Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

13567103

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The LDS language school is one of the best out there. Not only do they teach the languages, but then they send their young adults into the countries which speak the languages for two years. They do come back as very competent translators prized by people doing business overseas.

    Just yesterday NPR announced that the State Department did hire a director for the Russian department that could speak Russian. He is the only one that does, though.
  • edited March 2018
    The Globe and Mail has this to say about amateur economics re steel tariffs. How trumpy is poised to harm his country economically, how he and his group need a crash course of Econ 101. It is noted that "United States exports US$2-billion annually more steel to Canada than the other way around". Which means he doesn't even have any facts.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The LDS language school is one of the best out there. Not only do they teach the languages, but then they send their young adults into the countries which speak the languages for two years. They do come back as very competent translators prized by people doing business overseas.

    Just yesterday NPR announced that the State Department did hire a director for the Russian department that could speak Russian. He is the only one that does, though.

    I've been wondering how this works in countries which severely restrict missionary activities connected to non-majority religions in those countries. Is there a point to teaching these countries' languages to LDS missionaries when attempting to proselytize there is likely to result in jail time or worse?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    This is from the LDS Global Mission Website

    Despite its reputation for vigorous missionary activity in other areas of the world, the Church has observed religious restrictions in the Middle East by making nonproselyting commitments to government leaders and by issuing strict instructions for members to honor these commitments. In the 1990s the Church adopted a formal policy of not proselyting, teaching, or baptizing Muslims who either live in or plan to return to the Middle East. This step was taken to accommodate Islamic laws that stipulate legal and social sanctions for Muslims who convert to other faiths.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    This is from the LDS Global Mission Website

    Despite its reputation for vigorous missionary activity in other areas of the world, the Church has observed religious restrictions in the Middle East by making nonproselyting commitments to government leaders and by issuing strict instructions for members to honor these commitments. In the 1990s the Church adopted a formal policy of not proselyting, teaching, or baptizing Muslims who either live in or plan to return to the Middle East. This step was taken to accommodate Islamic laws that stipulate legal and social sanctions for Muslims who convert to other faiths.

    Does this mean LDS organization does not send missionaries to Middle Eastern countries?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    The surprise meeting between Trump and Kim. Apparently Trump went against serious advice that he should decline the offer, this being some kind of poisoned chalice. Harking back to our OP. Is this another Oops? Or is it a bold move?

    The argument appears to be that North Korea's development of a nuclear capability is stalling because of lack of funds (because of sanctions) and so Kim is looking for a 'promise to be a good boy' deal in order to get sanctions lifted. A promise he is likely to go back on.

    So is Trump willing to go for some kind of Iran-type deal with N Korea? Or is this another grabbing the news cycle game you him? Is he being stupid, crafty or (for once in his life) seriously sincere?
  • I think Kim has read Trump like a book and seized his opportunity, but I have to confess I'm rapidly thinking of abandoning all attempts at rational analysis of current affairs and retreating under my duvet for good.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Tough, isn't it? Both in the US and over Brexit (as that
    thread demonstrates) rational argument seems to have lost its power.

    Bread and Circuses? You get the feeling that Circus is predominating far too often. Let's put on a good show.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Tough, isn't it? Both in the US and over Brexit (as that
    thread demonstrates) rational argument seems to have lost its power.

    Bread and Circuses? You get the feeling that Circus is predominating far too often. Let's put on a good show.

    A possible meeting between those two makes my blood run cold. Neither are to be trusted with a chain saw, never mind the nuclear future of the planet.

    :cry:

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    For certain voters like windsofchange it only mattered that Trump "professes at least a modicum of support for pro-life issues". Sincere belief in using the criminal justice system to punish abortion is not required, nor is effectiveness in actually doing so. Performative virtue signaling on this one issue is both necessary and sufficient for a candidate to receive the votes of this constituency.

    I know this was a couple of pages ago, but I'm a bit late to the party. I also, do not wish to incur the wrath of the (just and wonderful) hosts for straying into DH territory here but I do think there's something important and wider to discuss here.

    I completely agree with the analysis that the GOP does not have any intention of doing anything about abortion. They have a constituency that will vote for them if they simply state they are 'pro-life.' There is plenty of evidence of what actually reduces the number of abortions and they refuse to follow such policies - or to care for poorer children once they are born. And it has been a winning strategy for 20 years - virtue signalling and complete inaction.

    In many ways Trump is the epitome of this strategy. He has hit plenty of hot-buttons and on the basis of that won an election. And will do nothing about any of them.

    There is a parallel in UK politics. The Conservative party cannot lose on immigration. They have since the early 2000s ramped up the rhetoric on immigration. In government since 2010, they keep doing nothing to reduce immigration. There are some very good reasons for this (the economic cost would be very significant). The added bonus is that it kept the issue alive for the 2015 and 2017 elections. Labour cannot win because we are a long way from a position where the pro-immigration case can be heard and Labour cannot out-Tory the Tories on this issue successfully. Hence the more the Tories talk about immigration and do nothing about it, the more it becomes an electoral plus for them.

    As the GOP have discovered, if you dance with the devil, you will pay a price. They have courted the racists and so when someone came along who ramped up that rhetoric, he stole the GOP base. They have played to multiple prejudices and so left themselves wide open to someone who simply played that same card more effectively. I have no sympathy for the Republican Party. I know there are good republicans; I know some but he party, no; no sympathy at all.

    In the UK, the parallel is Brexit. The Conservatives' austerity is responsible for the destruction of public services and communities. However by scape-goating the EU and specifically immigration and 'benefits scroungers' they won elections. And so when the Leave campaign takes that argument to its logical conclusion, Cameron lost the Brexit referendum.

    I am deeply troubled by the kind of cynicism that stokes prejudice and signals being against certain things with to intention to do anything about it; in order to win elections. If you dance with the devil... Brexit and Trump are the logical conclusion of years of propaganda.

    AFZ



  • Re: Summit. The US State Dept is much depopulated of sherpas. Kim has probably surmised that this is as opportune a moment as he will ever get. I wonder what the doves in Seoul are thinking. (Probably something like "Oh... Really?.... Now?" attended by shocked and worried glances.) Former POTUSes have done a very good job of staying on the sidelines, but this might be a time when that's more honoured in the breach than the observance. Not likely, though, since it seems that not even Tillerson was consulted. God save us, all.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Tough, isn't it? Both in the US and over Brexit (as that
    thread demonstrates) rational argument seems to have lost its power.

    Bread and Circuses? You get the feeling that Circus is predominating far too often. Let's put on a good show.

    This xkcd has never felt so close to reality.

  • Ohher wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    This is from the LDS Global Mission Website

    Despite its reputation for vigorous missionary activity in other areas of the world, the Church has observed religious restrictions in the Middle East by making nonproselyting commitments to government leaders and by issuing strict instructions for members to honor these commitments. In the 1990s the Church adopted a formal policy of not proselyting, teaching, or baptizing Muslims who either live in or plan to return to the Middle East. This step was taken to accommodate Islamic laws that stipulate legal and social sanctions for Muslims who convert to other faiths.

    Does this mean LDS organization does not send missionaries to Middle Eastern countries?

    It might mean that, but I would take it to mean they don't do proselyting. Not all LDS missionaries are evangelistic, some do humanitarian work. My LDS SIL spent his mission doing disaster relief

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Not all LDS missionaries are evangelistic, some do humanitarian work. My LDS SIL spent his mission doing disaster relief

    Thanks -- I wasn't aware. My thought was that no evangelizing = no missions = no language training for certain regions, and hence not much of a pool for the government trawling for translators / interpreters. However, this is now a tangent; ignore & carry on.
  • I have no clue what to make of the North Korea news. I have no doubt that Trump would be mocking Clinton for being weak if she had won and made the same announcement. But I'll also admit that there is no way to know if Clinton would have gotten a similar offer.

    This is definitely one of those news stories where you can read whatever you want, depending on your bias. Trump's pressure worked! Trump's getting played! (And plenty of people are going to great lengths to figure out how this is all part of Putin's game to keep Trump in power, which seems a step too far, if you ask me.) The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle.

    I doubt that this will all lead to lasting stability and an end to brinkmanship in Korea, but if it does, good for Trump for whatever part he had in it. I'm still not voting for him in 2020.
  • It puts Kim on an equal footing with the rest of the world, and it meets a request of NK not granted for the past 20 years: bilateral talks with the US in preference to the multilateral talks preferred by previous administrations.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It puts Kim on an equal footing with the rest of the world, and it meets a request of NK not granted for the past 20 years: bilateral talks with the US in preference to the multilateral talks preferred by previous administrations.

    Jeffrey Lewis makes this point on Twitter.
    North Korea has been seeking a summit with an American president for more than twenty years. It has literally been a top foreign policy goal of Pyongyang since Kim Jong Il invited Bill Clinton. I wonder if Trump's "aides" have explained that to him. Or, if in their toddler-handling, they have led him to believe that this offer is something unusual. Or perhaps he imagines that only he can go Pyongyang. This is literally how the North Korean film "The Country I Saw" ends. An American President visits Pyongyang, compelled by North Korea's nuclear and missile programs to treat a Kim as an equal.

    PS: To be clear -- we need to talk to North Korea. But Kim is not inviting Trump so that he can surrender North Korea's weapons. Kim is inviting Trump to demonstrate that his investment in nuclear and missile capabilities has forced the United States to treat him as an equal.

    Two other points I've seen made elsewhere. First, the offer was made in a highly unusual way; a verbal offer transmitted by a third party, a South Korean diplomat. Such offers are typically made in writing to avoid playing the "telephone game" with international diplomacy. This is doubly true of North Korea, which likes everything to be in written form. With nothing in writing there's no real commitment about the parameters of what would be discussed at such a meeting.

    Second, summit meetings between heads of state usually occur after the various levels of the diplomatic corps have met and worked out the broad parameters of any agreement to be formalized at the summit. That obviously has not happened here. The plan seems to be to have the summit first and work out details later. This leads me to believe, as Mr. Lewis argued in his postscript, that from the North Korean perspective the summit is the desired outcome and it seems unlikely any agreement of substance will result.
  • It has also been perfectly timed.

    It's quite a world where NK's administration has a discernible plan and can be seen to working to fulfil it, while the US administration looks very much like how NK's was formerly portrayed, purges and all.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Well, you can only have the respective diplomatic corps work things out in advance if both sides have actual diplomatic corps. While I know nothing about NK's, ours is in pretty dire shape.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It has also been perfectly timed.

    It's quite a world where NK's administration has a discernible plan and can be seen to working to fulfil it, while the US administration looks very much like how NK's was formerly portrayed, purges and all.
    I miss the :notworthy at this point. This is painfully true. And will be demonstrated to be so.

  • I'm leaving further judgement on North Korea for about this time next year.

    What has interested me, and I have two draft attempts at threads in my box but can't get the question right, is the obvious difference in the reaction to Kim's threats last year and Putin's threats concerning his super-weapon his year. Trump didn't tweet about the size of his weapons, the media didn't go into panic-mode and (consequently?) very little has been said here and in social media about how our lives and property are threatened. What gives? I can't seem to put my finger on it. Are Trump's tweets truly setting the agenda for public discourse, so that if the media doesn't run scary stories we are all OK with further potential for nuclear war? It does look to me as though Trump does exercise a modicum of control, and I mean that tentatively.
  • Perhaps whoever carries the "nuclear football" briefcase for T should stay away from the meeting? Just to keep it from falling into the wrong hands, you understand...whichever wrong hands those might be.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Well, what a surprise - not!

    So that was what Pence really meant.

    So now we know. So much clearer :naughty:
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Perhaps whoever carries the "nuclear football" briefcase for T should stay away from the meeting? Just to keep it from falling into the wrong hands, you understand...whichever wrong hands those might be.

    This is probably a good protocol for the interim, regardless of the circumstances.
  • fun and games at that border shed where they meet are legion. Also, John Safran the Australian 'naughty boy' comic once kicked a footy over the wall in Jerusalem (as it then was) and then behaved like a 12 year old when the guards wouldn't let him climb over and get it.

    I've just watched the video again and my memory is wrong. He kicks the ball over the border fence between Israel and Lebanon at the 3:00 minute mark. Video contains nudity. Why don't they make reality TV like this anymore?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Ohher wrote: »

    Does this mean LDS organization does not send missionaries to Middle Eastern countries?

    Not sure about Israel, but it does mean they do not send missionaries to countries which forbid them which would mean most of the Middle Eastern countries. As pointed out above not all LDS missionaries are proselyting but I think even their humanitarian work in those countries are limited.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »

    Does this mean LDS organization does not send missionaries to Middle Eastern countries?

    Not sure about Israel, but it does mean they do not send missionaries to countries which forbid them which would mean most of the Middle Eastern countries.

    No, it means they wouldn't send evangelistic missionaries to countries that don't allow proselyting. They might send humanitarian missionaries to those countries that will welcome such assistance.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 2018



    I don't think you saw my edited comments.

    I do see the Mormons have made contributions to famine relief in the Middle East and Africa ($11 mil) and have sent $4 mil for Refugee assistance. But these are really drops in a bucket.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Are Trump's tweets truly setting the agenda for public discourse
    I don't know about the rest of your thoughts, but the answer to that is obviously yes.

    The really scary thing about this day and age to me is the concept of "controlling the narrative".

    I think Steve Bannon (the surprise guest tonight at the Front National party conference here in France), say, understands this and has sought to exploit it to the maximum. It's pure 1984.

    I'm not sure Trump's mind works that way, but my take is that like much else, he has stumbled into being able to control the narrative to an amazing extent and is intuitively (rather than calculatedly) milking it for all it's worth, right down to the Two Minutes' Hate. Even the media opposed to him spend disordinate amounts of time responding to his Tweets, they just can't seem to help themselves.

    Sometimes it feels as if Trump and the media are locked in a kind of death struggle in which each needs the other to survive and yet each is desperately trying to kill the other.





  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited March 2018
    Bernie Sanders, being interviewed by Anderson Cooper recently, said something like this. "This county is facing enormous challenges. Gun control, health care, our trading and political relationships around the world, the struggles with terrorism. Why the hell is the news dominated by Trump and a porn star?"
  • There used to be (perhaps still is) a saying in Ukland that The Sun (a tabloid 'newspaper' of the worst type IMHO) didn't give a sh*t who ran the country, as long as she had big t*ts.

    Bread, circuses, and s*x.

    IJ
  • There used to be (perhaps still is) a saying in Ukland that The Sun (a tabloid 'newspaper' of the worst type IMHO) didn't give a sh*t who ran the country, as long as she had big t*ts.

    Is that not originally from Yes, Minister? https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M?t=55s
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    But Mr. Trump was not anti-abortion until quite recently, and who knows if he really is now? He is not the most consistent thinker in the world.

    I don't think that matters. For certain voters like windsofchange it only mattered that Trump "professes at least a modicum of support for pro-life issues". Sincere belief in using the criminal justice system to punish abortion is not required, nor is effectiveness in actually doing so. Performative virtue signaling on this one issue is both necessary and sufficient for a candidate to receive the votes of this constituency. Consider the example of Roy Moore, a credibly accused pedophile who was nonetheless considered a better potential Senator than Doug Jones by many Alabamians largely because Moore wanted to use the criminal justice system to punish abortion while Jones used the criminal justice system to prosecute domestic terrorists. As long as a candidate "professes" the right position on this one issue, nothing else really matters.

    There's a similar dynamic with Second Amendment voters, except they usually expect results, not just professing support.
    Excellent. Though he's high end hebe, low end ephebo and older, not pedo.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    It pre-dates that. At least I heard it before 'Yes Minister'. But I can't remember the source!
  • I'm not sure of the source, either! Bernard, in Yes, Minister, was quoting something that was already well in circulation...
    :grin:

    Meanwhile, it's hard to see from this side of the pond quite what POTUS and Mr. Kim are up to. If points are to be scored, ultimately I fear that they'll be scored by Mr. Kim.

    I suspect he is nobody's fool, whereas POTUS....
    :flushed:

    IJ
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    If points are to be scored, ultimately I fear that they'll be scored by Mr. Kim.
    If NK is in serious difficulties, America could cash some "points" it's already got.
    But I don't think there's easy gains for America, unless they've been won already.

    If both sides are happy to settle with "We could totally hit you, probably"/"They probably can't quite hit us" as being an acceptable state for NK's missile program. Then there possibly is a more relaxed position, where they can both claim to have got the others 'respect' but nothing immediately changes (but they've spoken, and SK can be released).

    If WW3 goes out, NK will be gone, SK will be gone whereas America would merely be bankrupt. I'm sure Kim wouldn't like it, and that gives Donald a chance to talk tough.
    But as our ministers say "Nukes depend on you being willing to use them". And he can't risk letting that go.

  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders, being interviewed by Anderson Cooper recently, said something like this. "This county is facing enormous challenges. Gun control, health care, our trading and political relationships around the world, the struggles with terrorism. Why the hell is the news dominated by Trump and a porn star?"

    Was he serious? Because this is a stupid question. He knows the answer, or he should.
  • Let's assume he knew the answer, and further let us propose he was making a point by asking a rhetorical question.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    And what might that point be, do you think?
  • We're letting the press divert our attention from what's important. Why, what do you think it might be?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    And what might that point be, do you think?

    I won't say what point Sanders was trying to make, but for me the main take-away from the Stormy Daniels saga is that the American president* has demonstrated that he's amenable to being blackmailed. That seems at least moderately important.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    And what might that point be, do you think?

    I won't say what point Sanders was trying to make, but for me the main take-away from the Stormy Daniels saga is that the American president* has demonstrated that he's amenable to being blackmailed. That seems at least moderately important.

    But he won't pay much money0--at least, not in this case.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I won't say what point Sanders was trying to make, but for me the main take-away from the Stormy Daniels saga is that the American president* has demonstrated that he's amenable to being blackmailed. That seems at least moderately important.
    But he won't pay much money--at least, not in this case.

    Depends on what you mean by "much". US$130,000 is a little over two times the annual income of the median American household. There's also the open question as to where that money ultimately came from and whether, as some have suggested, it came from a source that violates campaign finance laws. (You can't use campaign funds to pay an ex-mistress hush money.) We know Trump is fairly tight-fisted with his own money and typically plays fast-and-loose with other people's resources. (See any of his past bankruptcies for a case study of this.) This also seems pretty relevant for someone who has access to a lot of public resources, like intelligence or the ability to award government contracts or pardons.
  • To Trump, $130k is chump change. It matters not how it compares to the median income.
  • What mt said.
    It just continues to boggle me that a billionaire would pay that little in hush money. I'm not sure if Ms. Daniels asked for the money, or T and company thought it would be wise. But I would think that giving too little hush money to anyone might backfire..
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    We're letting the press divert our attention from what's important. Why, what do you think it might be?
    That he was trying to make a point was your contention, not mine. I was asking you in the hope that you might have found something more than trite finger-wagging in Sanders' statement.

    As for the amount - well, just because he's rich doesn't mean he's eager to overpay, does it? $130,000 doesn't have to be a lot of money to him, it just has to be a lot of money to Ms. Clifford; since she signed the agreement, apparently it is (or was.)
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    mousethief is right. That was Bernie's point. They may be less fascinating, but there were more important issues than Trump's womanising past.

    Dave W is also right. The Stormy Daniels story does reveal quite a lot about Trump's character and methods of exerting control. Nobody is buying 'I did it on my own initiative with my own money' from the lawyer as the full story, regardless of technical truth tests.

    So it's a story. Bernie's argument is about proportionality. How much time does it deserve in comparison to these other things? What sort of media editorial control is going on?

    Eutychus' point relates. Not directly by Trump in this particular case, but control and manipulation of the news cycle is based on the editorial attraction of the 'shiny and new' and gossipy eye-catching. It gets viewing figures and the editors can't avoid it if other outlets are responding. People can use that to divert attention.

  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    A quick web search indicates that Ms. Daniels has a net worth of roughly $4 million. She is outstandingly successful in her field. No, $130,000 is not an amount that would necessarily impress her.
  • His whole administration is liars aren't they?

    Reality check: No, the U.S. doesn’t have a $17B trade deficit with Canada, the USA has a surplus of $25 billion.

    Meanwhile we're talking of the Mad Men Summit. Can the porn star go too?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    On This Week today, there were questions about where this meeting would take place -- DC or NK. I think Trump should hold out for NK. Played right, perhaps Kim the Current might be persuaded to keep 42.2 there.
Sign In or Register to comment.