Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

12223252728134

Comments

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And the Orange Angry Baby Trump blimp complete with cell phone has made him feel unwelcome in London? Boo Hoo. I think the makers of that blimp should either take it to wherever he goes or at least franchise it out to other groups. I bet they would make a lot of money on this.

    He felt unwelcome?

    That’s because he is unwelcome!

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @Crœsos I think your above post should read "July" both times.

    You are correct about that.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Stormy Daniels strip club charges tossed by judge

    Not that the following observation is particular to this case only, but you really can't beat a job that involves having your butt fondled by women you later arrest.
    The charge stated that she was taking men's faces and putting them between her breasts and rubbing the breasts in their faces.
    Isn't that pretty much what a man goes to a strip club hoping for?

    Well, I've been in at least one strip club where signs at the entrance clearly state that any physical contact with the dancers will result in immediate ejection of the patron. Whether this is just because of house policy, or fear of how the law will view such transactions, it is not a universal that men can touch the dancers in strip clubs.



  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I'm increasingly convinced that's deliberate.

    It has everyone scrambling after him perpetually trying to catch up, and gradually detaches them from objective reality. It drags the debate into endless denials, claims, and counterclaims. It's a great way of controlling the narrative.

    Yes, he also reminds of those people in relationships who abuse their partner, then tell them that they adore them. So there is an endless cycle of abuse and 'love'. There is a strong element of gaslighting as well, if the partner starts to believe the negative description - you are hopeless but I love you. But to see it played out so theatrically in public is something else.
  • apostate630apostate630 Shipmate Posts: 8
    Excuse me, folks, but I’m morbidly curious. Are there any Trump cultists on SoF?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Excuse me, folks, but I’m morbidly curious. Are there any Trump cultists on SoF?

    As I just wrote on the "worst presidents" thread, I am someone who thinks that the main problem with him is that he is implementing the Republican agenda, not that he's imposing his own madcap view on the country. Handing over social policy to theocrats, and reversing any progress made by Obama on Iran and Cuba, are pretty much what the GOP was saying they were going to do, regardless of who they nominated.

    And I actually agree with his approach(so far) on North Korea.

    So, does all that make me a cultist? I don't think so. Even if I don't blame him personally for Republican policies, I still don't like them. And I suspect that the tentative detente on North Korea is something Hillary would have been doing as well, so I don't think he's a total genius for coming up with the idea.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Have you seen this video of the Trump with the Queen?

    I can't stand the Monarchy, but I find that hilarious. Surely someone told him not to turn his back to her?

    I mean, seriously. Today we are all The Queen.
  • apostate630apostate630 Shipmate Posts: 8
    stetson wrote: »
    Excuse me, folks, but I’m morbidly curious. Are there any Trump cultists on SoF?

    As I just wrote on the "worst presidents" thread, I am someone who thinks that the main problem with him is that he is implementing the Republican agenda, not that he's imposing his own madcap view on the country. Handing over social policy to theocrats, and reversing any progress made by Obama on Iran and Cuba, are pretty much what the GOP was saying they were going to do, regardless of who they nominated.

    And I actually agree with his approach(so far) on North Korea.

    So, does all that make me a cultist? I don't think so. Even if I don't blame him personally for Republican policies, I still don't like them. And I suspect that the tentative detente on North Korea is something Hillary would have been doing as well, so I don't think he's a total genius for coming up with the idea.

    Shucks, Stetson, you’re no cultist. That sort lives in a parallel universe of alternative facts, with very few congruencies with our own.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Have you seen this video of the Trump with the Queen?

    I can't stand the Monarchy, but I find that hilarious. Surely someone told him not to turn his back to her?

    I mean, seriously. Today we are all The Queen.

    Isn't it a perennial thing for the British press to complain about how foreigners treat the Queen? I can think of three examples just off the top of my head, two involving Canadian political leaders(including the Governor-General), and of course Michelle Obama.

  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Have you seen this video of the Trump with the Queen?

    I can't stand the Monarchy, but I find that hilarious. Surely someone told him not to turn his back to her?

    I mean, seriously. Today we are all The Queen.

    Isn't it a perennial thing for the British press to complain about how foreigners treat the Queen? I can think of three examples just off the top of my head, two involving Canadian political leaders(including the Governor-General), and of course Michelle Obama.

    Well I guess if you think this is the same as trying to show affection to an old lady, then yes.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    edited July 2018
    Her Majesty clearly knew by her body language that she was being upstaged. She should have just kept walking until she was as far away from him as she could get.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    If at a summit he could shove another country's leader out of the way, he surely is going stride out ahead of the Queen. :disappointed: Putz.
  • Lyda wrote: »
    If at a summit he could shove another country's leader out of the way, he surely is going stride out ahead of the Queen. :disappointed: Putz.

    He seems to have lost her at one point -- when he went striding ahead, apparently expecting a 92-year-old woman (with not-very-long legs) to keep up. He seemed confused about where she'd gotten herself to.

    I'm hoping she had a stiff GIN when it was all over.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    And a nice, long, hot bath.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    On the old Ship of Fools, I asked if the Queen could disinvite Trump. The common answer was no. However, it is very obvious Her Majesty and her government did everything the could to show him he was not welcome,

    Next up, Helsinki. I wonder if Trump and look into Putin's eyes and see his soul.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Putin has a soul?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    She should have turned round and walked in the other direction as if this was part of the ritual. Confuse him.
  • stetson wrote: »
    As I just wrote on the "worst presidents" thread, I am someone who thinks that the main problem with him is that he is implementing the Republican agenda, not that he's imposing his own madcap view on the country. Handing over social policy to theocrats, and reversing any progress made by Obama on Iran and Cuba, are pretty much what the GOP was saying they were going to do, regardless of who they nominated.

    Yes, I think he's far more of a traditional Republican than some Republicans would like to think - Reagan too was a bizarre character when he originally came to political prominence, over time he was 'normalised' - their 'problem' is that Trump isn't particularly subtle about it.

    But then it's got to the stage where 'traditional Republicans' (and darling of the Evangelical Right), do things like this:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKBN1K331J



  • Chris it is enough for me to have read the url. Appalling.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    edited July 2018
    AIUI, Robinson was jailed for contempt of court, which is a crime in the UK; he's a criminal. His odious political views - which you'd expect someone calling himself an "ambassador for international religious freedom" to abhor - have nothing to do with it.

    Is it normal for a representative of the government* of one country to call into question the criminal justice system of an another, especially one regarded as the very closest of allies?

    * I assume that as Mr. Brownback was a presidential appointment, he represents the government of the US.
  • Piglet that is spot on, but the most awful intervention was in the Brexit debate, and his endorsement of Boris Johnson. I really hope that will be a kiss of death.
  • Trump was late for the Queen, too. I’m no monarchist either, but damnit that’s just rude.
    Having been in Trafalgar Square at tea time yesterday, I was amused to hear myself described by the Daily Mail as a rent-a-leftie and Corbyn supporter. I hadn’t even known he was speaking, and couldn’t hear him (or any of the speakers) from where I was. If I had, I’d have chosen that moment to pop out for chips.
    Daily Mail front page plus parody here: https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/07/14/someone-has-translated-daily-mails-trump-front-page-perfect/
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    I assume that as Mr. Brownback was a presidential appointment, he represents the government of the US.

    After his governorship destroyed the economy and bankrupted the government of the state of Kansas Mr. Brownback needed a new job. I'm sure he was hoping for some kind of cabinet-level appointment but the best he could get out of Trump was an appointment as ambassador to a country called "International Religious Freedom". Given Trump's history of stiffing his contractors, Brownback should have seen that one coming.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Have you seen this video of the Trump with the Queen?

    I can't stand the Monarchy, but I find that hilarious. Surely someone told him not to turn his back to her?

    I mean, seriously. Today we are all The Queen.

    Isn't it a perennial thing for the British press to complain about how foreigners treat the Queen? I can think of three examples just off the top of my head, two involving Canadian political leaders(including the Governor-General), and of course Michelle Obama.

    Well I guess if you think this is the same as trying to show affection to an old lady, then yes.

    Well, when Justin Trudeau's dad did a pirouette behind Her Majesty, I don't think he was trying to show affection to an old lady. I'm doubting the British press liked that much either(though it did contribue to Pierre's somewhat overblown reputation in Canada as a cheeky iconoclast.)

    Trudeau's Pirouette

  • A bit of sympathy for Our Dear Queen, if you please.

    I'm no monarchist either, but she's done a pretty fair job for much of her reign, and to have to share her own ground with the POTUS from Hell is a bit much, even for her.

    A bit of sympathy, too, though, for those who meet her, and who are not necessarily clued up as to protocol. POTUS excepted - he'd be rude to God, if he ever met Him...

    IIRC, Michelle Obama reckoned one of the greatest moments of Barack's presidency, for her, was having dinner with HM at Buckingham Palace, so she (Michelle) was obviously very much taken with HM. I hope the feeling was mutual!

    IJ
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate

    I'm no monarchist either, but she's done a pretty fair job for much of her reign, and to have to share her own ground with the POTUS from Hell is a bit much, even for her.

    Yes, given the highbrow company she's used to keeping, it must be just awful for her to share ground with a declasse thug like Trump.

    (And, ironically, considering all the defenders of Her Majesty's sensitivities who feel obligated to preface their remarks with "I'm not a monarchist, but....", I actually AM a monarchist. Mostly just because I think it would be a helluva lot of paperwork, and for very little payback, for Canada to erase all traces of royalty from its political and judicial systems.)
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    stetson wrote: »
    I'm no monarchist either, but she's done a pretty fair job for much of her reign, and to have to share her own ground with the POTUS from Hell is a bit much, even for her.

    Yes, given the highbrow company she's used to keeping, it must be just awful for her to share ground with a declasse thug like Trump.

    O dear. I'd forgotten about M**abe....fair comment.

    IJ

  • O, and FWIW, a constitutional monarchy is a reasonable form of arranging matters, as long as not too much of the national £££ is spent on it.

    Why, if we didn't have such a thing, we might end up with a President like POTUS!
    :flushed:

    IJ
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    O, and FWIW, a constitutional monarchy is a reasonable form of arranging matters, as long as not too much of the national £££ is spent on it.

    Why, if we didn't have such a thing, we might end up with a President like POTUS!
    :flushed:

    IJ

    I think the main criticism of the British monarchy, in particular, is that the country DOES spend too much money on it, no? At least in comparison to other democracies with an inherited head-of-state.

    But I don't have any stats on hand to prove that. Just the impression I've always gotten.
  • stetson wrote: »
    O, and FWIW, a constitutional monarchy is a reasonable form of arranging matters, as long as not too much of the national £££ is spent on it.

    Why, if we didn't have such a thing, we might end up with a President like POTUS!
    :flushed:

    IJ

    I think the main criticism of the British monarchy, in particular, is that the country DOES spend too much money on it, no? At least in comparison to other democracies with an inherited head-of-state.

    But I don't have any stats on hand to prove that. Just the impression I've always gotten.

    Yes, that might indeed be the case. I didn't say that we didn't spend too much - opinions certainly do vary on that - but merely intended to make the point that an inherited h-of-s is not necessarily a Bad Thing.

    IJ

  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    I'm no monarchist either, but she's done a pretty fair job for much of her reign, and to have to share her own ground with the POTUS from Hell is a bit much, even for her.

    Yes, given the highbrow company she's used to keeping, it must be just awful for her to share ground with a declasse thug like Trump.

    O dear. I'd forgotten about M**abe....fair comment.

    IJ

    Worth remembering though, that as constitutional head of the country she is obliged to do what her government wants her to do. I don't think it's at all unlikely that she only shared breathing space with the likes of either Mugabe, Trump (and any other dubious rulers/kings/politicians etc) because it was her job. And all jobs have their shit downsides.

    In much the same way that if Trump were to stuff his foot any further down his own throat, the guy in A&E whose job it would be to remove it from his arse, would be obliged to do so, even if he personally didn't want to.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Piglet wrote: »
    I assume that as Mr. Brownback was a presidential appointment, he represents the government of the US.

    After his governorship destroyed the economy and bankrupted the government of the state of Kansas Mr. Brownback needed a new job.

    And as if to prove that Brownback and Trump are not anomalies in the Republican party, a congressman from Arizona (Paul Gosar) has been over in the UK to speak at a 'Free Tommy Robinson' rally - largely attended by members of the far right.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    There was once a time when Republicans were moderate. I would say that was before Nixon. I have just finished John McCain's book The Restless Wave. As much as he had to pander to the conservative wing of his party, he really came across a moderate in his book. The only way any party will win in future elections is playing to the middle. If the Republicans continue to go alt right they will suffer for it.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The only way any party will win in future elections is playing to the middle.

    I'm not sure that this piece of well worn wisdom is actually correct. There are a number of democratic governments around the world where a party of the centre-right is in government and in coalition with a party of the far right.

    ISTM that in FPTP systems like the UK and US, this dynamic is happening inside parties of the right instead for much the same reasons. because culture war plays for the right in a situation where they have run out of acceptable (to them) strategies to make their base better off.

    [And by before Nixon, presumably you mean Nixon's entire career - otherwise we'd have the early part of Reagan's career, Goldwater etc].
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The only way any party will win in future elections is playing to the middle. If the Republicans continue to go alt right they will suffer for it.
    Sadly, no. The calculation is different: If you are a moderate politician (left or right) you have no guaranty that the far wings of your party will vote for you unless you pander to the far right or left (depending). Which is what McCain felt he had to do.

    By contrast, a politician who actually IS far left or far right, can always count on the moderate middle for support. They don't have to pander to the middle at all.

    Sadly, the two-party system is rigged to reward extremism. What we have now is the logical result of that. And it will only get worse.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Clinton played toward the middle. He helped to turn the Democratic party from a far-left group to a center-left party. When it comes down to it, Obama was center left. When the Republicans refused to cooperate with him, he had no choice but to rule by executive order. Bernie, well, he is much more left than Obama, but then again the population has been moving more to the left. Only about 1/3 of the country want to return to the gold old days, though they can never define what that is.
  • This is a long article alleging that Trump could have been a Russian asset since... 1987.

    A lot of it is speculation, but it's informed speculation, and it's a good summary of events to date.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I think it's worth remembering that Obama was only centre left by American standards. In many parts of the world a politician like that would be considered centre right.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    This is a long article alleging that Trump could have been a Russian asset since... 1987.

    A lot of it is speculation, but it's informed speculation, and it's a good summary of events to date.
    It is a good link but in fairness Croesos provided it on July 5 (p27 of the thread).

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited July 2018
    Ah sorry. I did look back but didn't find it. Well here it is being plugged again.

    The Finland summit is getting to me. The diplomatic staff must be tearing their hair out. I bet Trump and Putin only use one interpreter and it will be Putin's (in fact, don't I recall this having already happened once?). That would be so far off protocol as to be quite readily explainable by this theory in my view.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I bet Trump and Putin only use one interpreter and it will be Putin's (in fact, don't I recall this having already happened once?).
    Found it. It was a side meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg last year
    It is unusual for there to be such lengthy informal meetings between leaders without aides present — and the fact that there are no notes of the discussion, and no national security and foreign policy personnel were present, has caused concern. Only Trump and Putin, as well as a Russian translator, know what was said.
    I can confirm from a professional point of view how unprecedented this was.
  • E--
    Eutychus wrote: »
    This is a long article alleging that Trump could have been a Russian asset since... 1987.

    A lot of it is speculation, but it's informed speculation, and it's a good summary of events to date.

    Thanks for this (I think). I skimmed some of it. Whoooaaa and wowww.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    This is a long article alleging that Trump could have been a Russian asset since... 1987.

    A lot of it is speculation, but it's informed speculation, and it's a good summary of events to date.

    As I responded at the time: https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/48104/#Comment_48104
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Clinton played toward the middle. He helped to turn the Democratic party from a far-left group to a center-left party. When it comes down to it, Obama was center left.

    To describe the Democratic Party as ever having been "far left" or Obama as "centre left" indicates the degree to which the centre in American politics was relocated to the right under Reagan. His legacy, more than anything else, is the reorientation of American politics that will continue beyond my death. To describe Obama as centre left would make me Trotskyite (which I am emphatically not). I find American political terminology in a synergy with its delusions. Globally, the Dems have never been "far left". The hysteria in certain quarters about Bernie Sanders I found astounding, in that he is pretty much a social democrat, not a Bolshevik. Certain commentators would make you think that he led the storming of the Winter Palace.

    To be clear, on a more personal level, I'm not slamming you, Gramps49. I find your posts quite sane. It's just that American political discourse has almost no relation to global discourse.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    There was once a time when Republicans were moderate. I would say that was before Nixon. I have just finished John McCain's book The Restless Wave. As much as he had to pander to the conservative wing of his party, he really came across a moderate in his book. The only way any party will win in future elections is playing to the middle. If the Republicans continue to go alt right they will suffer for it.

    McCain was always good at self-promotion, which I guess is how a war-mongering militarist with a history of corruption and personal viciousness is able to convince folks he's a "moderate".

    A lot of folks have a compulsive centrism about American politics where they think everything will be fine if moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats join together to govern moderately from the center. And if there are no Republicans who can realistically be described as moderate then some will have to be invented. That way John McCain becomes an elder statesman instead of a backstabbing self-promoter and Paul Ryan is a technocratic policy wonk rather than a shameless hack whose numbers don't add up.

    William Lloyd Garrison had an appropriate take on moderation over a century and a half ago:
    I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject [ slavery ], I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

    Good thing no one listened to such an extremist or American slavery might not exist today!
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I occasionally walk past this statue of Garrison, with a pedestal inscribed with the penultimate sentence from that quote. (I think they were wise to stop there.)
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    ... I bet Trump and Putin only use one interpreter and it will be Putin's ...
    I've seen several articles suggesting that the staff are trying very hard to make sure they don't get the chance to meet without a Responsible Adult™ present.

    Whether they succeed, however, may be another matter ...

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    If you think the logical tendency of politics is to move towards the centre ground look at the history of Northern Ireland. The British Establishment spent years trying to edge unionism back towards the centre ground - and the result is the Democratic Unionist Party, with the results we can see both in Ulster and British politics. Once the siege mentality takes hold, the watchword is 'No Surrender!'
    The disadvantaged have to find another community slightly worse off than themselves, and to hate them, especially if they are in any danger of losing their advantage.
  • Like sand through an hour glass, I once again rise to the defence of John McCain, and find it incredible that such a talented and long-serving senator and soldier can be so hated by some Americans. Romanlion and Croesos agree on some things.

    In the Keating 5 affair, three of the five senators involved were found to have acted improperly. Two were found not to have acted improperly including John McCain. John McCain was criticised for exercising bad judgement, a sin for which some Republicans including the President, believe people should be jailed, but only if they are Democrats. He was shown to be about as corrupt over the Keating affair as Bill and Hilary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal.

    I wrote a long passage seeking to defend McCain from the claim of personal viciousness, mostly because of my combative nature if the truth be told. I think McCain is personally vicious, and the best evidence for that is the way he voted in the healthcare stuff, with his thumbs down to McConnell. He's combative and feisty. He is a very sassy bloke.

    One's combativeness can often be the source of poor judgement, when the red mist of political or any other type of competition descends. McCain made a mistake attacking Chelsea Clinton's appearance and Hilary and Janet Reno's sexuality. I made a similar mistake (involving another Keating as it happens) at around the same time, when I was trying to impress my new colleagues at a law firm and I told a salacious and prejudiced story showing my lack of taste and judgement. So me and John McCain, we both stand condemned for similar reasons. That's probably why I want to defend McCain, and probably a bit of a clue as to why I like him so much too. That and I consider him Our Man in the US Senate.

    Ahhh, the poor bastard. I hope his passing is swift, and not just because I have him in the celebrity death pool.


  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Eirenist wrote: »
    If you think the logical tendency of politics is to move towards the centre ground look at the history of Northern Ireland. The British Establishment spent years trying to edge unionism back towards the centre ground - and the result is the Democratic Unionist Party ...
    Absolutely.

    The "moderate" parties on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland - the Ulster Unionists on one and the SDLP on the other - have virtually disappeared under a wave of extremism. I'm glad we don't live there any more - I don't think I'd have anyone left to vote for.

Sign In or Register to comment.