Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1798082848587

Comments

  • I wish CNN and MSNBC would ban mention of his name, or at the very least ban the use of the title "President" when referring to him.
    This seems to be on a level with North Carolina attempting to ban research findings on rising sea levels that weren't to the liking of Outer Banks real estate agents.

  • I (perhaps wrongly) interpreted the "Putin told him to call it off" memes as implying a criticism of Trump for not bombing Iran, because anything Putin wants must be evil. This interpretation is hardly a leap in my view, as Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria was denounced as a "gift to Putin" in several places last year. Generally US liberals have maintained a cold war mindset with regards to foreign policy and will gladly support any venture that supposedly counteracts Russian influence, including arming Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and bombing Syria (a move lauded as "presidential" by many talking heads such as Fareed Zakaria). If it had been Clinton provoking war instead of Trump I have no doubt they would be defending it with gusto, as they did with Obama's disastrous policies in Libya and Syria.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I (perhaps wrongly) interpreted the "Putin told him to call it off" memes as implying a criticism of Trump for not bombing Iran, because anything Putin wants must be evil.

    Have you considered the possibility that the criticism centered around the observation that having an American president* who acts like a Russian puppet is problematic for several reasons regardless of the exact policy issues involved?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited June 24
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I (perhaps wrongly) interpreted the "Putin told him to call it off" memes as implying a criticism of Trump for not bombing Iran, because anything Putin wants must be evil.

    Have you considered the possibility that the criticism centered around the observation that having an American president* who acts like a Russian puppet is problematic for several reasons regardless of the exact policy issues involved?

    Except Trump doesn't act like a Russian puppet. Expanding NATO, arming Ukrainian Nazis, boosting sanctions against Russia, protecting Al Qaeda in Syria, fomenting a Venezuelan coup, etc.

    I'm more concerned about US presidents acting like Saudi/ UAE puppets, something much more in evidence.

  • I think we need to be clear on two things:
    1. Not attacking Iran was a good thing
    2. Trump's account of how and why is a lie.

    It is a matter of public record that the US military has strict protocols about how they brief POTUS on potential action. Such a briefing would always include a BDA (bomb damage assessment) and an expectation of collateral damage. It may be the case that Trump opted not to attack Iran because of the civilians at risk but it was certainly not a last-minute decision because he only received that information at that stage. He would have had that information from the beginning. According to the Washington Post, Trump administration officials have confirmed this.

    But let's just take a step back here. The current crisis with Iran is one of Trump's one making. He withdrew from a deal (because Obama made it AFAICT) and brought in sanctions that are causing significant hardship in Iran. He created the crisis.

    Trump's MO here is to light a fire, then put it out and expect us to reward him for putting it out.

    That's not leadership, that's psychological abuse when done by someone with power.

    AFZ

  • I broadly agree, though I would guess that pressure from the Saudis, Israelis, and certain entrenched sectors of the US foreign policy establishment have more to do with the aggressive shift than a desire to spit on Obama's legacy.

    And the fire really isn't out. New sanctions piling now against Iran, in what is really a form of siege. It seems to me the US are strangling Iran so as to force it to lash out and then say, "See? They started it!"

    I would say Iran has been playing it fairly smart but smarts can only go so far when you're dealing with a psycho with a gun, which is basically the role the US plays in the middle east.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I (perhaps wrongly) interpreted the "Putin told him to call it off" memes as implying a criticism of Trump for not bombing Iran, because anything Putin wants must be evil. This interpretation is hardly a leap in my view, as Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria was denounced as a "gift to Putin" in several places last year. Generally US liberals have maintained a cold war mindset with regards to foreign policy and will gladly support any venture that supposedly counteracts Russian influence, including arming Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and bombing Syria (a move lauded as "presidential" by many talking heads such as Fareed Zakaria). If it had been Clinton provoking war instead of Trump I have no doubt they would be defending it with gusto, as they did with Obama's disastrous policies in Libya and Syria.

    But Clinton would not have provoked that war. She would have built on the international agreement Trump trashed to try and bring Iran further into the community of nations. People hate on Clinton because she voted for the Iraq war. But it wasn't she who falsified the intelligence. That was Rumsfeld and Cheney, and those bastards are long gone from the corridors of power.

    In the face of a Russia seeking to re-awaken the glory days of the Soviet Union, and a leadership there seeking to undermine the West in a variety of ways, a cold war stance is entirely appropriate. Perhaps there will come a time when engagement is a better strategy, but I suspect that won't happen under Putin. He assassinates political opponents, and does it in a way that has caused the death of residents of Salisbury. He is most assuredly not an egalitarian.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    There was a meme on Facebook today of Putin on the phone saying "Donald, call off that air strike".

    Life imitating art?

    Liberals criticizing Trump for not attacking Iran is a strong indicator of the complete moral and ideological bankruptcy of mainstream American politics “left” or right. In any case they will likely get their wish in due time. And in the event of a disastrous US war with Iran Russia will likely benefit in the long run.

    Well, this liberal was very appreciative of Trump calling off the air strike. This is the first time Trump actually showed he had morals. He was correct in saying the loss of life was not proportionate for the lose of a drone.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Nice line on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me: Trump realised that Iran hates gays, women and the Jews, and he didn't want to bomb his base.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited June 25
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    But Clinton would not have provoked that war. She would have built on the international agreement Trump trashed to try and bring Iran further into the community of nations. People hate on Clinton because she voted for the Iraq war. But it wasn't she who falsified the intelligence. That was Rumsfeld and Cheney, and those bastards are long gone from the corridors of power.

    Note I said nothing about Clinton's vote for the Iraq war- though that's indeed an indelible stain on her record. I did mention the disastrous Obama-era interventions in Libya and Syria, which did happen under her watch.
    In the face of a Russia seeking to re-awaken the glory days of the Soviet Union,

    This is just silly. Internally or geopolitically, Russia today is far, far weaker than the Soviet Union and its ambitions are far more modest. It has no global mass movement supporting it (Twitter bots don't count). Ideologically, it presents a variant of the same neoliberalism predominating in the West.
    and a leadership there seeking to undermine the West in a variety of ways,

    Wow... did you sleep through the 90's and 00's, or just conveniently forget the way the West raped and undermined Russia during those years?
    a cold war stance is entirely appropriate.

    And this is the brilliant thinking that puts guns in the hands of jihadists and neo-Nazis.
    Perhaps there will come a time when engagement is a better strategy, but I suspect that won't happen under Putin. He assassinates political opponents,

    Wow. It's good that we don't have any allies that do that or crack jokes about having foreign leaders sodomized by bayonet.
    and does it in a way that has caused the death of residents of Salisbury.

    I'm glad you brought that up- the Skripal incident shows we are very far from dealing with the Soviet Union of old. The bumbling GRU thugs involved were not exactly Le Carre novel material.
    He is most assuredly not an egalitarian.

    Unlike our buddies Mohammed "Bonesaw" bin Salman and the other Wahhabi mafia who run the Gulf states.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    And so the Trump bandwagon trundles on, mired in a mixture of scandal, stupidity and incompetence.

    Now, like the "gentleman" he is, he seeks to answer the allegation from E Jean Caroll with this - do you think he mean she wasn't breathing?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    There was a meme on Facebook today of Putin on the phone saying "Donald, call off that air strike".

    Life imitating art?

    Liberals criticizing Trump for not attacking Iran is a strong indicator of the complete moral and ideological bankruptcy of mainstream American politics “left” or right. In any case, they will likely get their wish in due time. And in the event of a disastrous US war with Iran Russia will likely benefit in the long run.

    Well, this liberal was very appreciative of Trump calling off the air strike. This is the first time Trump actually showed he had morals. He was correct in saying the loss of life was not proportionate for the Iranians shooting down an unmanned drone.

    Remember there was a time when the US shot down an Iranian airliner with passengers on board. (We did apologize and paid reparations).
  • It disturbs me that he implies he has a type for rape.
  • I have a hard time believing the humanitarian considerations were foremost in Trump's mind. As someone else noted, there's no way Trump wouldn't have been apprised of the casualties before approving the strike. One thing Iran subsequently revealed is that an American spyplane, with 38 crew on board, also invaded their airspace and they were getting ready to shoot it down in the event of a US attack. Of course this would be the tip of the iceberg- the amount of damage a war with Iran could do, not only to US interests but to the global economy, is incalculable. Maybe this is another case where the guys in the Pentagon are, for once, the sane people in the room and saying, "Maybe this isn't a good idea..."
  • It disturbs me that he implies he has a type for rape.

    Does E Jean Carroll have a cleft between her legs? I'd bet she does. That automatically makes her "his type".
  • I read the wikipedia summary of the Iran + other countries and the EU 2015 nuclear deal. Why did trump back out of it? except that he wanted to have rumours of war, violence, continue funding and supporting the Saudis, deflecting from other problems, and because his sexually assaultive nature also includes looting, you know, the rape and pillage thing.

  • I think the Saudi factor is the most important here- they have a mouth-frothing hatred/ terror of Iran and want everyone to share it. They are extensively entangled in the military industrial complex and the overlapping DC think tank circuit. The Obama administration was more influenced by the Qataris, who are a nasty bunch themselves but maintain good relations with Iran.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    I think the Saudi factor is the most important here- they have a mouth-frothing hatred/ terror of Iran and want everyone to share it. They are extensively entangled in the military industrial complex and the overlapping DC think tank circuit.

    Additionally, a number of the current foreign policy establishment - including Bolton - are close to the opposition group/cult MEK.
  • Oh yeah, those MeK guys seem to get support from both democrats (e.g. Menendez, Howard Dean) and republicans (e.g. John McCain, Giuliani) despite the fact that they're completely bonkers and have 0 support in Iran.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    It disturbs me that he implies he has a type for rape.

    Does E Jean Carroll have a cleft between her legs? I'd bet she does. That automatically makes her "his type".
    That was my first thought too, PB4S.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    It disturbs me that he implies he has a type for rape.

    Does E Jean Carroll have a cleft between her legs? I'd bet she does. That automatically makes her "his type".
    That was my first thought too, PB4S.
    Let's not blow past the utter misogyny of the statement: it implies that he wouldn't have raped her because he didn't find her attractive enough. That is, if anything, worse than the old "it's her fault because of how she dressed" defense.

    And let's not ignore the fact that he presented the "not my type" as his first line of defense, even before "I didn't do it." That was intentionally meant to be demeaning to her: "let me point out how unattractive she is first before denying that it happened." Disgusting. But no surprise from him.
  • I'm be beginning to think that the anti-Christ is a collective, an R & P squad of Genghises. Whose many minions also wear uniforms. In the movie, another group starts shooting the minions. Right after the mass graves are found. Because they're zombies. And because guns. It's a rap musical. Rapatat-tat-tat, boom.

    (R & P: rape and pillage)

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    I think the Saudi factor is the most important here- they have a mouth-frothing hatred/ terror of Iran and want everyone to share it. They are extensively entangled in the military industrial complex and the overlapping DC think tank circuit. The Obama administration was more influenced by the Qataris, who are a nasty bunch themselves but maintain good relations with Iran.
    The Saudis hate the Iranians because they feel they're despised by them- which is true, the Iranian view of all the Gulf arabs is that they're basically a bunch of ignorant nomads who got lucky (not so far from the truth) whereas they have a proud history going back millennia. They have more time for the Marsh Arabs because Iranians feel they too have been in the region for thousands of years, whereas the rest of them - Saudis, Kuwaitis, people from the UAE, Iraqis and Syrians are seen as johnny-come-latelys with no culture of their own and no respect for the culture of the area they inhabit.

    Iran views the Qataris as not being completely beyond the pale because they're doing their best to preserve the few remnants of their country's past that have survived - meanwhile the Saudis continue to bulldoze ancient mosques from the earliest days of Islam and either replace them with modern glitz or, worse, decide a shopping mall is preferable.

    All of that even before you get to the religious differences.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 26
    Sir P, I'm happy to get into a Russia v USA argument with you. I have plenty to say, although I dislike repeating myself. Why don't you start up another thread rather than cluttering up this one?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited June 26
    This is astounding. How did it happen in the 21st century?

    A picture of a White House meeting with lawmakers about a new healthcare bill affecting access to pregnancy and maternity care shows 25 men discussing the reforms. Not a woman in sight.
  • That's also old news - we discussed it when it happened in 2017 (Trump + 20 men discussing the maternity care bill)
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    It was the conservative Freedom Caucus, an all-male (and apparently all-white) group of Republican House representatives.

    Mike Pence seems to be chairing the meeting. Maybe "Mother" wouldn't let him attend the meeting without her if there were other women present.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    It was the conservative Freedom Caucus, an all-male (and apparently all-white) group of Republican House representatives.

    Formerly all male. The Freedom Caucus now includes one woman, Debbie Lesko of Arizona. She joined the House after a 2018 special election so she wouldn't have been included in that 2017 photo.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    If the picture on the front of tonight’s Evening Standard doesn’t change the attitude to the US Mexican boarder crisis nothing will. A man and his little daughter dead face down in the mud of the Rio Grande
  • GwaiGwai Purgatory Host
    edited June 26
    Sadly I think nothing will. I think Republicans know or are too busy not looking and will keep supporting the monsters doing this. The rest of the world presumably already knows and is generally horrified but what can they do.
  • Why would it change anything? I doubt if Trump will even mention it. Dead brown people, big deal.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    edited June 26
    Hugal wrote: »
    If the picture on the front of tonight’s Evening Standard doesn’t change the attitude to the US Mexican boarder crisis nothing will. A man and his little daughter dead face down in the mud of the Rio Grande

    It probably won't. Thousands of people have drowned trying to cross the Mediterranean since that photo of Alan Kurdi in 2015. And our lovely governments over here in Europe have started arresting European citizens for trying to help them (eg Pia Klemp who rescued a thousand people from drowning: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/german-boat-captain-faces-up-to-20-years-in-jail-for-rescuing-migrants-a4166011.html )
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    WTF?
    Sean Lawler, a State Department official whose title is chief of protocol, is departing amid a possible inspector general’s probe into accusations of intimidating staff and carrying a whip in the office, according to one of the people.

    Is there some rule where Trump officials aren't allowed to repeat the scandals of other Trump officials? Because the scandals are getting downright baroque.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    If the picture on the front of tonight’s Evening Standard doesn’t change the attitude to the US Mexican boarder crisis nothing will. A man and his little daughter dead face down in the mud of the Rio Grande

    The line I'm starting to hear is, "Why are you showing everyone that picture? It's in bad taste!" Because taste is the issue at hand.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    WTF?
    Sean Lawler, a State Department official whose title is chief of protocol, is departing amid a possible inspector general’s probe into accusations of intimidating staff and carrying a whip in the office, according to one of the people.

    Is there some rule where Trump officials aren't allowed to repeat the scandals of other Trump officials? Because the scandals are getting downright baroque.

    I saw that. Figured that's how "acting" chiefs of whatever manage to keep the disgruntled Deep State in line these days We're officially through the looking glass and deep into Fun House Mirror territory. I'm canceling Christmas on the theory we'll either be converts to Islam by then, or possibly just a mass of radioactive cinders.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    That is an incredible story @Crœsos. I have shopped it around facefacts.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited June 29
    I'm canceling Christmas on the theory we'll either be converts to Islam by then

    True story: Once we hosted a Muslim student going to university for a year. While she was American and went to public school, there were certain things she could never figure out, like making ornaments for the season. She helped us put up our Christmas tree. When she came across the handmade ornaments our kids made in school, she exclaimed, "Now I get it. I never knew."
  • Ohher wrote: »
    We're officially through the looking glass and deep into Fun House Mirror territory.

    To the quotes file with you!
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I'm canceling Christmas on the theory we'll either be converts to Islam by then

    True story: Once we hosted a Muslim student going to university for a year. While she was American and went to public school, there were certain things she could never figure out, like making ornaments for the season. She helped us put up our Christmas tree. When she came across the handmade ornaments our kids made in school, she exclaimed, "Now I get it. I never knew."

    Ha! I used to teach at a place where most of the students, though Christian (usually Catholic) were originally from Central and South America. Around Easter time, one woman, a mom trying hard to help her kids get "Americanized," came up after class to ask about the upcoming holiday. "What is with this rabbit?" she asked, perplexed, "and all these eggs he's supposed to lay?"
  • What do you think of "outing" immigration officers who've separated children and parents and shaming/ostracizing them? There's a USA newspaper suggesting this. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/opinion/immigration-children-detention.html

    "it’s about exposure of their participation in atrocities to audiences whose opinion they care about. The knowledge, for instance, that when you go to church on Sunday, your entire congregation will have seen you on TV ripping a child out of her father’s arms is a serious social cost to bear. The desire to avoid this kind of social shame may be enough to persuade some agents to quit and may hinder the recruitment of replacements. For those who won’t (or can’t) quit, it may induce them to treat the vulnerable individuals under their control more humanely. "

    You get 2 free views of the newspaper in question. If you exceed that, delete cookies in your browser and reload.
  • I haven't yet read the article, but the quotation you cite would seem to preclude the "I was only following orders" defense. Try that at the Liturgical tea and biscuits and see how far that defense might get you. There are few things more withering than the disgusted look of a pleasant old lady who previously thought that you were a nice person, only to discover that you separate infants from parents.

    Yes- Out them.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I just don't know.

    If we were more like the WWII Danes -- a smaller, more communally-driven, culturally-and-religiously-cohesive population -- maybe this could work.

    We're not like that, though. There are those among us who WILL doxx agents so exposed -- and with what consequences to the doxxed individuals? I've seen estimates that as many as one in three households contain guns in this country; will some nut take the law into his own hands and take his own vengeance on outed agents? We already have a kind of low-level undeclared war between police and citizenry in various major cities.

    If I thought this could remain at the level of simply discouraging cooperation with immoral orders, that would be one thing. But I look around me and fear where this could take us.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Re outing detention center staff:

    Yes, it could go very badly. Besides what Ohher just said, the targets' home addresses and phone #s would likely get out. More potential for violence.

    I am not remotely defending the way the internees (of any age) are being treated. I do think that the problems are mostly caused higher up. It's possible that at least some of the detention workers are simply trying to work with few resources and bad policies, and also keep a roof over their own heads. And I suspect there's probably someone who quietly tries to do a little better than what they've been told to do, tries to be kind to the kids, etc. They would likely suffer, and the kids would lose them.

    And if all the staff quits, or is killed, there will be MORE chaos for the kids. The staff is unlikely to be replaced right away, and any who are would probably be chosen by the same managers, and be stuck with the same rules.

    Get Congressional Republicans to at least imitate human beings long enough to start some immediate changes. Get them on field trips to the detention centers (especially the worst places). Make them inhale the stench, and see the suffering kids. If possible, film them throughout. (AIUI, there *are* some Congressional Republicans who are more human.)

    And get international agencies involved and on the scene. UN HCR, UNICEF, Rec Cross, etc. I don't know if the International Criminal Court could get involved, because the US isn't signatory to it.

    I've toyed with the the idea of getting ***FULLY VETTED AND SUPERVISED** college students in to help, particularly med students. Probably for a combination of pay and school credit. Not sure about it. Might well overwhelm and damage them, and the program might attract people who like to hurt kids.

    ...thinking aloud...
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited June 30
    @Golden Key said -
    And get international agencies involved and on the scene. UN HCR, UNICEF, Red Cross, etc.

    This is what’s needed. Very visibly shame the whole system.
  • I’m a bit worried that Trump is playing nice with China and DPRK because he miscalculated his brinksmanship with Iran and is now getting ready for a real war.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Get Congressional Republicans to at least imitate human beings long enough to start some immediate changes. Get them on field trips to the detention centers (especially the worst places). Make them inhale the stench, and see the suffering kids. If possible, film them throughout.

    And get the moon, which is after all made of green cheese, to dissolve itself into a salad dressing.

    Yes, out the bastards. Shame them. Shun them. I don't think anything else will work. Else they would have rebelled by now: "No, we're not going to do this to children."
  • Don't know about exposing the agents. Apparently they're disciplined for helping people who might otherwise die.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited June 30
    The agents are not at fault, though they are responsible for obeying unlawful orders. The real fault is with Mr Trump and his administration. I see the UN has now come out condemning the detention centers as inhumane.
    (Fixed broken URL. BroJames Purg Host)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am thinking the main reason for Trump stepping over into North Korea is to grab the headlines from the Democrats.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    A pity they didn't keep him for a longer visit. 18 months or so.
Sign In or Register to comment.