver a good outcome for the American people.” ...
POTUS notice (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1170469618177236992) attached.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on September 09, 2019, 10:46:39
@realDonaldTrump: "How many more decades are they willing to fight?"
Maybe he should get one of his staffers who can read to have a look at RAND's How Insurgencies End (https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG965.html),  to see how these things tend to play out.... particularly when the foreign power has made it obvious that they want to bail.


(Don't bother with details like 'more parties involved = a more complex and protracted ending' -- stuff like that will just baffle him, and he'll take a Sharpie to the chapter)

- mod edit to fix link -
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on September 09, 2019, 11:49:43
I don't agree with the administration meeting with the talban without including the Afghan government. I don't trust the Taliban and I remember what they did after the Russians withdrew. The only way for peace is with the help of Pakistan and the complete distruction of the Taliban. We have been negotiating as they continue to attack our forces which is what the North Vietnamese did  and we remember how that worked out. I think if we ramped up our drone campaign coupled with our use of FAE's and maybe our biggest non-nuclear bom which is delivered by C130.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on September 10, 2019, 01:53:46
Quote
Trump Is Not Well
Accepting the reality about the president’s disordered personality is important—even essential.

SEP 9, 2019
Peter Wehner
Contributing editor at The Atlantic and senior fellow at EPPC

During the 2016 campaign, I received a phone call from an influential political journalist and author, who was soliciting my thoughts on Donald Trump. Trump’s rise in the Republican Party was still something of a shock, and he wanted to know the things I felt he should keep in mind as he went about the task of covering Trump.

At the top of my list: Talk to psychologists and psychiatrists about the state of Trump’s mental health, since I considered that to be the most important thing when it came to understanding him. It was Trump’s Rosetta stone.

I wasn’t shy about making the same case publicly. During a July 14, 2016, appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, for example, I responded to a pro-Trump caller who was upset that I opposed Trump despite my having been a Republican for my entire adult life and having served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and the George W. Bush White House.

“I don’t oppose Mr. Trump because I think he’s going to lose to Hillary Clinton,” I told Ben from Purcellville, Virginia. “I think he will, but as I said, he may well win. My opposition to him is based on something completely different, which is, first, I think he is temperamentally unfit to be president. I think he’s erratic, I think he’s unprincipled, I think he’s unstable, and I think that he has a personality disorder; I think he’s obsessive. And at the end of the day, having served in the White House for seven years in three administrations and worked for three presidents, one closely, and read a lot of history, I think the main requirement for president of the United States … is temperament, and disposition … whether you have wisdom and judgment and prudence.”

That statement has been validated.

Donald Trump’s disordered personality—his unhealthy patterns of thinking, functioning, and behaving—has become the defining characteristic of his presidency. It manifests itself in multiple ways: his extreme narcissism; his addiction to lying about things large and small, including his finances and bullying and silencing those who could expose them; his detachment from reality, including denying things he said even when there is video evidence to the contrary; his affinity for conspiracy theories; his demand for total loyalty from others while showing none to others; and his self-aggrandizement and petty cheating.

It manifests itself in Trump’s impulsiveness and vindictiveness; his craving for adulation; his misogyny, predatory sexual behavior, and sexualization of his daughters; his open admiration for brutal dictators; his remorselessness; and his lack of empathy and sympathy, including attacking a family whose son died while fighting for this country, mocking a reporter with a disability, and ridiculing a former POW. (When asked about Trump’s feelings for his fellow human beings, Trump’s mentor, the notorious lawyer Roy Cohn, reportedly said, “He pisses ice water.”)

The most recent example is the president’s bizarre fixation on falsely insisting that he was correct to warn that Alabama faced a major risk from Hurricane Dorian, to the point that he doctored a hurricane map with a black Sharpie to include the state as being in the path of the storm.

“He’s deteriorating in plain sight,” one Republican strategist who is in frequent contact with the White House told Business Insider on Friday. Asked why the president was obsessed with Alabama instead of the states that would actually be affected by the storm, the strategist said, “You should ask a psychiatrist about that; I’m not sure I’m qualified to comment.”

We have repeatedly heard versions of that sentiment over the course of Trump’s presidency. It’s said that speculating on Trump’s mental health is inappropriate and unwise, especially for those who are not formally trained in the field of psychiatry or psychology.

That’s true, up to a point. Yes, it is best to leave it to experts to determine whether Trump satisfies the criteria for a clinical diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, some combination of both, or nothing at all.

But if a clinical diagnosis is beyond my own expertise, Trump’s psychological impairments are obvious to all who are not willfully blind. On a daily basis we see the president’s chaotic, unstable mind on display. Are we supposed to ignore that?

An analogy may be helpful here. If smoke is coming out from under the hood of your car, if you notice puddles of oil under it, if the engine is overheating and you smell burning oil, you don’t have to be a car mechanic to know that something is wrong with your car.

Accepting the reality about Trump’s disordered personality is important and even essential. For one thing, it will help us to better react to Trump’s freak show.

Even now, almost a thousand days into his presidency, the latest Trump outrage elicits shock and disbelief in people. The reaction is, “Can you believe he said that and did this?”

To which my response is, “Why are you surprised?” It’s a shock only if the assumption is that we’re dealing with a psychologically normal human being. We’re not. Trump is profoundly compromised, acting just as you would imagine a person with a disordered personality would. Many Americans haven’t yet come to terms with the fact that we elected as president a man who is deeply damaged, an emotional misfit. But it would be helpful if they did.

Among other things, it would keep us feeling less startled and disoriented, less in a state of constant agitation, less susceptible to provocations. Donald Trump thrives on creating chaos, on gaslighting us, on creating antipathy among Americans, on keeping people on edge and off balance. He wants to dominate our every waking hour. We ought not grant him that power over us.

It might also take some of the edge off the hatred many people feel for Trump. Seeing him for what he is—a terribly damaged soul, a broken man, a person with a disordered mind—should not lessen our revulsion at how Trump mistreats others, at his cruelty and dehumanizing actions. Nor should it weaken our resolve to stand up to it. It does complicate the picture just a bit, though, eliciting some pity and sorrow for Trump.

But above all, accepting the truth about Trump’s mental state will cause us to take more seriously than we have our democratic duty, which is to prevent a psychologically and morally unfit person from becoming president.

The office is too powerful, and the consequences are too dangerous, to allow a person to become president who views morality only through the prism of whether an action advances his own narrow interests, his own distorted desires, his own twisted impulses. When an individual comes to believe his interests and those of the nation he leads are one and the same, it opens the door to all sorts of moral and constitutional devilry.

Whether or not his disorders are diagnosable, the president’s psychological flaws are all too apparent. They were alarming when he took the oath of office; they are worse now. Every day Donald Trump is president is a day of disgrace. And a day of danger.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on September 10, 2019, 06:55:59
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/)

 :cheers:

Shrill cries of “Trump derangement syndrome!” in 3... 2... 1...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on September 10, 2019, 08:58:59
Coincidental timing... just last week Peter Wehner's new book, The Death of Politics:  How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump  was delivered.  I've been following his writings for some time now, particularly the ones published though the Ethics and Public Policy Center.  While Wehner can occasionally be a bit too religious for my tastes, I certainly can't flaw his thoughtful analyses.

Donald Trump’s disordered personality—his unhealthy patterns of thinking, functioning, and behaving—has become the defining characteristic of his presidency. It manifests itself in multiple ways: his extreme narcissism; his addiction to lying about things large and small, including his finances and bullying and silencing those who could expose them; his detachment from reality, including denying things he said even when there is video evidence to the contrary; his affinity for conspiracy theories; his demand for total loyalty from others while showing none to others; and his self-aggrandizement and petty cheating.

It manifests itself in Trump’s impulsiveness and vindictiveness; his craving for adulation; his misogyny, predatory sexual behavior, and sexualization of his daughters; his open admiration for brutal dictators; his remorselessness; and his lack of empathy and sympathy, including attacking a family whose son died while fighting for this country, mocking a reporter with a disability, and ridiculing a former POW.
What completely amazes me is that Trump still  has so many unwavering, unquestioning cheerleaders.  :stars: 


And yes, I understand the difference between agreeing with his policies and dismissing the clearly observable behaviours listed in the article as simply fake news picking on him.   :not-again:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Baden Guy on September 10, 2019, 09:48:50
Sadly I didn't see any adjectives used by Mr.Wehner to describe Trump that I am not already familiar with.   :nod:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 10, 2019, 10:04:24
...

What completely amazes me is that Trump still  has so many unwavering, unquestioning cheerleaders.  :stars: 


And yes, I understand the difference between agreeing with his policies and dismissing the clearly observable behaviours listed in the article as simply fake news picking on him.   :not-again:


I suspect that when he didn't blow up the world or grope the Queen many people settled down and said, "Oh, well, he's not deranged, after all." And, of course, for 18 months or so we had Mattis and Tillerson crisscrossing the globe reassuring people that while President Trump is, pretty clearly, a sub-standard human being he's not mad nor is he terribly dangerous.

I think that's an overly optimistic reaction.

The cover of the Sep/Oct issue of Foreign Affairs shows an interesting array of low lifes: (https://files.foreignaffairs.com/styles/issue-cover/s3/images/issues/2019/08/12/fa_so19_cover.png?itok=98lOwTF5).

I think Donald J Trump belongs in that picture.

I believe that he believes that, having won the election fair and square, despite having lost the popular vote, that he now has carte blanche to do as he wishes ... which is pretty much how Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping see things.

I expect President Trump to be re-elected in 2020. My guess is that the Democrats will follow their hearts, not their heads, and will fail to nominate someone around whom a real majority of Americans can coalesce.

But even after 2024, the "Trump Party" will not go away ... nor, on the left, will the socialists. The America that Truman, Eisenhower et al built and bequeathed to future generations is, certainly, in retreat and it may be lost.  :'(
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on September 10, 2019, 11:05:21
Would the most sensible candidate to take on Trump be Biden? There are some soft republicans who might vote for him. 

If he picks a decent VP, he could just win.  Somehow the dems are going to have to force the (very) radical fringe out into a third party or they will forever be fractured - some of the current DP candidates and office holders are no less quirky and dangerous than Trump.

And whoever wins next election- Trump or whoever- is going to have finally and concretely deal with guns before they have multiple slaughters per day.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on September 10, 2019, 12:09:05
What completely amazes me is that Trump still  has so many unwavering, unquestioning cheerleaders.  :stars: 

He himself said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on September 10, 2019, 12:33:41


 that he now has carte blanche to do as he wishes ... which is pretty much how Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping see things.



You left out Obama and Clinton
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on September 10, 2019, 13:12:11
1 - Next! (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171452880055746560)

2 & 3 - Some of the other come-and-gone folks (source (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/16/us/politics/all-the-major-firings-and-resignations-in-trump-administration.html))

- edit to fix link -
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on September 10, 2019, 13:45:22
I expect President Trump to be re-elected in 2020.
Sadly, I agree.  It's almost as though some deities were drunk gambling and the bet came up of how the Democrats could run the worst possible campaign.... and we now see how the lab rats are playing it out.
    :facepalm:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on September 10, 2019, 13:51:06
1 - Next! (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171452880055746560)

2 & 3 - Some of the other come-and-gone folks ()
 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/16/us/politics/all-the-major-firings-and-resignations-in-trump-administration.htmlsource[/url)

On the one hand the world is probably slightly safer with Bolton fired. On the other hand, now Trump may appoint yet another clapping seal to his inner circle. Bolton did at least have a mind of his own. The last thing the world needs in this administration is more yes-men...
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on September 10, 2019, 13:59:14
General Buck Turgidson would be a good fit.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on September 10, 2019, 14:03:26
General Buck Turgidson would be a good fit.
"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks."

 :rofl:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on September 10, 2019, 15:56:38
On the other hand, now Trump may appoint yet another clapping seal to his inner circle.

"I'm going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people."
https://www.google.com/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1280&bih=641&sxsrf=ACYBGNQXVEmtgDFJAT31mFTawTBDBLRQug%3A1568141606930&ei=JvF3XcSoOPKyggf5m7foDA&q=%22going+to+surround+myself+only+with+the+best+and+most+serious%22+people&oq=%22going+to+surround+myself+only+with+the+best+and+most+serious%22+people&gs_l=psy-ab.3...12105.23834..24338...0.0..0.251.2032.0j8j3......0....1..gws-wiz.VY_tGAXXTbA&ved=0ahUKEwjE08Db9sbkAhVymeAKHfnNDc0Q4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1568141632905
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on September 10, 2019, 16:25:31
I don't agree with the administration meeting with the talban without including the Afghan government ...
I suspect Bolton felt the same way, hence the parting of the ways.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on September 10, 2019, 17:12:28
I suspect that when he didn't blow up the world or grope the Queen many people settled down and said, "Oh, well, he's not deranged, after all." And, of course, for 18 months or so we had Mattis and Tillerson crisscrossing the globe reassuring people that while President Trump is, pretty clearly, a sub-standard human being he's not mad nor is he terribly dangerous.

I think that's an overly optimistic reaction.

That reminds me a little bit of the situation faced by the junior officers in The Caine Mutiny.  :)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on September 10, 2019, 20:47:25
With Bolton s firing/resignation burning up the ether, this little tidbit has kind of escaped every ones attention. Talk about feeding the young to the lions:

Quote
Trump will put Jared Kushner's former assistant in charge of Middle East "peace process"

Avi Berkowitz, a 29-year-old Kushner aide, will take over Middle East peace plan already ripped by experts

Igor Derysh
September 9, 2019 7:00PM (UTC)

A 29-year-old former administrative aide to Jared Kushner is expected to take over for Jason Greenblatt, the departing White House envoy for the Middle East peace process.

Trump announced Greenblatt’s departure on Twitter Thursday. Greenblatt, whose own dubious qualifications included 20 years of working as a lawyer for the Trump Organization, was the architect of the administration’s supposed peace plan, along with Kushner, U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Kushner deputy Avi Berkowitz, who will replace him. Greenblatt is stepping down before the administration has even rolled out the plan, which has already been roundly rejected by Palestinian leaders.

Axios reports that most of Greenblatt’s “assignments and authorities will be transferred to Berkowitz.”

Berkowitz is a 29-year-old friend of Kushner’s who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2016 and met the president’s son-in-law during a pickup basketball game at a Passover celebration in Phoenix, as Business Insider reported in 2017.

The profile described Berkowitz as "in many ways Kushner’s protégé,” who went to work for him at Kushner Companies before joining him on the Trump campaign and later in the White House.

Berkowitz worked on the Trump campaign as an “assistant director of data analytics,” where he was charged with producing the campaign’s “pre- and post-presidential-debate talk show that became a nightly Facebook Live discussion in the weeks leading up to the election,” according to Business Insider.

Former White House communications director Hope Hicks told the outlet that Berkowitz's role at the White House at the time was “primarily administrative and involved assisting Kushner with daily logistics like getting coffee or coordinating meetings.”

Despite Berkowitz's evident inexperience, Kushner has also tasked him with more important responsibilities. During the transition, Kushner sent Berkowitz to meet with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to set up a meeting with Sergey Gorkov, the head of a Russian state-owned bank that had been sanctioned by the Obama administration, as The New York Times reported shortly after Trump took office.

At the White House, Berkowitz was named to the administration’s “peace team” and was a “main player” in drafting the peace plan as he worked alongside Greenblatt for nearly two years, according to Axios.

Greenblatt’s departure comes before the peace plan has even been released, which likely does not bode well for its prospects.

Kushner rolled out the economic component of the plan in June. The plan would create a $50 billion fund that would provide aid to the Palestinian Authority and increase trade with neighboring countries, though it’s unclear where the money would come from.

But the plan was immediately criticized by experts for ignoring reality.

Kushner's plan "treats the West Bank and Gaza as a single entity, which is great so far as the Palestinians are concerned but runs contrary to current Israeli policy and is also belied by the facts on the ground,” wrote Michael Koplow, policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, describing it as “the Monty Python sketch of Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives.”

The proposal was immediately rejected by Palestinian leaders. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said there would be no agreement without a solution that involves a Palestinian state. “We will not be slaves of Kushner and Greenblatt and the other one, Friedman,” he said.

The plan was also ripped by Daniel Kurtzer, who was U.S. ambassador to Israel under George W. Bush.

“I would give this so-called plan a C- from an undergraduate student,” Kurtzer tweeted. “The authors of the plan clearly understand nothing.”

Berkowitz’s ascent on the “peace team” has not made former diplomats more optimistic about the prospect of Middle East peace. Martin Indyk, who served as special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations under President Obama, said that the administration managed to replace the unqualified architect of a widely-panned peace plan with someone even worse.

“If Avi Berkowitz is [Greenblatt’s] replacement it’s a considerable downgrade in the position. He’s Kushner’s 29-year-old assistant,” he wrote. “Nice guy but does not have the weight or experience of Trump’s former real estate lawyer.”

Igor Derysh

Igor Derysh is a New York-based political writer whose work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Herald and Baltimore Sun.


Article Link (https://www.salon.com/2019/09/09/trump-will-put-jared-kushners-former-assistant-in-charge-of-middle-east-peace-process/) Link also features photos/other links.
 

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on September 10, 2019, 20:55:45
Quote
... Berkowitz is a 29-year-old friend of Kushner’s who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2016 and met the president’s son-in-law during a pickup basketball game at a Passover celebration in Phoenix, as Business Insider reported in 2017. ...

The plan was also ripped by Daniel Kurtzer, who was U.S. ambassador to Israel under George W. Bush.

“I would give this so-called plan a C- from an undergraduate student,” Kurtzer tweeted. “The authors of the plan clearly understand nothing.” ...

 :rofl:

This would be so funny if it wasn't so serious.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on September 10, 2019, 21:58:53
:rofl:

This would be so funny if it wasn't so serious.

 :facepalm:

This is amazing. I hide my boredom when the wife drags me to Homesense better than Trump hides the blatant nepotism. And I literally tell her to her face that I hate going to Homesense.

I mean, I get that the boots won’t lick themselves, but even by the standards of Trump’s appointments record this is profoundly disappointing. The administration is a sycophantocracy.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on September 19, 2019, 10:06:57
Saw this today in Canadian Politics,

Right up there with the series of videos of Joe Biden being the creepy uncle with young girls.

Speaking of "creepy",

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Access_Hollywood_tape#Alleged_other_tapes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

The day after his inauguration ,

2017 Women's March
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March
"The largest single-day protest in U.S. history."

George Conway slams Trump for calling Biden 'creepy': You 'palled around with Jeffrey Epstein'
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/443098-george-conway-slams-trump-for-calling-biden-creepy-you-palled

etc...

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNRm8aZciOtn8Jg81jiQ1qZVEmmUFg%3A1568909733923&ei=pamDXYSGOIutUsCKnuAO&q=trump+creepy&oq=trump+creepy&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..11609...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.lZEbIn6xUBE&ved=0ahUKEwjE7P-apN3kAhWLlhQKHUCFB-wQ4dUDCAo#spf=1568909750293



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on September 19, 2019, 13:27:06
Trump is creepy, too.  Well, that's reassuring.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 19, 2019, 13:28:42
Trump is creepy, too.  Well, that's reassuring.

I'm not sure if you've heard but he also didn't win the popular vote.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on September 19, 2019, 13:44:15
Trump is creepy, too. 

Quote
False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism and in politics, where the minor flaws of one candidate may be compared to major flaws of another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence


I'm not sure if you've heard but he also didn't win the popular vote.

Not to worry, if next time is a repeat of last time,

Quote
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton any Democrat, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 19, 2019, 18:28:55
I have a hard time feeling any sort of moral outrage about another country dicking with the US elections.


As for the t shirt, what's posting that supposed to ultimately imply?

Are Russians evil and subhuman or something? I'd trust Putin over Trudeau at this point.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Blackadder1916 on September 19, 2019, 21:14:01
. . .  Are Russians evil and subhuman or something? . . .

From a Cold Warrior perspective, a resounding yes, that's what we thought.  They probably had similar less than complimentary opinions of us.  And we didn't need social media to reinforce such stereotypes.   As well as being pervasive in politics, there was Hollywood, who for many years were all too willing to reinforce the view (both on the screen as well as in their professional industry dealings) that "commies" or "dirty reds" or "fellow travellers" were to be exposed and destroyed.

Are they still that way?  The titles may have changed and they have better tailors but the current Ruskies (using the term to refer to those governing their country) are as evil and treacherous today as the worst of the leaders of the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on September 20, 2019, 00:35:34
>False equivalence arguments

I didn't think you were attempting to make a false equivalence argument.  I just figured you were doing your usual "someone criticized a Democrat, so here's a list of Trump's flaws" shtick.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on September 20, 2019, 00:47:56
I just figured you were doing your usual "someone criticized a Democrat, so here's a list of Trump's flaws" shtick.

I believe he has enough cheerleaders on social media for anything I type to make a difference. But, thanks for your comments.

The titles may have changed and they have better tailors but the current Ruskies (using the term to refer to those governing their country) are as evil and treacherous today as the worst of the leaders of the Soviet Union.

 :goodpost:

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2019, 08:31:48
Quote from: Blackadder1916

Are they still that way?  The titles may have changed and they have better tailors but the current Ruskies (using the term to refer to those governing their country) are as evil and treacherous today as the worst of the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Great post. Very easy to see the brain washing going on by both super powers.

How would you say the USA government stacks up morally against the Soviet Union and modern day Russian governments?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on September 20, 2019, 10:58:50
Returning to the discussion of John Bolton's departure, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has just posted an interesting look at the position and significance of the National Security Advisor. 
LINK (https://www.cgai.ca/bringing_chaos_to_order_donald_trump_and_his_band_of_national_security_advisors?)

Quote
SUMMARY
As Trump appoints his fifth national security advisor in less than three years, Dr. Lang explores the history of the role and the personalities who have occupied it in the past. Being the “most complex and consequential of government undertakings,” situated at the centre of the executive power, the White House, national security advisors have historically overshadowed Secretary of States by their brilliance, their strong personality, and their influence on foreign and defence policy. Many can name Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice; but only a few can remember the Secretary of States while each have served as advisors. With an average mandate of eight months for national security advisors under President Trump, it seems the role and its importance are eroding, which can have an everlasting impact on the U.S. and its national security.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on September 20, 2019, 11:34:43
How would you say the USA government stacks up morally against the Soviet Union and modern day Russian governments?
If I was a life insurance salesman, when it comes to covering people who work against and criticize the government (https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/heres-a-list-of-all-the-putin-critics-who-wound-up-murdered/news-story/4e2952b107b0c7159887e303062c9694) in both countries, I know which one I'd recommend higher premiums for.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Blackadder1916 on September 20, 2019, 12:16:22
Returning to the discussion of John Bolton's departure, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has just posted an interesting look at the position and significance of the National Security Advisor. 
LINK (https://www.cgai.ca/bringing_chaos_to_order_donald_trump_and_his_band_of_national_security_advisors?)
Quote
. . .  Many can name Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice; but only a few can remember the Secretary of States while each have served as advisors.  . . .

I wasn't able to find the quoted summary at the linked piece but it did compel me to read the article, which I might have dismissed as poorly researched based on the naming of two persons as examples of media prominent national security advisors (out of four), but who never filled that position.  McNamara and Cheney were Secretaries of Defence (and Cheney later Vice President) when they were principal advisors to their respective presidents.  The article, however, doesn't make the same error (not that I found in a quick read).

Presidents (well, maybe not all, but most) have always relied on the best advice available to them.  Maybe not the best available in the country, but what was in the administration at the time the advice was needed.  It is not surprising that the most forceful personalities and the seemingly most intelligent will come to the forefront.  Or at least it did happen that way.  The days when "the best and the brightest" accept the call to government service, or are even called to serve seems to have passed.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on September 20, 2019, 12:56:45
I wasn't able to find the quoted summary at the linked piece but it did compel me to read the article....
Good catch.  I also just read the article. 

The summary was appended to the email -- I assume that it was provided by a grad student/intern -- but I attached it (in good faith) for those who skim/don't read extensively.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on September 20, 2019, 13:54:48
"Without being a true confidant to the president – with the two-way loyalty that such a relationship implies – and being seen as such by the other national security principals, the advisor is virtually neutered in performing his/her traditional role."

Worrisome, times three.  The position has weight; it isn't being used as designed and proven; and the appointment is not subject to confirmation, so there's no mechanism for tempering Trump's choices.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on September 20, 2019, 14:06:38
One shouldn't forget that Secretaries of State have a large and complex bureaucracy that they have to keep managing in the background on a day-to-day basis while National Security Advisers and their much more compact staff have the "luxury" of being able to focus their attention on key issues of the day and with forward strategic planning. The latter job is much more likely to pop to the forefront when the press comes calling on a crisis laden day.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on September 27, 2019, 21:27:38
I'm that most people are aware that things down in Washington D.C. and the White House are a little tense right now with the POTUS under the gun because of an alleged phone call to the President of Ukraine. Here, courtesy of Politico is a good roundup of the events leading to the present situation.

Quote
‘I’m the real whistleblower’: Giuliani’s quixotic mission to help Trump in Ukraine

The former New York mayor collided with Kiev’s feuding political factions, and the resulting scandal is roiling Washington — and threatening to end a presidency.
 
By BEN SCHRECKINGER

09/27/2019 05:07 AM EDT

The scandal unfolding this week in Washington can be traced back to November, when a private investigator approached Rudy Giuliani claiming to have information about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, according to an account provided by the former New York mayor.

Giuliani declined to give POLITICO the name of the investigator but said he was an American citizen, the head of “a very, very large investigative agency,” and a former colleague of Giuliani’s at the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York. Giuliani said the investigator approached him on behalf of a client who wanted to relay damning allegations he had heard.

Giuliani, a personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, also declined to name the investigator’s client, but said he was also a U.S. citizen, and one he had met before. “I actually know the guy vaguely from years ago,” Giuliani said.

The approach, he said, sent Giuliani on a monthslong hunt for information from Ukraine that would be damaging to the enemies of his client. That effort culminated on Thursday with the release of a whistleblower’s complaint about those efforts, followed by a furious attempt to discredit the complaint.

“I’m the real whistleblower,” declared Giuliani, who claimed to possess more damaging information and insisted that he, too, should be entitled to whistleblower protections. “If I get killed now,” he warned, “You won’t get the rest of the story.”

The rest of the story goes back even further, to a long-running geopolitical saga and a bureaucratic turf war in Kiev. There, a group of Ukrainian prosecutors with grudges against Western-backed anti-corruption efforts found common cause with a network of Trump’s allies with a long history of digging up dirt on Democrats.

Over several months, that volatile combination set off a chain reaction that is now roiling both capitals. It threatens to bring about Trump’s impeachment and inflict collateral damage on the presidential campaign of Democratic front-runner Joe Biden.

Prologue

For years, Ukraine has found itself caught in a tug-of-war between the West, which wants it to embrace the rule of law, liberal democracy and a market economy, and Russia, which wants to reassert dominance over its former imperial possession.

In that contest, the toppling of Russia-aligned President Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014 was a blow to Moscow. It would also create problems for the ousted leader’s American consigliere, Paul Manafort, and for Mykola Zlochevsky, a natural gas baron who had served in his cabinet.

The following month, Moscow responded by annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. Zlochevsky, meanwhile, found himself on the outs with the new regime and facing investigations at home and in the West. In April, he responded by putting Hunter Biden, whose father oversaw U.S. policy in Ukraine, on the board of his natural gas company, Burisma Holdings.

In September 2014, Ukraine’s new president, businessman Petro Poroshenko, came to Washington to appeal for help repelling Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine, which had escalated in August. He warned a joint session of Congress that “blankets [and] night vision goggles are also important. But one cannot win a war with blankets … and cannot keep the peace with blankets.”

In October, as it sought to ingratiate itself with the West, Ukraine established the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, or NABU, pledging to clean up its notoriously dirty political culture.

But while Ukraine’s new leaders were dependent on the West’s military support and eager for access to its rich economies, they did not all share the West’s enthusiasm for rooting out the country’s endemic corruption.

What we know about the Trump-Ukraine scandal

As NABU sought to fulfill its anti-corruption mandate, it found itself clashing with other parts of the bureaucracy, including Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.

By 2016, Western governments and institutions like the World Bank were fed up with Shokin, who they believed was impeding corruption investigations, including those into Zlochevsky and his firm, Burisma.

After a months long pressure campaign, it fell to Vice President Joe Biden to seal Shokin’s removal. In a March 2016 trip to Kiev, he told the country’s leaders that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin got the boot. It worked.

Biden spoke on behalf of other Western leaders, and Shokin had in fact been accused of improperly helping Burisma’s owner. But the vice president’s role in the firing while Shokin’s office had an open investigation of a firm whose board his son sat on has raised concerns from ethics experts and become fodder for his critics — chief among them Trump, who told Ukraine’s current president in July, according to the White House record of their conversation, “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.”

After the Ukrainian Parliament accepted Shokin’s resignation, it installed as its top prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, who did not have a law degree but did possess a credential that was more relevant in post-revolution Ukraine: He had been imprisoned under the previous regime.

2016 election

Manafort, who had remade Yanukovich into a slick Western-style politician only to watch his client be overthrown by a popular revolt, had been laying low since Ukraine’s regime change. In March 2016, he resurfaced in the U.S. as a top adviser to Trump’s insurgent primary campaign. Soon attention turned to his work advising foreign despots, including in Ukraine.

In August 2016, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau published the “black ledger,” a document that allegedly recorded illegal off-the-books payments made by Yanukovich’s Russia-backed Party of Regions to its cronies, including millions of dollars to Manafort. A lawyer for Manafort denied he had received “any such cash payments,” but within days he resigned as chairman of Trump’s campaign.

Even after Shokin’s firing, the general prosecutor’s office, under Lutsenko, continued to clash with the anti-corruption bureau.

Also in August, employees of Lutsenko’s office allegedly detained two NABU detectives in a basement for several hours and tortured them, seeking information on NABU’s investigations of Ukrainian prosecutors, according to AntAC, an anti-corruption nonprofit in Kiev that receives funding from the liberal American financier George Soros.

In October 2016, NABU indicted a deputy to Lutsenko, Kostiantyn Kulyk, on corruption charges. Instead of getting fired, Kulyk was promoted.

Payback

Trump’s upset presidential win the next month prompted two reactions in Kiev: Consternation over the government’s role in implicating his campaign chairman and hope that a Trump administration would ease pressure on the government to clean up corruption.

But to the chagrin of Poroshenko’s government the U.S. Embassy in Kiev continued to prioritize corruption.

For this, Ukrainian officials blamed Soros, who finances the watchdog AntAC group, and the U.S. ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, a career diplomat appointed to that post by President Barack Obama.

As investigations of suspected Trump campaign collusion with Russia dominated U.S. politics and led to the imprisonment of Manafort on charges unrelated to collusion, efforts against Yovanovitch ramped up.

Two Florida businessmen from the former Soviet Union, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were donating big money to Republicans while also gunning for Yovanovitch. Around May 2018, they met with then-Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, telling the Republican congressman that Yovanovitch was disloyal to Trump, according to an investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which found that Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging her firing on the same day that Parnas posted photos online of a meeting with Sessions.

Around the same time, according to people familiar with the effort, the Ukrainian prosecutors, including Shokin and Lutsenko, were reaching out to U.S. officials, trying to pass them information that they said instead pointed to Ukrainian meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

But the Ukrainian prosecutors were rebuffed in their attempts to reach current and former Justice Department officials, according to Parnas.

How Trump’s Biden mania led him to the brink of impeachment

“They went through every channel,” Parnas said in an interview. “They were going through official channels. To their frustration they felt like they were getting blocked.”

Kulyk, the Lutsenko deputy, later told The New York Times that Yovanovitch had blocked him from getting a visa to go to the U.S.

In November 2018, Giuliani said, he was approached by the unnamed former colleague who ran an investigative firm. Giuliani began working Fruman and Parnas, and spoke by Skype with Shokin. The former mayor reportedly met with Lutsenko in New York January and in Warsaw in February.

“Giuliani was moving towards these guys because he wanted to be useful for his clients, and they meet in the middle, and they decided to combine efforts, to establish this conspiracy,” said Serhiy Leshchenko, a reform-minded politician and journalist who was instrumental in publicizing the black ledger. “Lutsenko and Kulyk misled Giuliani, and Giuliani was happy to be misled.”

Giuliani, for his part, defended his association with prosecutors accused of corruption, arguing that bribery is widespread in Ukrainian society. “A large number of prosecutors in Ukraine, a lot of them could be considered corrupt,” he said. “I’m not going to tell you that Shokin wasn’t corrupt, that he didn’t take bribes here and there, but he wasn’t good at it.” Giuliani went on to argue that Shokin could not be too corrupt because he is not rich, and said that Shokin has gone into hiding.

    “Lutsenko and Kulyk misled Giuliani, and Giuliani was happy to be misled.”

    - Serhiy Leshchenko, Ukrainian politician and journalist

In early March, Yovanovitch gave a speech that called out corruption, which some observers saw as tacitly condemning Poroshenko and Lutsenko, while signaling support for Poroshenko’s upstart challenger in upcoming elections, a comedian named Volodymyr Zelensky.

Days later, Lutsenko struck back, telling conservative journalist John Solomon that she had given him a “do not prosecute” list to shield politically sensitive targets for a piece in the Hill. Other pieces followed in the Hill reporting allegations that NABU intervened to help Democrats in 2016 and that Biden’s firing of Shokin was corrupt.

The State Department called the claim an “ outright fabrication,” and a month later, Lutsenko changed his story. But in May, Yovanovitch was recalled from her post.

Giuliani, by this time, had set his sights on the Bidens. In a late April interview with POLITICO, he turned unprompted to the subject of Burisma. “Biden does have a lot of baggage, and I’m not talking about smelling women’s hair,” he said. “I’m talking about Ukraine. And Hunter Biden pulling down millions, on the board of a crooked company, a Russian-oriented crooked company.”

Zelensky became president in May, and Giuliani and Trump made it a priority to ensure Zelensky’s new administration would pursue “corruption,” understood by Ukrainian officials, according to news accounts, to mean investigations of the black ledger and the Bidens.

In May, the Times reported that Giuliani planned to travel to Kiev to push those matters as Zelensky formed his government. The trip was canceled amid the resulting uproar.

But inside the Trump administration, consternation was growing among U.S. officials over Giuliani’s efforts, which the former mayor maintains were encouraged by the State Department. The anonymous whistleblower was beginning to hear from colleagues who were alarmed by what they saw as a bizarre and troubling departure from normal diplomacy.

In July, Trump ordered that roughly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine be withheld. Later that month, he spoke with Zelensky by phone, pushing him to investigate alleged Ukrainian election interference and the Bidens. That July 25 phone call — in which Trump said, “do us a favor” and asked for scrutiny of the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian election interference — became a key basis for the whistleblower complaint to the intelligence community’s inspector general.

About a week later, Giuliani met with a Zelensky aide, Andry Yermak in Madrid, where they reportedly discussed the desired investigations and the possibility of a summit with Trump for Yermak’s boss.

    "Any sign that the U.S. is pulling back from Ukraine sends a signal that can be disproportionate.”

    - Michele Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama

Michele Flournoy, who served as the undersecretary of defense for policy under Obama, said that withdrawing assistance would provide serious leverage over Ukraine.

“They’re counting on the U.S. to continue to support them in all kinds of ways — sanctions, diplomacy, military assistance, training and advising, putting pressure on Putin,” she said. “So any sign that the U.S. is pulling back from Ukraine sends a signal that can be disproportionate.”

For months, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had been pushing for the release of the funds intended for Ukraine. He raised the issue personally with Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, he said on Monday, as well as with Pompeo. Meanwhile, his staff was pressing senior officials at the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House for answers on why the money was on hold.

In late August, as Democrats on Capitol Hill and officials inside the Pentagon began speaking out, POLITICO reported that the military aid was being withheld. At the time, the reason for the president’s unusually personal interest in financial assistance to Ukraine was not yet known. But for lawmakers backing the aid package, the matter was urgent: The appropriation was due to expire by the end of September, the close of the fiscal year.

By early September, an administration official told POLITICO, Pompeo had ordered his staff to ignore the White House directive and send the money. The State Department told Congress it would do just that around Sept. 11, near the same time the White House decided to drop its objections.

Fallout

Meanwhile, word emerged of a mysterious whistleblower complaint that was meant to reach Congress after Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sent a sharply worded letter on Sept. 10 to the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, demanding the release of the disclosure.

Washington buzzed with speculation about Schiff’s arresting, but obliquely worded rocket. News accounts, notably in The Washington Post and New York Times, soon revealed that the subject of the complaint was none other than the president of the United States. Democrats erupted in fury; some Republicans expressed concern.

As more details emerged about the alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine’s government, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to act: After months of arguing publicly and privately that impeachment would be politically unwise, she announced her support for an inquiry intended to drive Trump from office. Democrats also set a deadline for the administration to cough up all the documents connected to the whistleblower’s complaint, and demanded that Maguire come to Capitol Hill to explain himself in person.

Pelosi’s change of heart pressured Trump, convinced that the record of his call with Zelensky would show that he had done nothing wrong, into releasing a memorandum documenting their conversation. It proved to be more explosive than he expected, lending support to Democrats’ allegations that the president had threatened to withhold foreign aid in exchange for political dirt on Biden. On Thursday, the White House subsequently released the whistleblower’s complaint and other related documents — and Democrats swiftly escalated their demands for more information, while redoubling their impeachment push.

For his part, Giuliani rejects any focus on the story behind the allegations he was pushing, defending the means by which he has gone about investigating his client’s adversaries. “The process is clean,” Giuliani said. But, he added, “Even if the process were dirty, and the facts were clean ... we uncovered a crime of vast magnitude.”

As Washington sorts through the mess, figures on both sides insist that there is more to the story, and that the efforts of their antagonists are being coordinated by a hidden hand.

“All these prosecutors played their role in this scenario, but the actual scenario was developed and planned by someone else,” said Daria Kaleniuk, of AntAC, who suggested a Ukrainian oligarch could be financing the effort to discredit NABU and the Bidens.

For his part, Giuliani said the real story was anti-Trump election interference and pointed the finger at AntAC’s funder. “Everybody,” he said, “thinks Soros is at the bottom of it.”

Asked on Wednesday about Giuliani’s project, a spokeswoman for Soros’ philanthropy, the Open Society Foundation, responded with laughter.

Nahal Toosi, Bryan Bender and Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.

Article Link (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/27/giuliani-trump-ukraine-005098)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: SeaKingTacco on September 27, 2019, 21:41:17
What a mess.  If even half these allegations are true, both the Republicans and Democrats are rotten to the core.

Interesting how Soros pops up again.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on September 27, 2019, 22:31:08
If even half these allegations are true, both the Republicans and Democrats are rotten to the core.

Oscar Levant used to say, "The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too."  :)

Quote
Interesting how Soros pops up again.

Quote
Newsweek

9/27/19

Hannity Guests Claim George Soros' 'Dirty Money' Backed Ukraine Whistleblower Report: 'This Was a Set-Up'
https://www.newsweek.com/hannity-guests-claim-george-soros-dirty-money-backed-ukraine-whistleblower-report-this-was-1461715
The Jewish philanthropist has long been a favored bogeyman and target of anti-Semitism for the hard right.



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on September 27, 2019, 23:00:33
Soros is mentioned by name three times in the article.  Is it not a source?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on September 28, 2019, 10:32:33
Hannity Guests Claim....
Well, I'm glad we got to the bottom of this.  Of all the people investigating, it's a good thing Hannity managed to find this married couple who ID'd a Soros conspiracy.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Otherwise, what would be left to believe.... that Trump used the office for personal benefit, and then lied about it?  :pop:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on October 01, 2019, 10:56:56
Some thoughts on the impeachment proceedings are in the current edition of The Economist (https://www.economist.com/international/2019/09/29/diplomacy-in-the-crossfire-of-donald-trumps-impeachment-battle).   Some highlights:
Quote
Collateral damage
Diplomacy in the crossfire of Donald Trump’s impeachment battle
The fall-out from the Ukraine debacle goes beyond the peril to the president himself

- Most obviously, the scandal is unsettling for Ukraine. Its dealings with America will now be viewed through the prism of the leaked conversation between the presidents, and of Mr Zelensky’s unfortunate sycophancy. (“You are a great teacher for us”, gushes Mr Zelensky, a former comedian. “Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100% but actually 1,000%”.)

- America’s own relationship with Germany has already taken a battering under Mr Trump. Now it has suffered a fresh blow. In his call with Mr Zelensky, Mr Trump bad-mouths Mrs Merkel and Europeans more broadly: “Germany does almost nothing for you,” Mr Trump says. “When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way.”

- More countries could get caught up in the affair.  The American president has in the past aroused suspicion by apparently going out of his way to conceal details of his discussions with Mr Putin from his own senior officials, even reportedly removing the notes taken by his interpreter. CNN has reported that the White House also went to unusual lengths to limit access to the transcript of a call with Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman. What began with Ukraine could quickly drag in some of America’s most sensitive relationships.

- For leaders and diplomats everywhere, the drama is a reminder, yet again, of the heightened risk in the digital age that what they assume to be private communications will end up becoming public. William Hague, a former British foreign secretary, [however] commented that if diplomats were removed from their posts whenever their communications became public, “you would never have any honest report from any ambassador in the world.”
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on October 01, 2019, 11:34:45
Some thoughts on the impeachment proceedings are in the current edition of The Economist (https://www.economist.com/international/2019/09/29/diplomacy-in-the-crossfire-of-donald-trumps-impeachment-battle).   Some highlights:

Stable diplomatic relations are founded on reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness. He has shown himself to not be reliable, to not be credible, and to be compulsively dishonest. So yeah, and domestic political process that further highlights these failings is going to have an impact on diplomacy and foreign relations.

As usual, the Economist hits the issues hard, and objectively.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 01, 2019, 12:25:41
Stable diplomatic relations are founded on reliability, credibility, and trustworthiness. He has shown himself to not be reliable, to not be credible, and to be compulsively dishonest. So yeah, and domestic political process that further highlights these failings is going to have an impact on diplomacy and foreign relations.

As usual, the Economist hits the issues hard, and objectively.

a la Joe Biden, while VP, threatening to withhold funds unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating le fiston Biden was fired?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 01, 2019, 12:41:52
He has shown himself to not be reliable, to not be credible, and to be compulsively dishonest.

For reference to the discussion,

Quote
FactCheck.org

September 26, 2019

Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine
President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold “billions of dollars to Ukraine” unless it removed the prosecutor general who “was prosecuting” Biden’s son, Hunter.


But there was no evidence at the time that Hunter Biden was under investigation, and there still isn’t.

Read entire article
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brihard on October 01, 2019, 12:43:38
For reference to the discussion,

Shhhh. Red is a perfectly natural colour for a herring.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on October 01, 2019, 12:53:24
a la Joe Biden, while VP, threatening to withhold funds unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating le fiston Biden was fired?
Here's what USA government-funded media has to say (https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html) about why the UKR prosecutor in question was fired. 

Hint:  it was more because he WASN'T investigating enough bad stuff.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 01, 2019, 14:49:12
Here's what USA government-funded media has to say (https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html) about why the UKR prosecutor in question was fired. 

Hint:  it was more because he WASN'T investigating enough bad stuff.

I'm not worried. If the liberals continue down their phony impeachment path, Biden et al and all their files will have to come out. After all, the MSM was so correct about Mueller, right? After watching the last multi million dollar fake investigation into Russian collusion and the MSM's reporting of it, I find it humourous that people still have such blind faith in the media. Whoever it is.

As to USA Government funded media, supposedly being unbiased (if that's what your implying), if the deep state controls the FBI and others, a news agency can be run by a junior political hack. The fact that they are government funded is very far from the possibility that they are honest and right.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 01, 2019, 14:52:04
"For leaders and diplomats everywhere, the drama is a reminder, yet again, of the heightened risk in the digital age that what they assume to be private communications will end up becoming public."

The "digital age" isn't the problem.  The heightened risk is that Team A will use whatever it can - in this case, the content of privileged communications - to fight back against charges leveled by Team B - in this case, allegations which can only be refuted by that content, if at all.  The problem is partisanship.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 03, 2019, 12:42:40
Saw this in Canadian Politics,

, at least Mueller & Co. were allowed to finish

Also saw this about him trying to get special counsel fired,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&sxsrf=ACYBGNRjL55sHO93IbFAoXKCS045sRbKKA%3A1570117305519&ei=uRaWXfGdH-Sqgged5J_gBA&q=trump+%22tried+to+get+special+counsel+fired+%22&oq=trump+%22tried+to+get+special+counsel+fired+%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..3305...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.6l2jpm3o-Og&ved=0ahUKEwix3oDitoDlAhVkleAKHR3yB0w4ChDh1QMICg#spf=1570117312658
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on October 03, 2019, 14:42:01
Saw this in Canadian Politics,

Also saw this about him trying to get special counsel fired,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&sxsrf=ACYBGNRjL55sHO93IbFAoXKCS045sRbKKA%3A1570117305519&ei=uRaWXfGdH-Sqgged5J_gBA&q=trump+%22tried+to+get+special+counsel+fired+%22&oq=trump+%22tried+to+get+special+counsel+fired+%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..3305...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.6l2jpm3o-Og&ved=0ahUKEwix3oDitoDlAhVkleAKHR3yB0w4ChDh1QMICg#spf=1570117312658

Don't worry, once Trump is impeached, found guilty and turfed everything will be OK. Once President Pence takes over and Vice President Pelosi takes office everybody will be happy.  ;D
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on October 03, 2019, 14:46:06
Don't worry, once Trump is impeached, found guilty and turfed everything will be OK. Once President Pence takes over and Vice President Pelosi takes office everybody will be happy.  ;D

I thought it was Trump gets impeached, steps down, Pence takes over.

Pence pardons Trump and makes him Vice president.

Pence steps down and Trump becomes president again who then names Pence as VP.

Or something like that.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 03, 2019, 14:47:49
, once Trump is impeached, found guilty and turfed everything will be OK.

How do you figure that? The Republicans control the Senate.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on October 03, 2019, 14:54:16
How do you figure that? The Republicans control the Senate.

Are you saying this entire impeachment show is political? On another note, if the "impeachment inquiry" were not happening CNN would be out of business. Live Updates? Sounds very good for business.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-10-03-2019/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-10-03-2019/index.html)

Quote
Live Updates
The latest on the Trump impeachment inquiry
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Remius on October 03, 2019, 15:10:10
Are you saying this entire impeachment show is political? On another note, if the "impeachment inquiry" were not happening CNN would be out of business. Live Updates? Sounds very good for business.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-10-03-2019/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-10-03-2019/index.html)

He's saying the republicans will never vote for it in the Senate.  Congress will but it won't go further as the Rep will not.  Impeachment is a political process so, yes it is political.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 03, 2019, 15:20:57
He's saying the republicans will never vote for it in the Senate. 

BINGO
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on October 03, 2019, 15:26:36
He's saying the republicans will never vote for it in the Senate.  Congress will but it won't go further as the Rep will not.  Impeachment is a political process so, yes it is political.

Nobody has seen charges or evidence to back it up yet. There are some concerns that republicans are not getting a fair shake in the impeachment inquiry process. They were limited in questioning of Kurt Volker today.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-criticizes-pelosis-recklessness-asks-house-speaker-to-halt-impeachment-inquiry (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-criticizes-pelosis-recklessness-asks-house-speaker-to-halt-impeachment-inquiry)
Quote
McCarthy’s reference to limiting Republican participation is a reference to reports that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was limiting Republicans' ability to ask questions during Thursday’s testimony by former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464224-mccarthy-calls-on-pelosi-to-suspend-impeachment-inquiry (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464224-mccarthy-calls-on-pelosi-to-suspend-impeachment-inquiry)
Quote
”If those words are taken to be sincere, the American people deserve assurance that basic standards of due process will be present,” he said.

“Given the enormity of the question at hand – the removal of a duly-elected sitting president – anything less than a thorough, transparent, and fair process would represent a supreme insult to our Constitution and the millions of Americans who rely on their voices being heard through our democratic system of government.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mccarthy-calls-pelosi-suspend-impeachment-inquiry-n1061981 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mccarthy-calls-pelosi-suspend-impeachment-inquiry-n1061981)
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: kkwd on October 03, 2019, 15:32:43
BINGO

Have you seen the charges written out and the supporting evidence?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: QV on October 03, 2019, 15:48:50
Saw this in Canadian Politics,

Also saw this about him trying to get special counsel fired,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&sxsrf=ACYBGNRjL55sHO93IbFAoXKCS045sRbKKA%3A1570117305519&ei=uRaWXfGdH-Sqgged5J_gBA&q=trump+%22tried+to+get+special+counsel+fired+%22&oq=trump+%22tried+to+get+special+counsel+fired+%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..3305...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.6l2jpm3o-Og&ved=0ahUKEwix3oDitoDlAhVkleAKHR3yB0w4ChDh1QMICg#spf=1570117312658

Fake news
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 03, 2019, 15:56:21
Fake news

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

Negative news is fake news. Fake news is negative news.


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 03, 2019, 17:23:28
"at least Mueller & Co. were allowed to finish" is a factual statement; I'm 100% certain the investigation concluded and the report was delivered to the AG.  Whatever Trump might have wished otherwise, he either didn't really mean to pursue or his staff clearly managed to block.  Meanwhile in the Canadian PMO, staff and the Liberal politicians are along for the ride to try and squeeze out a special fix for SNC-Lavalin and block investigations.  If for a second you can ignore Trump's clownish and boorish behaviour so that it doesn't sway your perception, the contrast is profound.

The "impeachment" is wholly a political show; think of it as the centre ring in the ongoing circus of efforts to overturn the 2016 election and hamstring the administration.  Pretty much every time the Democrats are invited to take concrete steps following customary impeachment procedures, they put off doing anything that might degrade their political power and opportunities.  They want to talk about impeachment and anything else which comes along for political advantage; they don't want to risk pissing off voters by following through.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: FJAG on October 03, 2019, 17:36:54
Quote
... despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy  ...

Quote
The Dow has lost more than 700 points since Tuesday. But that's not the full story
Anneken Tappe
By Anneken Tappe, CNN Business
Updated 4:27 PM ET, Thu October 3, 2019

New York (CNN Business)The Dow and the broader stock market had another volatile day Thursday, as traders came to grips with another damaging economic report and rising odds of a Federal Reserve interest cut this month.

But after two days of decline, the Dow (INDU) closed up more than 120 points, or 0.5%, higher. Since Tuesday, the index has fallen more than 700 points.

The S&P 500 (SPX) climbed 0.8%, and the Nasdaq Composite (COMP) finished up 1.1%.

Stocks have tumbled over the past days, on worse-than-expected economic data and worries that the US manufacturing sector's problems could be spilling over to other parts of the American economy.

On Thursday, the Institute of Supply Management on Thursday reported worse-than-expected growth for the US services sector.
That initially spooked markets for the third straight day. Stocks turned sharply lower following the closely watched report, with the Dow falling as much as 335 points at its lowest point.

But stocks rallied back, recovering their losses by midday, as investors' hopes of a Fed rate cut increased dramatically. Expectations for a quarter-percentage-point interest-rate cut by the Federal Reserve jumped above 90%, compared to 77% on Wednesday and less than 50% last week, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.

Another reason stocks bounced back may be that "we went a little too far, too fast," and investors might be buying the dip, said Tom Kennedy, head trader and portfolio analyst at New England Investment & Retirement Group.

Signs that the US economy is slowing could trigger a series of rate cuts or other forms of stimulus from the central bank. That typically helps boost markets, although bad news isn't always good news: Lower interest rates are good for stocks, but the environment that tends to necessitate monetary easing usually isn't.

The manufacturing sector has contracted for two straight months, hurt by the ongoing trade war with China and slowing global demand. But the services sector is by far the largest American industry. Although still growing, it is just barely expanding, according to ISM: The non-manufacturing index for September fell to 52.6, compared with 55 expected. A reading above 50 indicates growth.

"Global manufacturing is facing plenty of of headwinds and now, that is spilling over into services," wrote Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO.

Prices largely remained in check: Markit's services inflation index was in line with expectations at 50.9.

"And the various services sectors will feel the hit even more once the new tariffs on European goods kick in on October 18th," Lee said.

The United States plans to impose import tariffs on $7.5 billion worth of European-made goods as soon as October 18. The new tariffs follow a ruling against the European Union by the World Trade Organization, saying that Airbus was improperly subsidized.

Investors will also be particularly attuned to Friday's jobs report. So far, US consumers have kept the economy growing in part thanks to a strong jobs market. Investors are now nervously looking for cracks in that foundation.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html)

 :brickwall:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Retired AF Guy on October 03, 2019, 20:16:26
Are you saying this entire impeachment show is political?

Of course its political; it all takes place in Congress between the House and the Senate.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Fishbone Jones on October 03, 2019, 22:07:40
If they ever manage to find a way to make it stick, it'll never pass the Senate anyway.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: tomahawk6 on October 04, 2019, 00:54:46
The Dem's control the House which is where an impeachment vote must originate with a majority vote. The Dem's tried this 3 times and failed to get enough votes. This time they might pull it off but probably dont have the votes in the Senate. Clinton was impeached in the House but fell short of conviction in the Democrat controlled Senate. This will probably see Trump re-elected and hopefully the Republicans will retake the House.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Journeyman on October 04, 2019, 10:20:17
Regardless of whether or not Trump is impeached, there is a growing knock-on effect of Trump's behaviours. 
I've posted an article from the current issue (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2019-10-03/usurpation-us-foreign-policy) of Foreign Affairs  in the Articles and Large Posts board, here (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,131289.new.html#new).

Some highlights:
Quote
Last week’s revelation that Donald Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden was explosive even by the standards of this scandal-prone administration. Had the president of the United States conditioned the restoration of military aid to Ukraine on his counterpart’s willingness to investigate a political rival—a quid pro quo that is all but explicit in the record of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House? Much has been made since of Trump’s demand as an abuse of presidential power. But it was also an abuse of American power—and that, in the long run, may do more lasting damage.


Being in this position is a privilege—one that allows Washington to shape a world favorable to American interests—but it is neither an entitlement nor a simple function of military and economic might. Because the United States has generally used its coercive power in a disciplined fashion (with a few notable exceptions), it has experienced less international resistance than one might expect. But partners and rivals alike will continue such cooperation with Washington only as long as it wields its authority with subtlety and quickly corrects its excesses. Trump, in his phone call with Zelensky, blatantly tossed that principle aside and used the United States’ power to advance his own political interests—a usurpation of foreign policy that has lasting consequences for the United States.

It is difficult to overstate the extent to which the Trump administration contorted U.S. foreign policy to pressure Ukraine. A set of studious national security processes was subverted for personal gain, with the resources of the State Department, including the secretary of state himself, engaged to execute extortion and subsequently bury it. A veteran career ambassador was undermined, recalled, and threatened. Intelligence capacities tasked with protecting the nation’s closest-held national security secrets were used to execute multiple cover-ups. Inspired though they were, the founders failed to envision a world in which the president himself was the national security threat.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Good2Golf on October 04, 2019, 10:38:21
Thanks JM!  An insightful piece that hopefully doesn't represent the portent of American hegemonic withering.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 04, 2019, 13:37:59
"a quid pro quo that is all but explicit in the record of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House? Much has been made since of Trump’s demand as an abuse of presidential power."

What quid pro quo?  Endless repeated assertion isn't proof.  I've read the telcon memo.  The part that is supposed to be "proof" is a vague ink blot.

"Trump, in his phone call with Zelensky, blatantly tossed that principle aside and used the United States’ power to advance his own political interests"

Another ink blot.  The file on everything that happened in 2016 is closed just because Democrats didn't get the results they wanted from Mueller's investigation?  Anything that happens to align with an advantage for Trump or a disadvantage for a Democrat is off limits?  Won't wash.  There are questions to be answered and improprieties to be investigated.  Any custom that an opposition candidate for president is somehow exempt from burrowing by the incumbent administration was already extinguished.

Another memorable ink blot (Snopes's take (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-more-flexibility-russia/)):

Quote
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.

Trump might be in the wrong here; more detail will certainly emerge to prove/disprove whatever people think they are seeing.  But, this is all hardball politics, so the principle of "you go first" applies.  The Democratic machine must show good faith and do the right thing when it is the one which will lose political advantage.  (At this point it will have to do several right things.)  This endless "heads we win, tails you lose" circus is part of what put Trump in office.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on October 04, 2019, 16:18:35
https://mobile.twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1180053956535427074
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: milnews.ca on October 04, 2019, 16:29:00
https://mobile.twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1180053956535427074
I'm a big fan of @DarthPutinKGB - well played!
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Baden Guy on October 04, 2019, 18:29:26
A really well written column from the New York Times.

Why Trump Voters Stick With Him
An imagined conversation with Flyover Man.
Urban Guy: I hope you read the rough transcript of that Trump phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump clearly used public power to ask a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent. This is impeachable. I don’t see how you can deny the facts in front of your face.

Flyover Man: I haven’t really had time to look into it. There’s always some fight between Trump and the East Coast media. I guess I just try to stay focused on the big picture.

The big picture is this: We knew this guy was a snake when we signed up. But he was the only one who saw us. He was the only one who saw that the America we love is being transformed in front of our eyes. Good jobs for hard-working people were gone. Our communities in tatters. Our kids in trouble. I had one shot at change, so I made a deal with the devil, and you’d have made it, too.

Nothing in this impeachment mess makes me rethink this bargain. If people like you are unable to acknowledge my dignity and see my problems, I’ll stay with Trump.

More at link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/trump-voters.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 04, 2019, 18:51:52
Why Trump Voters Stick With Him

I found this article of interest,

Quote
Being Donald Trump: Inside the World Where Conspiracies Are Reality
https://thebulwark.com/this-is-what-reality-looks-like-from-inside-trump-world/
What reality looks like from inside Trump World.

"What if everyone is wrong? What if you and I are the crazy ones and it’s Rudy and Hannity who are seeing 20 / 20 ?"



Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 04, 2019, 18:58:33
A really well written column from the New York Times.

Why Trump Voters Stick With Him
An imagined conversation with Flyover Man.
Urban Guy: I hope you read the rough transcript of that Trump phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump clearly used public power to ask a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent. This is impeachable. I don’t see how you can deny the facts in front of your face.

Flyover Man: I haven’t really had time to look into it. There’s always some fight between Trump and the East Coast media. I guess I just try to stay focused on the big picture.

The big picture is this: We knew this guy was a snake when we signed up. But he was the only one who saw us. He was the only one who saw that the America we love is being transformed in front of our eyes. Good jobs for hard-working people were gone. Our communities in tatters. Our kids in trouble. I had one shot at change, so I made a deal with the devil, and you’d have made it, too.

Nothing in this impeachment mess makes me rethink this bargain. If people like you are unable to acknowledge my dignity and see my problems, I’ll stay with Trump.

More at link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/trump-voters.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And it's the same in the UK where Brexit was a vote against the civilian equivalent of 'Chateau Generalship' as much as anything else:

In England's forgotten 'rust belt', voters show little sign of Brexit regret

KNOTTINGLEY, England (Reuters) - To Paul Green, a club steward in northern England’s ‘rust belt’, Britain is so broken that he would vote for Brexit again were he to get another chance.

Green, who runs a Miners’ Welfare Club in an area where there are no longer any working miners, says both of Britain’s main political parties have shown no interest in the Yorkshire town of Knottingley for generations.

“It’s desperate really - I feel that Knottingley is a forgotten community, and all the surrounding areas are forgotten communities as well, through lack of investment and red tape,” he said, standing in a youth boxing gym at the club.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-voters/in-englands-forgotten-rust-belt-voters-show-little-sign-of-brexit-regret-idUSKBN1KS0VM
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: CloudCover on October 04, 2019, 19:14:36
A really well written column from the New York Times.

Why Trump Voters Stick With Him
An imagined conversation with Flyover Man.
Urban Guy: I hope you read the rough transcript of that Trump phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump clearly used public power to ask a foreign leader to dig up dirt on his political opponent. This is impeachable. I don’t see how you can deny the facts in front of your face.

Flyover Man: I haven’t really had time to look into it. There’s always some fight between Trump and the East Coast media. I guess I just try to stay focused on the big picture.

The big picture is this: We knew this guy was a snake when we signed up. But he was the only one who saw us. He was the only one who saw that the America we love is being transformed in front of our eyes. Good jobs for hard-working people were gone. Our communities in tatters. Our kids in trouble. I had one shot at change, so I made a deal with the devil, and you’d have made it, too.

Nothing in this impeachment mess makes me rethink this bargain. If people like you are unable to acknowledge my dignity and see my problems, I’ll stay with Trump.

More at link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/trump-voters.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Which makes me think of this by Victor David Hanson: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-america-talk-turns-to-something-unspoken-for-150-years-civil-war/2019/02/28/b3733af8-3ae4-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html

He won’t go peacefully. There are people, many of them, who could and would potentially fight a bloody rebellion on either side if it came in to that.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 04, 2019, 19:19:13
He won’t go peacefully.

He also has the nuclear codes.

Time to switch the MAGA baseball hats for these?  :)

See also,

Threat of possible US Civil War 
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=124515.25
3 pages.

Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Jarnhamar on October 04, 2019, 19:29:06
He also has the nuclear codes.


Are you suggesting Trump is going to, or is capable, of launching nuclear missiles against the United States?
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 04, 2019, 19:35:52
Are you suggesting Trump is going to, or is capable, of launching nuclear missiles against the United States?

Oh... you're good  :Tin-Foil-Hat:  :nod:
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 04, 2019, 19:44:08
Are you suggesting Trump is going to, or is capable, of launching nuclear missiles against the United States?

That's not what I said. I don't know what goes on inside his head.

Says he is "a very stable genius". Just have to take his word for it.

For those of us old enough to remember when President Nixon was forced out of office,

Quote
The nuclear launch process once haunted Nixon’s aides.
https://www.politico.eu/article/madman-nuclear-bomb-donald-trump-kim-jong-un-north-korea/
feared that the president, who seemed depressed and was drinking heavily, might order Armageddon.

Yes, I understand the Republican senators of today will never allow him to be kicked out.

I'm a big fan of @DarthPutinKGB - well played!

Kellyanne's husband, Mr. Conway, has an amusing Twitter feed.  :)
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d

( It's not a fake / parody account. He really is her husband. That's what makes it so funny. )

He posted this as his Favorite Quote,

Quote
Favorite quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

He posted this yesterday,

Quote
'This Is Insane. Trump's Gotta Go.' George Conway Ramps Up Call To Oust President.

Kellyanne Conway's husband lays out long argument for Trump's removal

“You don’t need to be a mental health professional to see something’s seriously off with Trump,” Conway wrote. And it’s only getting worse under the stress of a stumbling economy and an impeachment investigation, he warned.

I mean that as in, ‘This is not normal for a functioning adult.’”

“Simply put, Trump’s ingrained and extreme behavioral characteristics make it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency in the way the Constitution requires,” Conway argued.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/


Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: Brad Sallows on October 04, 2019, 21:54:37
"Favorite quote: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”"

But they were tasked to find evidence that the president clearly did commit a crime.  You can't find what you're not looking for, unless you stumble across it by accident.  It's also one of my favourite quotes, but probably not for the same reasons.

I'm enjoying this whole shitshow, especially the lamentations of the (ex-?)neocons.  "I have safety concerns" is the tell of a person who has nothing substantive to argue and has resorted to hypothetical fearmongering.  What might actually happen after a close election - resistance, social unrest - will most likely not be any worse than what has already happened.

An easier way to understand what is going on is to interpret "we want to impeach Trump" as "we want to campaign against Trump".  They want to ask for documents they aren't entitled to have in order to bluster about being stonewalled, while a couple of simple procedural moves would give them the clout to issue subpoenas that real courts would uphold.  "Impeachment" without impeachment will go on until House Democrats believe they have enough political cover to not lose the House or hinder chances of taking the presidency and, maybe, the Senate.  Justice isn't on the radar.
Title: Re: The US Presidency 2019
Post by: mariomike on October 04, 2019, 22:26:04