Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

12526283031105

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I understand the Queen punked the Trumps. During the review of the troops, it is said that she was wearing a brooch given to her by the Obamas. Then during tea she wore a snowflake brooch given to her by the Canadian people. Elizabeth 2, Trump 0

    And on the third day she wore the brooch her mother wore at her father's state funeral, so I guess that counts as Queen 3, Trump 0.
  • sionisais wrote: »

    Not thinking coward is the central trait. Of the Seven Deadly Sin©, I think the main and foundational one is avarice. Greed by any other name. Non-stop pursuit of money, no commitment to public service, it is all about him™ and self enrichment. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it doesn't matter who you hurt, it doesn't matter if you don't know something, attack others, make money, me me me.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Oh, he is clearly a coward. The North Korea meeting proved that. He even complained that he was not being given enough credit for "stopping" North Korea from dropping a nuclear weapon on us--clearly, he was motivated by fear of that. He says the same thing about Russia--they have nuclear weapons and are strong! We have to do everything to be friendly to them! All you have to do is threaten nuclear war and Trump will dance to your tune. He is a total cringing coward.

    I am sure Iran has taken notes and is planning to devote all its resources to developing a nuclear weapon....it is a far better way to get what you want than trying to make a deal with the US.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    In the news is the notion that the US might send its former ambassador to Russia back to Russia to be interrogated by Putin's officials. I am not sure what is meant here. Is the idea that he can simply be ordered to do so? Is he still a government employee? Can he decline to go? Is the intention that he should be arrested and handed over like a felon?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    HarryCH wrote: »
    In the news is the notion that the US might send its former ambassador to Russia back to Russia to be interrogated by Putin's officials. I am not sure what is meant here. Is the idea that he can simply be ordered to do so? Is he still a government employee? Can he decline to go? Is the intention that he should be arrested and handed over like a felon?

    It's all a bit vague, but Trump called it an "incredible offer" in Helsinki and his vile mouthpiece Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it was an "interesting idea" at a later press conference without rejecting it. The pretense is that that Ambassador Michael McFaul was somehow involved in various crimes the Russians are accusing Bill Browder of having committed. In exchange for interrogating the former American ambassador the Russians are offering to let American investigators (presumably Mueller's team) question the 12 GRU agents recently indicted. It should be remembered that the British government recently accepted a similar offer on the Novichok poisoning. The result was a massive run-around, very little cooperation from the Russians, and a complete waste of time.

    McFaul is no longer a government employee and it should also be remembered that even if he were involved in what the Russians are accusing him of he would have had diplomatic immunity at the time. Furthermore Bill Browder's former attorney, Sergei Magnitsky, was beaten to death in a Moscow cell while being "interrogated" about this exact matter (allegedly). I can understand why the Russians are suggesting this. The fact that Trump and his mouthpiece consider this an "incredible offer" or an "interesting idea" is less comprehensible, unless you assume Trump has some kind of personal interest in placating Putin that he puts above serving American interests. That assumption makes everything all too plausible.
  • I read very early this morning in a facebook post from The Hill that the senate had passed a motion suggesting to the White House that this was not an 'incredible offer' or an 'interesting idea'. The number 98 seems relevant. Now I go to bed for an hour.
  • StephenStephen Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I read very early this morning in a facebook post from The Hill that the senate had passed a motion suggesting to the White House that this was not an 'incredible offer' or an 'interesting idea'. The number 98 seems relevant. Now I go to bed for an hour.

    Not to mention 666....!
  • mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    I remember it being seriously speculated, pre-election, that if he wins he might be assassinated, so radical were people thinking he would be.
    I can't speak for everybody, but I feared he would be assassinated because he was black, not because he was radical.

    Yup. And when Colin Powell was thinking seriously of running, many years ago, his family talked him out of it for the same reason.
  • Obama never looked very progressive from downunder, but there were hopes that he would close Guantanamo Bay, fix gun violence and get a decent healthcare system up. I recognise that he tried, especially on the last one, and that Obamacare is a good start that can hopefully be amended down the track, if it can survive Trump's passive aggression.

    And yeah, I expected him to be assassinated because of his race.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Oh, he is clearly a coward. The North Korea meeting proved that. He even complained that he was not being given enough credit for "stopping" North Korea from dropping a nuclear weapon on us--clearly, he was motivated by fear of that.
    I have a different view. In T's mind, the Singapore meeting wasn't about nuclear weapons at all. He doesn't care whether North Korea has them or not. He doesn't care whether North Korea will get them or not. He doesn't care whether North Korea will use them or not. None of this is of any interest to him.

    The only reason he went there was in order to spin a positive story about himself. That's all. Being given credit is the only thing this was about.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    LeRoc wrote: »
    The only reason he went there was in order to spin a positive story about himself. That's all. Being given credit is the only thing this was about.

    I would agree. There's an interesting segue along these lines (applied to the Helsinki conference) in the latest Talking Politics podcast (from around 26 minutes in):

    https://www.acast.com/talkingpolitics/trumpblowsthrough

    [FWIW I suspect the rival explanation proffered by the presenter is more likely to be akin to the truth]
  • Here's an alternate view about Trump's actions from a bloke called Roman Dobrokhotov, published in Al Jazeera. I'd be interested to know how credible this bloke is. I have a suspicion that he has strung together an argument to suit the facts. He lives in Moscow according to his bio and is a journo. That makes him a stooge or very very lucky.

    As far as I can tell, he says that Trump's actions can be explained by his desire to increase US exports of gas to Europe, rather than being in hock to Trump. It sounds good, but fits the usual anti-US rhetoric about American motives. I'm in about eight minds over this.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    Oh, he is clearly a coward. The North Korea meeting proved that. He even complained that he was not being given enough credit for "stopping" North Korea from dropping a nuclear weapon on us--clearly, he was motivated by fear of that.
    I have a different view. In T's mind, the Singapore meeting wasn't about nuclear weapons at all. He doesn't care whether North Korea has them or not. He doesn't care whether North Korea will get them or not. He doesn't care whether North Korea will use them or not. None of this is of any interest to him.

    The only reason he went there was in order to spin a positive story about himself. That's all. Being given credit is the only thing this was about.
    No need for us to be binary on this. It is not an either/or situation. Yes, he primarily did it to stoke his ego, but that doesn't mean he wasn't also motivated by fear. His comments when trying to get more praise for his "achievement" (of getting North Korea to agree to what North and South Korea had already agreed to several weeks earlier) makes that clear:
    [T]he president said he was doing what is necessary for peace.

    "I don't want to see a nuclear weapon destroy you and your family," Trump told reporters. He added: "If you're fair, when I came in, people thought we were probably going to war with North Korea. ... If we did, millions of people would have been killed."
    and
    Trump also issued a video message Friday, defending the nuclear agreement and saying the U.S. must pursue a chance to avert nuclear conflict "at all costs." Trump said: "Our world has seen more than enough conflict. If there's a chance at peace, if there's a chance to end the horrible threat of nuclear conflict, then we must pursue it at all costs."
    And, having seen him both stop the US war games exercises with South Korea and go so far as to adopt North Korea's wording that such exercises were "provocative" and having seen him roll over and play dead for Putin, it is apparent that in his cowardly mind "at all costs" means that we should do whatever the dictators tell us to do. Because they are "very strong."

    Like most bullies, Trump is a coward at heart. And that is very dangerous for us.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    And, says the Washington Post, his planned military parade won't come cheap:
    Three defense officials said the parade, scheduled for Nov. 10, is currently estimated to cost approximately $12 million. The Pentagon said earlier this month that the now-canceled “war games” were estimated to cost $14 million. (Also reported on CNN)
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    No need for us to be binary on this. It is not an either/or situation. Yes, he primarily did it to stoke his ego, but that doesn't mean he wasn't also motivated by fear. His comments when trying to get more praise for his "achievement" (of getting North Korea to agree to what North and South Korea had already agreed to several weeks earlier) makes that clear:
    I can't read the link in my location but I disagree. Fear of what? It's unlike that a North Korean nuclear attack would kill him personally. If it kills a couple of million people in Seattle or so, he doesn't care about them. The only thing he might be afraid of is that such an attack would make him lose face. That's why the first thing he will do afterwards is blame Obama.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Here's an alternate view about Trump's actions from a bloke called Roman Dobrokhotov, published in Al Jazeera. I'd be interested to know how credible this bloke is. I have a suspicion that he has strung together an argument to suit the facts. He lives in Moscow according to his bio and is a journo. That makes him a stooge or very very lucky.

    As far as I can tell, he says that Trump's actions can be explained by his desire to increase US exports of gas to Europe, rather than being in hock to Trump. It sounds good, but fits the usual anti-US rhetoric about American motives. I'm in about eight minds over this.

    I don't think you have to be a kneejerk anti-American to think it plausible that the POTUS would like to increase sales of an American resource to Europe. That's not quite in the same league as "The US forced NATO to attack Libya so Europe would be overrun with refugees thus eliminating the European welfare state as an alternative to US capitalist hegemony."
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It looks like the Friday info-dump is a little early today.
    President Trump’s longtime lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, secretly recorded a conversation with Mr. Trump two months before the presidential election in which they discussed payments to a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, according to lawyers and others familiar with the recording.

    The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid on Mr. Cohen’s office. The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Mr. Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them.

    I'm guessing Trump will get a "mulligan" from people like Tony Perkins for this one as well.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Fascinating.

    As is the phrase "tamp down". Never heard it before.
  • edited July 2018
    I've never heard the term "sex pest" before. Have heard pervert, predator, sex offender, requires supervision. BBC apparently thinks there's a documentary about him not tamping down his urges in these respects. Things go from sordid to horrid.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Pest seems a strange word. But then I use it for mild annoyances, not pestilence. Seems to lessen the nature of the crime, but that may just be me.

    Interesting times ahead.
  • A "pest" is something like a mosquito. The Commander of Cheese is more of an Agent of Satan.
  • "Tamp down" is usually for things like tamping down the tobacco in a pipe. In this case, women were paid off to keep them from spilling secrets to the media. It basically means "press down" or "suppress".
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thanks Golden Key; I had wrongly guessed it meant 'keep quiet'. Thank you for explaining your fascinating American language to me. :smile:
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    Continuing tangent: English person here who would also use 'tamp', possibly without the 'down', when talking about pressing down the tobacco in a pipe. Not that that's something I talk about very often.

    MMM
  • Well, it *could* probably be used as "keep quiet"--maybe as "Tamp it down!" or "Tamp down the noise". Most likely from a teacher, principal, or other adult to a group of kids.

    YMMV.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    'Tamp' is also a technical term for consolidating ballast in railway tracks. Formerly done by hand (I have done it), now done by a machine called, surprisingly, a tamper.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Good grief. I feel quite illiterate. Thank you for this terrific tamping tangent.
  • lol at above tangent.

    Why couldn't Cohen have waited till there was some good news on Trump? I wanted at least another week on Trump being Putin's gimp.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Why couldn't Cohen have waited till there was some good news on Trump?

    Because then he'd be waiting until Trump left office.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I understand the Queen punked the Trumps. During the review of the troops, it is said that she was wearing a brooch given to her by the Obamas. Then during tea she wore a snowflake brooch given to her by the Canadian people. Elizabeth 2, Trump 0

    And on the third day she wore the brooch her mother wore at her father's state funeral, so I guess that counts as Queen 3, Trump 0.

    Sorry for a late comment here. I've just found an article on Snopes on this, and at least part of the claim seems false - if anyone's interested.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Wesley J wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I understand the Queen punked the Trumps. During the review of the troops, it is said that she was wearing a brooch given to her by the Obamas. Then during tea she wore a snowflake brooch given to her by the Canadian people. Elizabeth 2, Trump 0

    And on the third day she wore the brooch her mother wore at her father's state funeral, so I guess that counts as Queen 3, Trump 0.

    Sorry for a late comment here. I've just found an article on Snopes on this, and at least part of the claim seems false - if anyone's interested.

    Given 44.2's famous (infamous?) inattention to detail (of which Her Majesty must be aware), putative attempts to rile the Orange One with brooch-choices would surely be wasted effort.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    She was communicating to us, not to him.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    I thought that was going to be the front page of the next edition of Private Eye!
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    I reckon that whole brooch thing reeks of cow dung, wishful thinking and journos seeking to squeeze every last drop out of a story.

    The good news on Trump thing should have read good news for Trump.

    Stop laughing I'm being serious.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I reckon that whole brooch thing reeks of cow dung, wishful thinking and journos seeking to squeeze every last drop out of a story. [...]
    I think there's more to it.

    Isn't it too that the world is desperately trying to seek some relief from this unrelenting tweeting, and constant denying the obvious that 45 and his ilk continue to throw upon us, on a daily, if not hourly basis? - Personally, I find this rather exhausting. It is absolutely weird!

  • absolutely Wes, if I might be so bold :)
  • Can I please ask conservative lurkers to post or pm me with stories they have heard about the Federal Government intervening in a positive way, such as helping out a small business getting stuck in bureaucracy, or an unheralded way in which a legal change has impacted upon the lives of Americans. I'm also interested in conservative media that you might read. At the moment I have the Wichita Eagle on facebook, but I'm interested in other local papers which carry political news from a Republican perspective. I had fox for a while, but I couldn't stand the hyper-partisan stuff and the way the facebook service would concentrate on particular issues around celebrities which seemed peripheral to me. I'm open to particular shows on fox which take a more balanced approach to politics if you can make a recommendation. There was one show I enjoyed - Living the Bream - as a podcast. Fox shows with that sort of tone I would like to try.

    Please either PM me or post with suggestions. I want to re-examine my assumptions.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And now the bully is at it again. Yesterday, the Supreme Leader of Iran warned that if Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran, it might close the Straits of Hormuz. To which the bully replied--in so many words: DON'T THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OTHERWISE YOU WILL REGRET IT.

    Hey Mr Bully, look who is to the north of Iran and who would love to take you on.
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    The last time a dictator talked to the US like that, he ended up getting all -- perhaps more -- than he probably expected. That would be the leader of North Korea, who got a face-to-face meeting with the Trump, the suspension of military exercises and who knows what else, in return for nothing he's actually doing. Perhaps Trump will end up buying off the Supreme Leader with a nuclear arms agreement.
  • The president of Iran needs to call Turmp a "dotard" now. Tmurp then brags about saving the world and says "let's meet". This time in Moscow.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Famous quote from the Supreme Leader of Iran: You do not want to play with the tail of a lion.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    yeah, but who is the lion and who is doing the fooling around? I mean obviously Trump is a complete tool, but the Iranians are not nice people. Just ask any Iranian who isn't in fear of their life and liberty and they will tell you just what kind of people comprise the Iranian leadership. Iranians, especially Iranian women, risk their lives and their bodies daily for their freedom, a freedom which is denied them by their rulers. Trump may well have the potential to be despotic. The Iranian leadership is despotic right now.

    I think Trump is playing Iran all wrong. I trust Obama and the Europeans a million times more than I trust him. But Trump isn't trying to go to war with Iran. Trump is trying to break Iran's economy. I don't think that's the right way to go, but I only have trust in Obama and the Europeans to go on. Their strategy seems to be to liberalise the regime in the medium to long term by bringing it fully into the International Community. Both strategies are within my parameters of 'reasonable action' I think. Trump's error is in crashing through the Europeans instead of working out the strategy with them. He's not big on consensus, the total arse biscuit.

    Interestingly, the positions are flipped when it comes to Russia, although I don't think Trump gives two hoots about fostering democracy there. If I wanted to be nice about Trump (I don't, just following a thought) I would say that he wants peace with Russia so America can line them up against China, and so America can reduce the amount it spends on the American Military in Europe. These are not bad things from Australia's perspective because its likely to mean that the US will be more amenable to a larger pivot towards Asia than it has to date.

    Just on the pivot to Asia, I saw an item somewhere that said that the UK is sending out an aircraft carrier to support our buzzing operations in the South China Sea. Thankyou very much, United Kingdom. Now all Australia has to do is disentangle its economy from China, something that would be advantageous purely from an economic perspective, as their much-predicted collapse in growth has got to come sooner or later.

    These opinions are preliminary in nature only, and put by way of thinking out loud.
  • Gramps49--

    {Humorous tangent, and possibly NSFW.}

    Tail of a lion, no. Tail of Godzilla, yes--at least if you're his young son. He uses his dad's tail as a jumprope. (The Robot's Pajamas, item 7.) 1 minute segment.

    NOTE: In the very last second, there's a woman running across the screen. Because it's so quick, it's hard to tell what--if anything--she's wearing. But there is visible skin. Figured it's better to warn folks, just in case.

    "Son of Godzilla" is my fave Godzilla film, obvs.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    But Trump isn't trying to go to war with Iran. Trump is trying to break Iran's economy.
    Nah, I don't think he has that much of a plan.

    What I think T is aiming for is this: he raises tensions artificially, and then presents a non-solution that makes it look like he's the saviour. Just like he did with North Korea.
  • There will be at least two intelligent adults present.

    The interpreter, and Mr. Putin.

    :grimace:

    ...which, presumably is why Congressional Democrats tried to get the interpreter supoenaed, and the Congressional Republicans nixed it.

  • Speaking as a professional interpreter whose job sometimes reaches to heads of government, that was understandable but dumb of the Congressional Democrats. The precedent would come back and bite them and everybody else. It would be like setting a precedent for lawyers to break attorney-client privilege.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Yeah, I'm with Eutychus on this one.
  • Climacus--
    Climacus wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »

    BTW, I saw a suggestion online that Hillary might run in 2020...

    I'm not American, but I think she needs to accept defeat. She, to me, is part of the problem. She is, of course, nothing like Trump, but she was hardly considered an ideal candidate from my readings in 2016, so what would change in 2020?

    But I accept I may be wrong and I know she has support here. I just think she needs to let someone else have a go. Just my 2 c. I'm not meaning to preach. I do look forward to a woman in the White House; as I look forward to the day we vote in a woman to Prime Minister here (Julia Gillard dethroned the voted-in leader so I look forward to us voting a woman in).
    Climacus wrote: »
    I just want to apologise for my response to GK. Thinking on it over dinner, it was not right to comment. The PotUS, as the world's superpower leader, is someone I wish I had a say in as their role and the person occupying that role, has an impact on my life in many ways given our desired relationship to the US. But I should know when to zip it and I didn't. Sorry.

    Actually, I think it was ok--because you included some humility. :) What's bad, IMHO, is when a Shipmate opines about someone else's country, as if they're Jehovah handing down the golden tablets to Moses--except handing them to a small child (or animal) who can't read. And (broadbrush) non-American Shipmates have done that a lot, since way early in the campaign.

    As to Hillary: I think she would've been a great president. Since she won the popular vote AND people meddled to make T win, she may well be the actual, true president.

    I don't know whether or not she should run again. Frankly, I've been for just giving her the job, because of all the Russian meddling. I'm a little concerned about her age, but T is up there in age, too.

    I don't know of any other women who are qualified, ready, and able to be president in 2020--from either party. As Obama said, H is the most qualified presidential candidate *ever*. Lawyer. First Lady to a governor. First Lady to a president, and did a lot of goodwill-tour traveling--particularly on women's issues. Senator from New York, and she was active in helping 9/11 survivors. Secretary of State. She knows what it's like to be in bright limelight, to have the media and everyday folks calling for your head, to be betrayed. And she managed not to kill her husband for his betrayals and for embarrassing her in front of the entire world. IMHO, that means she can summon the kind of self-control a president needs.

    What might change in 2020? Well, people might decide that the 2016 election was most likely stolen from her (by Russia, no less), and decide she should be in office, and can't possibly be worse than T...

    As I said, I don't know if she should run, or will--but I'll vote for her if she does.

  • NP--
    Obama is said by many to have performed less well as a president than hoped. Not about the votes. I don't have a stick in the mud nor a oar in the ocean to understand what Obama was supposed to have accomplished or not. Dunno. Being president while black may be a thing.

    Errr...yeah, it's a thing. That's why all the racist chatter, rumors, and actions.

    O wasn't just given a full plate when he took office. He was given many over-flowing plates of mostly stinky stuff. Courtesy of Dubya, Congress, et al.

    Many whites thought he wasn't white enough. Many African-Americans thought he wasn't African-American enough. Others thought he would be the Black Messiah. And T and the birthers said he wasn't American by birth, therefore ineligible to be president.

    In many ways, he was set up to fail. I think he did a good job--not perfect, but good.
Sign In or Register to comment.