The second, if you're a Trump supporter, obviously, this will make you feel very angry, 'how dare these people mock our President?', 'just proves what a collection of wasters the UN is?' etc.
It seems to be getting a lot of coverage here. Most of the "liberal" press (aka "fake news" like the "failing" New York Times) despise Trump. They're really enjoying this sound bite.
Tell me this is a dream. Or a nightmare. I know there exist people so far up their own arses they believe they are better than everyone else. But I've never seen anyone so delusional...or worse, so knowingly able to lie without any trace of not believing it.
Good Lord. I am so sorry Americans. So very sorry for you. I think we got a shit for PM; no comparison.
But the problem is not just an American one. As usual, the shiny toy of the laughter at the UN overshadowed the...well, shadow. From commentary at Deutsche Welle:
That [laughter] was also the reaction of the German delegation after Trump called out Berlin by claiming that Germany would become completely dependent on Russian energy if it did not reverse course on a controversial gas pipeline.
This was remarkably the only instance in which Trump — albeit indirectly — criticized Russia. The country's actions in Syria? The interference in the US electoral process? The poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain? The attacks on human rights activists and journalists?
None of it was mentioned in a speech in which Trump otherwise hammered not only the entire international community, but also Washington's traditional trading partners and the OPEC group of countries. He even singled out China and Iran for sharp criticism, but Russia was curiously spared.
Russia can therefore clearly be considered a winner after Trump's speech, as can authoritarian leaders generally. Because with his remarks at the UN, the president of the world's most powerful country gave the green light for authoritarian-minded leaders and strongmen to pursue whatever they deemed to be in their national interests, and not worry about petty interferences from the UN or other reviled agents of globalism.
So, once again, there is evidence that the American President is in the Russian pocket.
Moreover, his reference to isolationist "patriotism" as somehow being superior to global cooperation is a recipe for war.
Moreover, his reference to isolationist "patriotism" as somehow being superior to global cooperation is a recipe for war.
He's not an isolationist. If anything he's an imperialist, wanting to overthrow an existing system of alliances and replace it with a system of tributary states.
It seems to be getting a lot of coverage here. Most of the "liberal" press (aka "fake news" like the "failing" New York Times) despise Trump. They're really enjoying this sound bite.
The (failing?) New York Times reports:
By the end of the day, there was no escaping it. The laughter eclipsed Mr. Trump’s criticism of the “corrupt dictatorship” in Iran and the “human tragedy” in Venezuela. As a news story it held its own alongside the sentencing of Bill Cosby and the continuing battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. The laugh even made it into the official White House transcript of Mr. Trump’s speech.
They also remind us of a Trump tweet from 2014:
We need a President who isn't a laughing stock to the entire World. We need a truly great leader, a genius at strategy and winning. Respect!
It's being run here. I am no Trump supporter and I don't feel in any way as if my country itself is being disrespected. I would have joined the laugh and been grateful that we (the people) have some friends who understand what we're going through.
Blogger Adam L Silverman makes an interesting catch about the dog-whistles embedded in Trump's globalism/patriotism locution:
We already know that globalism is the code that Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon use to refer to not just the current global system of international trade, international relations, and international security agreements, but to Jews. It is intended to be understood, if I may, literally by the majority of people who aren’t anti-Semites or anti-Semitic curious and figuratively by the President’s supporters who are. But what is this Doctrine of Patriotism? The Doctrine of Patriotism was proposed by Charles Spurgeon a mid to late 19th Century Calvinist Baptist from London.
Patriotism is an instinct which is found, I think, in every true Englishman. And most of the other nations of the earth can also boast of their patriots. Let it never be said that the Church of God has no feeling of patriotism for the Holy City, for the Heavenly Land and for her glorious King enthroned above. To us, Christian patriotism means love to the Church of God, for—
“There our best friends, our kindred dwell, There God our Savior reigns.”
Let us have loyalty, by all means, but, chiefly, loyalty to Christ! Let us have true patriotism, but, especially that patriotism which consists in love to “the land of the living” of which Christ is the one King and Ruler.
So here too we have the President using a phrase that is going to either just get a “hmm, that sounds a bit odd” or “what does he mean by that” from most listeners, including scholars of international relations and security and national security professionals and that is going to be heard and understood differently by a very specific group of the President’s base: white Evangelical Christians. Moreover, this concept dovetails with a lot of Putin’s attempts to use and leverage the Russian Orthodox Church to promote himself to white American Evangelicals, as well as a variety of American and European white supremacists, neo-NAZIs, neo-fascists, and neo-nationalists. The President’s use of the doctrine of patriotism, like his use of the term globalist, is meant to be taken figuratively by his base and fellow travelers, but literally by everyone else who doesn’t speak in this coded jargon.
There's always a code book with these people. Not Trump himself, who has all the subtlety of a rubber mallet, but whoever writes his speeches.
I don't think 'Doctrine of Patriotism' is a phrase understood to have religious meaning by right wing conservative Christians, and I know a few. If that (UK) quote doesn't have resonance in the UK, can it mean much in the US? It makes me suspect Silverman, the blogger, the way one suspects journalists who write travel articles in in-flight magazines, when one stumbles across their efforts on a city one knows something about...
The second, if you're a Trump supporter, obviously, this will make you feel very angry, 'how dare these people mock our President?', 'just proves what a collection of wasters the UN is?' etc. But, if you're not a Trump supporter, do you feel much the same, that this is an outrage and that not just Mr Trump but your country is being mocked, do you feel he got what he deserved and you would have laughed if you'd been there, or do you feel emotionally conflicted or even perhaps a bit ashamed?
According to CNN the Swetnick revelations/accusations have convinced Trump that he needs to take charge of Kavanaugh's PR campaign himself. Trump will apparently be holding a press conference tonight, which is unusual in itself. Trump doesn't like doing solo press conferences and has done a lot fewer than his predecessors. On the other hand he seems to make up the difference with joint press conferences, where he can use another dignitary to deflect questions.
Given the involvement of Michael Avenatti, what are the chances that Trump doesn't get sidetracked onto the subject of himself and Stormy Daniels at this press conference?
"The patriot's dream is as old as the sky
It lives in the lust of a cold callous lie
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills" --Gordon Lightfoot
Americans: how should I respond? I laugh, then feel guilty. Not because I think the Orange Groper is worthy of respect, but because I am not taking this seriously. How do you respond? Despair? Anger? Both?
In other news...
The number of women major party nominees in 2018 has dwarfed all previous years. There are 235 women nominated to run for the House (183 Democrats and 52 Republicans), 22 nominated for Senate (15 Democrats and seven Republicans), 16 nominated for Governor (12 Democrats and four Republicans) and 3,365 nominated in state legislature races (2,380 Democrats and 985 Republicans). Still, we’re far from parity: if women House candidates won all the races they are favored to win and all the races currently seen as toss-ups, women would go from 1 in 5 members of the House to 1 in 4 members of the House.
That press conference was beyond bizarre, way beyond merely incoherent. I'm not sure it worked even as a rallying cry to GOP Senators. He's a vainglorious shambles.
If the Judiciary Committee vote to confirm, what are the odds on Rosenstein surviving? It's just raw politics now. Who has the votes? What can be done to get the votes?
The midterms become ever more important. The Foxification of US democratic institutions is now a direct constitutional threat and to date the GOP doesn't seem to give a toss.
I'm afraid my thinking for why the GOP's staying with Trump - the SCOTUS - has been reinforced by this hearing. Controlling the SCOTUS is an entirely rational political aim with much longer-term implications than a presidential administration.
Even if Kavanaugh is innocent - and his relentless deflection of questions and obfuscation strongly suggests otherwise - his behaviour in front of the committee should make any sane person think twice about appointing him as a Supreme Court Justice. But if the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are anything to go by, they just don't care what he is like as a person so long as he is sitting there and disposed to issue the right opinions in a predictable manner.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh's nomination at 1:30 pm this afternoon (a.k.a. fifteen minutes ago). So far no sign of a vote and a lot of rumors that Jeff Flake has reconsidered his earlier decision to vote "yes".
He's voted yes to take it out of the committee but will vote no on the floor of the Senate if the Senate does not delay the final vote for up to a week to allow further FBI investigations.
At least I think that's what happened! A lot of confusion in the meeting.
That's pretty much it, B62. The provisos are that the Judiciary Committee has no control over either the scheduling of a floor vote by the Senate as a whole (that's controlled by Mitch McConnell) or getting the FBI to do anything (that's in the hands of FBI Director Wray and, ultimately, Donald Trump).
Of course, Flake could flip-flop if the vote comes earlier than next Friday or if the FBI investigation never materializes. He's a particularly invertebrate Senator, which is surprising given that he's not running for re-election and won't be back in January. It's also possible that the Republicans don't need Flake's vote in the Senate as a whole. If all Republicans other than Flake vote to approve Kavanaugh that's a 50-50 tie, which would be broken by Mike Pence. Dramatic, but you'd have to be absolutely certain you have every other Republican on board before you'd schedule such a vote.
Is this to do with Flake being ambushed in a lift?
Only Flake can answer that, but if I had to speculate I'd say it has more to do with Flake being an unprincipled squish. So far his entire record during the Trump administration* is one of expressing "grave concerns" about Trump's agenda . . . and then voting in favor of Trump's agenda. He wants the credit for having moral courage without the real-life bother of acting with moral courage.
The view is that the GOP does not have 50 votes at present. Not just because of Flake but there are at least a couple of other waverers. I think McConnell has to agree to stay his hand and the White House has to authorise a further FBI investigation for that to happen. The mood music suggests both of these things are likely. Apparently Trump thinks Christine Blasey Ford was a credible witness.
Folks are wondering what Kavanaugh will do. That may not be a foregone conclusion.
One thing seems clear. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony has moved the goal posts. At least for up to a week, anyway. I guess that is something.
(Late Edit: the Rosenstein factor may come into this now. I wonder if Trump might want to get something out of Rosenstein in exchange for agreeing to the "up to a week" Kavanaugh investigation. Fly on the wall time?)
If he wants Kavanaugh, he doesn't have a choice. He may well be wishing privately that he'd gone for someone else.
It's a guess, but I think Christine Blasey Ford did enough to suggest a reasonable finding of probable cause. How that would work, what would happen next, that's beyond my understanding of state and federal law in this case.
It looks as though she will now be interviewed by the FBI so I wonder whether she might now file first. It's all out there now. And she has established credibility as a witness, something she might not have had too much confidence about before the hearing.
Comments
If you're inside the Fox News bubble you'll never see it, thanks to clever editing. If you do happen to come across it, then Dear Leader says he was actually trying to make a joke.
Moreover, his reference to isolationist "patriotism" as somehow being superior to global cooperation is a recipe for war.
He's not an isolationist. If anything he's an imperialist, wanting to overthrow an existing system of alliances and replace it with a system of tributary states.
The (failing?) New York Times reports: They also remind us of a Trump tweet from 2014:
There's always a code book with these people. Not Trump himself, who has all the subtlety of a rubber mallet, but whoever writes his speeches.
This has already been spun. They were laughing because Trump dared to speak the truth.
IFTFY
Another quote comes to mind, perhaps not so familiar:
"Patriotism is not enough.
I must have no hatred or bitterness for anyone." - Edith Cavell, 1915
"The patriot's dream is as old as the sky
It lives in the lust of a cold callous lie
Let's drink to the men who got caught by the chill
Of the patriotic fever and the cold steel that kills"
--Gordon Lightfoot
"respect for Donald Trump's very large brain" - Donald Trump
wtf?
That's more like it.
WTF???
OK. I know, it's just normal Trump...
But my point is this; it's a very big rabbit hole. The biggest, greatest rabbit hole EVER, a lot of people are saying so...
AFZ
Wait!! Didn't the 9/11 terrorists come from Saudi Arabia? Didn't Canadian communities host travelers to the US when our airspace was locked down?
To the question as to whether American media showed the laughter when Drumpf spoke at the UN? All except FOX. I mean FAUX News.
Meanwhile, Drumpf popularity continues to sink. Down to 36% which is the lowest a president had in recent history.
Americans: how should I respond? I laugh, then feel guilty. Not because I think the Orange Groper is worthy of respect, but because I am not taking this seriously. How do you respond? Despair? Anger? Both?
In other news...
We are reassured. We now know that the president of the USA has a ‘very very large brain’.
He only ever speaks the truth, after all.
Confirmation seems pretty straightforward to me: I think Christine Ford would make a great Supreme Court judge.
The midterms become ever more important. The Foxification of US democratic institutions is now a direct constitutional threat and to date the GOP doesn't seem to give a toss.
Even if Kavanaugh is innocent - and his relentless deflection of questions and obfuscation strongly suggests otherwise - his behaviour in front of the committee should make any sane person think twice about appointing him as a Supreme Court Justice. But if the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are anything to go by, they just don't care what he is like as a person so long as he is sitting there and disposed to issue the right opinions in a predictable manner.
So does Forbes.
At least I think that's what happened! A lot of confusion in the meeting.
Of course, Flake could flip-flop if the vote comes earlier than next Friday or if the FBI investigation never materializes. He's a particularly invertebrate Senator, which is surprising given that he's not running for re-election and won't be back in January. It's also possible that the Republicans don't need Flake's vote in the Senate as a whole. If all Republicans other than Flake vote to approve Kavanaugh that's a 50-50 tie, which would be broken by Mike Pence. Dramatic, but you'd have to be absolutely certain you have every other Republican on board before you'd schedule such a vote.
Only Flake can answer that, but if I had to speculate I'd say it has more to do with Flake being an unprincipled squish. So far his entire record during the Trump administration* is one of expressing "grave concerns" about Trump's agenda . . . and then voting in favor of Trump's agenda. He wants the credit for having moral courage without the real-life bother of acting with moral courage.
Folks are wondering what Kavanaugh will do. That may not be a foregone conclusion.
One thing seems clear. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony has moved the goal posts. At least for up to a week, anyway. I guess that is something.
(Late Edit: the Rosenstein factor may come into this now. I wonder if Trump might want to get something out of Rosenstein in exchange for agreeing to the "up to a week" Kavanaugh investigation. Fly on the wall time?)
It's a guess, but I think Christine Blasey Ford did enough to suggest a reasonable finding of probable cause. How that would work, what would happen next, that's beyond my understanding of state and federal law in this case.