Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

If your not surprised by this, you haven't been paying attention to Trump's M.O. over the past year  ;D

In my opinion, it's very unlikely Flynn was a rogue actor in this. Too much other stuff incriminating the Trump administration when it comes to ties with Russia. Now there are leaks that US Intelligence believes Russia has ears in the highest levels of the Trump admin. Purging spies, the 19% stake in Rosfent, etc... Too much

The perhaps interesting thing about Flynn was that his conversations were apparently monitored by people inside the administration.  This may be worth inspection, or not?

I'm not sure if Trump intended this much transparency from his administration.  : :

JR

 

[dmp]

The perhaps interesting thing about Flynn was that his conversations were apparently monitored by people inside the administration.  This may be worth inspection, or not?

The administration or the NSA/CIA/FBI?
My understanding is an intelligence service monitored the call (not surprising since it was with a high level Russian).  Since it was before the inauguration, Flynn was not a part of the executive branch at that time, so they weren't monitoring the executive, which would have been problematic.
The Attorney General informed the Trump administration about a month ago that Flynn had done this - including the fact that Flynn was lying about it / hiding it  - potentially created a very uncomfortable situation having him in the white house at the highest level.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Seems to me that the MO of this administration is to push things to the very edge in every case. Never admit any wrongdoing on the part of the administration, ever. So even though warned about this person the choice had to be to try it, because changing horses mid-race would look weak, and this administration and its supporters are all about being 'strong".

 

[mattiasNYC]

Btw, who warned about Flynn? Wasn't it Yates? The one who also didn't want to support the Muslim-ban?

2 for 2.

I'm noticing a pattern.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The administration or the NSA/CIA/FBI?
My understanding is an intelligence service monitored the call (not surprising since it was with a high level Russian).  Since it was before the inauguration, Flynn was not a part of the executive branch at that time, so they weren't monitoring the executive, which would have been problematic.

I didn't say Trump's administration.

The Attorney General informed the Trump administration about a month ago that Flynn had done this - including the fact that Flynn was lying about it / hiding it  - potentially created a very uncomfortable situation having him in the white house at the highest level.

Trump makes everybody uncomfortable. It's what he does..

JR

 

[dmp]

I didn't say Trump's administration.

Do I need my tin foil hat to understand?  ;D

It certainly will be uncomfortable for everyone if this continues to play out the way it has been.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Do I need my tin foil hat to understand?  ;D

I don't know do you?

The subject phone call happened before Trump took office (isn't that what the drama is all about?) so any monitoring was by the previous administration.  Not shocking that they would be monitoring high level Russians, they were even caught monitoring our own allies.

Speaking of Russians, Putin just arrested a bunch of hackers... I'm shocked, hackers in Russia?  ???

It certainly will be uncomfortable for everyone if this continues to play out the way it has been.

The only pattern I see playing out is a hyper-adversarial media... but even that is not bad for "we the people". More information is always good as long as it is accurate (I could live without the partisan spin and you know.. fake news***). It will probably be bad for media and their ratings when the public finally gets weary of the unending conflict. Kind of amusing when the Grammy show rappers are singing from the same songbook as the Hollywood elite.  ;D

JR

*** Facebook, google , and others are working hard to parse fake news out of their news feeds to prevent distorting upcoming EU elections (France, Germany, Netherlands?). Fake stories can do a lot of damage during fast moving political campaigns, even if corrected relatively promptly. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

Did anybody notice that Trump just took the exact same official position on Israel/Palestine as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran did?

Not sure if people have been properly informed on how to feel about that. Is it problematic?

 

[Matador]

Did anybody notice that Trump just took the exact same official position on Israel/Palestine as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran did?

Not sure if people have been properly informed on how to feel about that. Is it problematic?

It's fake news: it's just an opening negotiation position, didn't you hear?

 

[mattiasNYC]

mea culpa

 

[JohnRoberts]

Did anybody notice that Trump just took the exact same official position on Israel/Palestine as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran did?

Trump actually said he could support either a one state or two state solution, whatever "they" want.

Ahmadinejad said ""The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumour… The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land... A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists."

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000341

I don't think it's a fake news website, but the two positions do not sound "exactly" the same to me.

Not sure if people have been properly informed on how to feel about that. Is it problematic?

Do people really need to be informed how to feel?

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000341

I don't think it's a fake news website, but the two positions do not sound "exactly" the same to me.

I don't think http://www.israelnationalnews.com is "fake news" either...

In an interview with the U.S. network ABC, interviewer George Stephanopoulos asked: "If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?"

Ahmadinejad answered: "Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well."

Trump actually said he could support either a one state or two state solution, whatever "they" want.

So there you go. They said the same thing. Weird huh?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't think http://www.israelnationalnews.com is "fake news" either...

So there you go. They said the same thing. Weird huh?

I couldn't find the interview at the link you provided but google found one.

STEPHANOPOULUS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s all I’m asking.
AHMADINEJAD: It is the right of all human beings.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that’s fine.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel’s existence, Iran will as well?
AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’ll ask them. But I’m asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?
AHMADINEJAD: Can I ask you questions as well?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m not part of the American government. I’ll put that question to the American government.
AHMADINEJAD: I’m asking that people vote.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I have a question for you as president of Iran.
AHMADINEJAD: That’s fine!
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.

=====
The Iranian president (this was in 2009) signaled that Iran could accept the existence of Israel, in stark contrast to both his previously reported statement that Israel must be "wiped off the map" and the position of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
----------

Not sure I would try to take that one comment (8 years ago) to the bank.  Probably shouldn't take any one comment from any politician as the last word... look at what they do, not what they say. Middle eastern politicians are know to make different comments for western audiences than at home.   

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

=====
The Iranian president (this was in 2009) signaled that Iran could accept the existence of Israel, in stark contrast to both his previously reported statement that Israel must be "wiped off the map" and the position of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
----------

Not sure I would try to take that one comment (8 years ago) to the bank.  Probably shouldn't take any one comment from any politician as the last word... look at what they do, not what they say. Middle eastern politicians are know to make different comments for western audiences than at home.   

JR

Exactly.

The problem is with being consistent in that approach.

 

[micaddict]

It's surprisingly quiet here ...

 

[tands]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77g9ml6t5rM

No, Trump Isn’t Imploding — But the Opposition Is Broad and Intense

Yves here. This post doesn’t incorporate the Trump controversy of the day, namely, the escalation of remarkably thinly-sourced accusations about Trump campaign contacts with members of the Russian intelligence community. Aside from the fact that a careful reading of the stories reveals a yawning chasm between the headlines and the content, a Washington-savvy reader pointed out: “If they had a smoking gun, they’d be presenting it to the intelligence committees and having hearings, not flogging it to the press.” But he nevertheless thought that relentless hammering on the notion that Trump was in bed with Russia, no matter how thin the evidence, would eventually do real harm.

A DC insider had a different perspective. He didn’t regard the intelligence leaks as all that damaging, but thought that Trump was at sea in terms of getting things done inside the Beltway. Given the composition of his team, things were unlikely to get better on that front. Trump is sorely lacking in people who knew how to get the right players on board or at least somewhat placated. Thus Pence muscling aside Christie was a big loss; although Christie might not have taken the job, Christie would have been invaluable to Trump as a chief of staff and would have brought that expertise. Put it another way: Trump has too many billionaires on his team who like him don’t know what they don’t know. This is consistent with one of our occasional observations: that Trump would wind up being a blustery, hyperkinetic version of a Jimmy Carter: an outsider who got little done because he had far too few DC old hand in his Administration. Carter mistakenly thought Watergate gave him a mandate to do things differently; Trump owed too many favors to marginal players who were willing to back him early and had a hard time getting members of the GOP mainstream to sign on.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/02/no-trump-isnt-imploding-opposition-broad-intense.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbT8gy8mCkY

 

[micaddict]

No, Trump Isn’t Imploding — But the Opposition Is Broad and Intense

Yup.

And the emperor wears fine clothes.

 

[DaveP]

Is the media against Trump?  Yes I think it is.

I watch UK sites very carefully for bias, here is an example from the BBC today  concerning Geert Wilders a Dutch populist politician.

The headline on page 1 says " Dutch populist calls Moroccans scum", which sounds like an outrageous statement.

When you click on it, it changes to  "calls some Moroccans scum".

When you read the details it says "There is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe,"

Then he emphasizes, "Not all  are  scum".

Now I have no preference for Dutch politicians, it's their business IMO.  But I do object to the media putting a spin on things.

I have never heard so much resistance to an elected President in my entire life, I think that democracy is suffering in the US in these times.  The last time I saw a media frenzy on this scale was over Princess Diana.

I get the impression that the media are trying to whip up resistance to his administration to try and make it unworkable and his Presidency a failure, this will obviously deny his voters their choice.

The message comes over loud and clear, "you are not fit to choose your President because you don't have a college degree".  Only the Elite can choose Presidents.

I don't care that much for Trump, but I care about the people who voted for him and their democratic rights.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Is the media against Trump?  Yes I think it is.

There has been a liberal/progressive bias in media for decades (or longer).

Back during President Bush pundit Charles Krauthammer named the behavior BDS for "Bush derangement syndrome" (they called Bush hitler and war criminal too). Dan Rather famously failed trying to use a fake news story to discredit Pres Bush (43) on 60 minutes.

Now under Pres Trump the derangement syndrome seems stronger and has even spread to the public on social media where angry losing voters aggressively abuse their fellow citizens who don't endorse their rants.

I watch UK sites very carefully for bias, here is an example from the BBC today  concerning Geert Wilders a Dutch populist politician.

The headline on page 1 says " Dutch populist calls Moroccans scum", which sounds like an outrageous statement.

When you click on it, it changes to  "calls some Moroccans scum".

When you read the details it says "There is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe,"

Then he emphasizes, "Not all  are  scum".

Now I have no preference for Dutch politicians, it's their business IMO.  But I do object to the media putting a spin on things.

Classic hyperbole to sell newspapers or whatever.  There is a tide of hyperbolic news releases that are so exaggerated to be called fake news. It is getting harder to find not fake news.  :-\  The worst part is how many low information voters don't read past the headlines.

Trump is not innocent of using verbal devices to suggest blame without making literal claims. I used to call it painting pictures with words but more like coloring crude pictures with verbal crayons.  :

I have never heard so much resistance to an elected President in my entire life, I think that democracy is suffering in the US in these times.  The last time I saw a media frenzy on this scale was over Princess Diana.

Some of this is part of the game (ignore the man behind the curtain, both curtains).

Trump has had some success controlling the dialog and reframing the popular debate as Trump vs the press, instead of trump vs the democrats. This accomplishes two things, the press are held in even lower regard than politicians so it puts them on defense. Then in addition it disenfranchises the democrats and they have to rant even louder to be relevant causing unforced errors (actually forced errors).

I get the impression that the media are trying to whip up resistance to his administration to try and make it unworkable and his Presidency a failure, this will obviously deny his voters their choice.

I wouldn't give media that much credit.. they are focussed on the old fashioned motivations like more ratings and more money. Trumps is co-opting them with higher ratings and a subtle charm offensive with friendly (not mean spirited) insults.  This is new and very interesting.

The message comes over loud and clear, "you are not fit to choose your President because you don't have a college degree".  Only the Elite can choose Presidents.

I don't care that much for Trump, but I care about the people who voted for him and their democratic rights.

DaveP

About the funniest thing about the grammy's was to hear rappers and hollywood elite whining the same messages in perfect lock step.

(almost) Every President leaves his mark on the office. President trump is playing from a different playbook, but he will need to stay within the lines defined by the constitution to get stuff accomplished.

Ryan (speaker of house) announced a 200 day timeline for President trumps top legislative agenda items and recently said everything was on track or ahead of schedule. So unlike the characterizations of chaos we hear from media, it looks like the administration is working, and the huge media show may just be a masterful distraction...

or not?  8)

JR

 

[tands]

There has been a liberal/progressive bias in media for decades (or longer).

Back during President Bush pundit Charles Krauthammer named the behavior BDS for "Bush derangement syndrome" (they called Bush hitler and war criminal too). Dan Rather famously failed trying to use a fake news story to discredit Pres Bush (43) on 60 minutes.

Bush is a war criminal, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Gonzales, and Cheney too. What Krauthammer called people is only that, it doesn't mean anything particularly. Also, if I remember right, Rather's failure is that he didn't check the truthfulness of his scoop as well as he should have, rather than intentionally reporting something that was false. Means nothing to me, now, anyway.

Now under Pres Trump the derangement syndrome seems stronger and has even spread to the public on social media where angry losing voters aggressively abuse their fellow citizens who don't endorse their rants.

Many people dislike republicans. Nobody feels any need to be polite. Do you find this so surprising? Ever seen freerepublic.com? 

Trump has had some success controlling the dialog and reframing the popular debate as Trump vs the press, instead of trump vs the democrats.

No evidence of this, I don't think anyone takes anything the guy says seriously.

I wouldn't give media that much credit.. they are focussed on the old fashioned motivations like more ratings and more money.

Here is Chris Hayes trying to play gotcha with Susan Sarandon over her lack of support of Hillary Clinton, and getting his little self put to the side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbT8gy8mCkY

Ryan (speaker of house) announced a 200 day timeline for President trumps top legislative agenda items and recently said everything was on track or ahead of schedule. So unlike the characterizations of chaos we hear from media, it looks like the administration is working, and the huge media show may just be a masterful distraction.

Ryan has little credibility, they release statements to advance their agenda, whether the statements are accurate or not.