Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[DaveP]

The President elect Trump coming out supporting a dictatorial foreign power against the sitting President.

This judgement is part of the problem that many still don't get.

It is not our business to criticize foreign governments that their own people are happy with.

Not all countries have a culture that can make democracy work.  Sometimes their cultural ties and tribal loyalties make a democratic system unworkable.  Putin knows this whereas the west has only recently realised it, if at all.

Putin could have expelled 35 US diplomats,but he is looking ahead to Trump's tenure, that is smart.

All countries can be criticised, if you want to know what your country looks like to Europe, it looks like this.

Unbelievable gun crime and ownership and nothing can be done about it.

No national health system  in the worlds richest country.

You seem to have more than your fair share of crazies, KKK, white supremacists, climate deniers, survivalists etc.

Of course Europe has its own faults, mostly about its governments being remote from its people, but you get my drift.

Obama and Hillary wasted an opportunity to build a strong relationship with Russia that was long overdue from the end of the cold war and WW2 come to that.  Whatever faults Trump has (and there are many) he is smart enough to finally put things right with Russia, which quite a lot of people will be glad to see.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Dave, the problems you seem to be missing are two;

1: If this had been a democratic president elect it would have been labeled anti-American and/or treasonus, period.

2: Did you not contemplate the fact that he's cheering the head of the nation that de facto intervened in a US election?

So what this means is that it is of no concern to the US president if a foreign power engages in cyber-crime to skew a domestic US election as long as he wins. It's similar to how he was convinced the election was rigged until he won. And, of course, how it was so important that votes are counted until it was re-count time, then counting should stop. That should be of huge concern to any American that thinks voting should matter and that whatever democracy the US had before this election should be strengthened or at least preserved.

 

[tands]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ban9xDMA4g0

podesta's email password was p@ssword.

More fake news from the Guardian, what a bunch of shills.

"The shoddy and misleading Guardian article, written by Ben Jacobs, was published on December 24. It made two primary claims — both of which are demonstrably false. The first false claim was hyped in the article’s headline: “Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview.” This claim was repeated in the first paragraph of the article: “Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has offered guarded praise of Donald Trump. …”

The second claim was an even worse assault on basic journalism. Jacobs set up this claim by asserting that Assange “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.” The only “evidence” offered for this extraordinary claim was that Assange, in 2012, conducted eight interviews that were broadcast on RT. With the claimed Assange-Putin alliance implanted, Jacobs then wrote: “In his interview with la Repubblica, [Assange] said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.”

The reason these two claims are so significant, so certain to attract massive numbers of clicks and shares, is obvious. They play directly into the biases of Clinton supporters and flatter their central narrative about the election: that Clinton lost because the Kremlin used its agents, such as Assange, to boost Trump and sink Clinton. By design, the article makes it seem as though Assange is heralding Russia as such a free, vibrant, and transparent political culture that — in contrast to the repressive West — no whistleblowing is needed, all while praising Trump.

But none of that actually happened. Those claims are made up."

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/

 

[dmp]

This judgement is part of the problem that many still don't get.
It is not our business to criticize foreign governments that their own people are happy with.

People are happy with dictatorial regimes? Alexander Litvinenko? Pussy Riot? Annexation of Crimea?
The US and UK shouldn't have criticized Iraq,  etc? Shouldn't have started wars with GWB? or, since that was a conservative President it is OK?
Everything is partisan I guess; nothing is fact. It seems people are no longer able to look at things with a neutral point of view.
It's ironic that the criticisms of the US that you list are firmly rooted in the far right ideology.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Dave, the problems you seem to be missing are two;

1: If this had been a democratic president elect it would have been labeled anti-American and/or treasonus, period.

If Hillary had won, President Obama wouldn't have taken this dump in the international swimming pool... He is trying to blow up the international relations that President elect Trump inherits. Working with Russia in the middle east seems sensible since the current administration has opened the door for them to take over and set up residence in Syria (Russian military will be there forever, building a permanent navy base). We have common interest with Russia to stop islamic terrorism. Russia has their own domestic terror problems. (I am breaking my own rule speculating about motives but this is sure walking and quacking like a duck.).

But President Obama is on a roll, he also pissed off Israel and threw a monkey wrench into the peace process there by declining to veto the latest security council scold over settlements.

Then there is declaring over 1 million acres in utah a national monument.

Then there is prohibiting offshore drilling in the arctic.

He has been busy as bunny on his sunny Christmas vacation and unfortunately I suspect he hasn't finished stirring the pot yet. There may be  some news from the middle east peace conference in France coming next month. Could be another parting shot.   

2: Did you not contemplate the fact that he's cheering the head of the nation that de facto intervened in a US election?

No trump said he thought Putin was smart (he is), and by implication smarter than the president who was baiting him to restart the cold war.  Putin did not bite. Putin is an ex KGB (bad) guy and he will not get a free pass from congress (there are already senate hearings scheduled to investigate the election meddling claims, which sounds very much like Putin's MO while I wouldn't give him too much credit, he will be punished for trying ASSuming they have solid evidence.)

So what this means is that it is of no concern to the US president if a foreign power engages in cyber-crime to skew a domestic US election as long as he wins. It's similar to how he was convinced the election was rigged until he won. And, of course, how it was so important that votes are counted until it was re-count time, then counting should stop. That should be of huge concern to any American that thinks voting should matter and that whatever democracy the US had before this election should be strengthened or at least preserved.

Why did Obama sit on this info for so long (DNC was first attacked in sept 2015 per FBI)? He sat on it because he and everybody else thought Hillary would win (just like I thought too).  The Russian, and Chinese, and who knows who else (N Korea who hacked Sony over a movie) are all over our government networks, just like we snoop on them, routine spycraft. 

Trump is always negotiating and not in office yet. Putin does not seem very concerned about Pres Obama, we'll see how far Putin gets trying to pull similar crap on Trump. Acquiescing and pulling the missile defense shield system from Poland several years back just made Putin bolder. Putin will only respect strength and these recent sanctions aren't it.

JR

@ Dave what do you think of Theresa May publicly criticizing Kerry/Obama over Israel?

PS: For a tidbit of good news the US prison population is down, I think Obama is partially responsible for that too. Thanks I guess?

 

[tands]

I think the whole thing is comical, trying to gin up another cold war so we'll all be sceered.

Ridiculous.

 

[DaveP]

People are happy with dictatorial regimes? Alexander Litvinenko? Pussy Riot? Annexation of Crimea?
The US and UK shouldn't have criticized Iraq,  etc? Shouldn't have started wars with GWB? or, since that was a conservative President it is OK?

There are always some dissenters, (Pussy Riot really......... really?) I'm talking about the vast majority here.

It is an unfortunate truth, that there were less deaths under Saddam than since we liberated the country.  At the time, it appeared we could democratize these problem countries, that turned out to be a false assumption for the reason I gave earlier.

The annexation of the Crimea was the fault of the EU.  It had always been Russian up until 1954 (the British fought Russia there in the 1850's).  It was the EU's policy of continued eastward expansion into Ukraine that caused it.  What was Putin supposed to do, with the prospect of Nato being invited in literally right up to the fence of his Black sea naval base?  They lost 25 million dead in WW2, it made a big impression on their sense of security on their borders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that Podesta answered a Phishing email, what is a senior guy doing making that kind of mistake?  I care more about underhand emails than I do about how they got on Wikileaks.  The message should be don't do underhand stuff, rather than don't get caught.

@JR
I think that May was right, as I've already said, it's not our business to criticize another country's choice of leader.  Obama did that to Duterte  and just lost the Philipines, how many marines died for those islands???

It is this judgmental moralizing that does the damage.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

There are always some dissenters, (Pussy Riot really......... really?) I'm talking about the vast majority here

they were arrested and sentenced to 2 yrs in jail for leading a protest.

I think that May was right, as I've already said, it's not our business to criticize another country's choice of leader.

The UK voted in favor of the amendment criticizing Israel. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is an unfortunate truth, that there were less deaths under Saddam than since we liberated the country.  At the time, it appeared we could democratize these problem countries, that turned out to be a false assumption for the reason I gave earlier.

The Iraq military is bogging down and suffering heavy losses in Mosul trying to clear Isis. It is painful to take the same ground twice separated by only a few years. The common enemy (Isis seems to be unifying the, shia sunni, and kurds to fight together for their shared country.) 

The annexation of the Crimea was the fault of the EU.  It had always been Russian up until 1954 (the British fought Russia there in the 1850's).  It was the EU's policy of continued eastward expansion into Ukraine that caused it.  What was Putin supposed to do, with the prospect of Nato being invited in literally right up to the fence of his Black sea naval base?  They lost 25 million dead in WW2, it made a big impression on their sense of security on their borders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that Podesta answered a Phishing email, what is a senior guy doing making that kind of mistake?  I care more about underhand emails than I do about how they got on Wikileaks.  The message should be don't do underhand stuff, rather than don't get caught.

Podesta was not in government per se. Obama wouldn't let Hillary bring him into the state department so she parked him at her foundation. One criticism was that she shared state dept business with him to get his advice. Millions of people fall for simple phishing attacks, but he probably should have known better.

I have decent spam filters but still get a remarkable number of attempts. Lately they have upped the amount of money I supposedly won to 8-9 million dollars or pounds. Or some weird lawyer trying to settle an estate, or make a charitable payment. I find it hard to believe people could fall for this fiction, but apparently somebody does.

@JR
I think that May was right, as I've already said, it's not our business to criticize another country's choice of leader.  Obama did that to Duterte  and just lost the Philipines, how many marines died for those islands???

It is this judgmental moralizing that does the damage.

DaveP

There is a matter of degree between interfering with a free democratic election and lobbying for a preferred outcome.

Didn't President Obama tell UK voters not to vote for Brexit? US presidents from both parties have interfered with other nation's elections either overtly or covertly since the 1940s (Italian election in 1948 opposing the communists, etc). To connect one recent high profile dot, president Obama funneled hundreds of thousands into opposition of Benjamin Netanyahu. Looks like he is still trying to mess with him. 

I do not condone this but we should be aware this goes on.  I was disappointed that we did not support the opposition groups in Iran when other western leaders did.

It appears Trump is more isolationist than most other recent candidates. Interesting times.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

But President Obama is on a roll, he also pissed off Israel and threw a monkey wrench into the peace process there by declining to veto the latest security council scold over settlements.

So a completely serious question: Do you honestly believe the above? I mean, do you really believe that's true?

 

[fazer]

What is true?  Who's truth is it?

 

[mattiasNYC]

What is true?  Who's truth is it?

I'm asking about the part that I highlighted in bold.

Look, any reasonable human being with an ounce of both compassion and a respect for human rights and self determination will understand - if the person is being honest - that there is on way you can say a peace process is under way while one party is continuously taking land from the other. There just is no planet on which that makes sense.

Pretend for a second that the US and Canada got into a war, and let's ignore just why that happened, but there was a war. The US was militarily decimated, and Canada took de facto control over the US' territory. On top of that, Americans were no longer Americans, they had no internationally recognized nation-state. So, essentially non-citizens. Then, Canadians started clearing land along the border, and subsequently further inland, and built French-Canadian-only settlements.

As Canadian settlement expansion continues, is it fair to say that a peace process is realistic?

Or is it fair to say that a minimum demand for negotiations is at the very least halting the expansion?

Almost every single nation on the planet, literally, is opposed to Israel's settlement activities in the West Bank. Almost every one. The only ones disagreeing with that has been Israel (duh) and the US, and whatever tiny "insignificant" nation the US has been able to coerce to the same opinion. International law says the settlements are illegal. Nations say they're illegal. This is by a huge margin a no-brainer for all humans on this planet. Except apparently for some Americans and some Israelis.

The peace process didn't die because the US didn't veto this. The US has vetoed similar propositions for years and years. Where were we in the peace process before that last vote? We were 'nowhere', that's where we were. And a huge part of the reason we got nowhere is because Israel continued to expand the settlements.

The language coming out of some Israeli politicians make it entirely clear that their ideology results in a colonialist policy. So we can either be ok with colonialism in the year 2017 (Trump clearly is) or we can try to support something else. But this is Americans we're talking about, so I don't doubt for a second that many have no problems with colonialism and oppression as long as it's the right oppressor and an oppressed we generally don't care about.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So a completely serious question: Do you honestly believe the above? I mean, do you really believe that's true?

I am sure opinions vary. I have watched this play out in slow motion over decades and there is no single policy that will satisfy both sides.

The security council censure of Israeli settlements give the Palestinian side currency to press for more concessions in negotiations that they are not very serious about participating in. I am not sure how you can negotiate when one party denies the other's right to exist. For the last year or so violence has been low level but notably asymmetrical. A jewish girl is stabbed to death in her sleep, and Israeli military often kill Palestinians during defensive or retaliatory operations (turning the other cheek is not productive when dealing with act of terrorism). 

I already regret opening up this 55 gallon drum of worms.  There are more aspects to this than I have time and energy to rehash. The "modern" history goes back to WWI, but land claims go back to BC.

Allow me to turn this question back to you, "Do you believe this UN resolution will lead to peace?"

Like most things people will pick one side over the other based on a few observations (like this bad behavior is worse than that bad behavior). 

I repeat my sense that this is a parting shot from President Obama to make Trump's job more difficult and settle a personal grudge against our only democratic ally in the middle east, "Not" a serious attempt to broker peace.

  JR

PS: The elephant in the room regarding Israel is the Iran nuclear deal (another can of worms), that Iran has already violated the terms of (heavy water), but is only a temporary postponement (10-15 years) not a complete abandonment of their nuclear ambitions. The players in the middle east are playing a long game and willing to take advantage of western politicians with short term agendas. Iran has stated their intentions to make Tel Aviv glow in the dark and continue to work on delivery (missile) systems.  The great hope is that in ten years a more moderate government will replace the theocratic ayatollahs but relieving sanctions if anything just makes them stronger and more likely to persist. Hard to be optimistic about this trajectory and Israel is understandably as nervous as a long tailed car in a room full of rocking chairs. All of their neighbors want to kill them and we are their best ally (cough).  :

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'm guessing you'll bow out of discussing this further, so I'll start by replying to your question, I think that's fair:

Allow me to turn this question back to you, "Do you believe this UN resolution will lead to peace?"

It alone lead to peace? Of course not. But it's actually a question that implies a false dichotomy:

- either the UN resolution leads to peace, or
- the UN resolution is bad.

The issue here is that nations that have been recognized as such have rights, and by granting the same rights to a Palestinian nation-state Israel gets into trouble. If we are to be truly honest about this conflict then that's the simple truth. There are arguments that can be made on a legal basis, not a moral one, that some principles do not apply to the parties in this conflict, purely by virtue of Palestine not currently being a state with equal rights. But once Palestine is elevated to the same level as other nations the legal language and principles apply, and clearly so. So while some will argue that resolution 242 doesn't apply because Israel is taking "no-man's land" rather than that of a nation, once Palestine is considered a state that argument no longer works (and it still currently fails morally).

That's the issue. Resolutions such as these makes it harder for Israel to continue its colonialism.

Now, about the rest, at least read it though please:

I am sure opinions vary. I have watched this play out in slow motion over decades and there is no single policy that will satisfy both sides.

Probably not, but John Kerry was 100% right in that a single-state entity has to choose between being either Jewish OR undemocratic with ethnic/religious discrimination as a result.

The security council censure of Israeli settlements give the Palestinian side currency to press for more concessions in negotiations that they are not very serious about participating in.

What makes you say they aren't serious about participating in negotiations? Are they currently and for the last decades taking Israeli territory and putting Arab/Muslim-only settlements there?

The Palestinians are completely serious about participating in negotiations and have been for decades. But it's a bit hard to negotiate when pretty much everything is in favor of your oppressor. The US conservative narrative essentially equals "Sit down, don't make a fuss, shut up, and let Israel decide". That's what it is essentially. No underlying principles of self determination or morality or anything are applied equally by American conservatives in this conflict, with few exceptions.

Let me give you an example:

I am not sure how you can negotiate when one party denies the other's right to exist.

So if you really care about this conflict, then you should ask yourself why you just demanded of the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's "right to exist", but not vice versa. Why is that?

I know exactly why that is; it's because the US conservative narrative perpetuated by conservative media keeps rehashing it. That's the only reason why. If you were actually serious about what you just wrote and thought that ALL nations need to have their rights to exist acknowledged, then clearly what Israel does is a problem.

But it goes FAR further than that John, because not only does Israel deny the right of Palestine to exist, it actively prevents Palestine from existing and functioning as a state in practice!

So, on the one hand US conservatives complain that Palestinians aren't recognizing a right of an already existing nation to exist, yet on the other they're completely mum when the other side doesn't just not reciprocate but also prevents the other's existence (as a nation-state).

Not even Begin cared about this: "Our right to exist—have you ever heard of such a thing? Would it enter the mind of any Briton or Frenchman, Belgian or Dutchman, Hungarian or Bulgarian, Russian or American, to request for its people recognition of its right to exist? ..... Mr. Speaker: From the Knesset of Israel, I say to the world, our very existence per se is our right to exist!"

But it gets even more "bizarre"... 1993. So about 25 years ago. A quarter of a century. :

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/sourcefiles/1993-Exchange-Letters-Rabin-Arafat.pdf

Quote: "The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. "

Close to 25 years since that statement was made, and yet here we are....



Sorry, but I just have to call you on this one:

Iran has stated their intentions to make Tel Aviv glow in the dark and continue to work on delivery (missile) systems.

When did it do that and where can we read about it?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sorry, but I just have to call you on this one:

When did it do that and where can we read about it?

I suspect it will be hard to find in print (in english).

Years ago I used to get a news program on the satellite that basically excerpted local news broadcasts from the middle east. Many were broadcast in english but some that weren't in english were translated into english. There was a very distinct difference between what they said in english for western consumption (and propaganda purposes) and their local language broadcasts. I remember one newscast about military maneuvers with an Iranian military pilot just matter of factly speaking in perfect english.

I just googled and there are translations around of some of Abbas' speeches, but it's was hard to know what to trust before all the fake news.

The news program is no longer funded so I haven't seen it for years, but here is link to a report by the Washington Post (or at least it looks like it is them) that cites several examples. This is back when Ahmadinejad was the Iranian spokesman (president? )  There was also a bunch of drama about the exact translation... (He really meant love and kisses for Israel).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html?utm_term=.27d2e365357c

http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf  a perhaps biased source

These guys routinely say death to America, so I guess that's normal for them..

JR

PS: I tried to add an image from the second link, well see if it shows up.. it may be photo-shopped, but not by me.

 

[tands]

Obama will be leaving office with jack **** in terms of legacy, goodbye ACA, goodbye TPP. Fitting imo, for an essentially empty screen we project our beliefs on. He's probably a bit disappointed. Yes, he did try to lecture Brits against leave, which was probably what kicked it over the edge.

See ya holmes.

 

[JohnRoberts]

this attachment stuff is not solid...

pdf didn't work, lets see if jpeg is working.

JR
[edit=  OK jpeg works...    here's another question were the mall rioters right wing or left wing... I think they are the radical center.    /edit]

 

[mattiasNYC]

I suspect it will be hard to find in print (in english).

Years ago I used to get a news program on the satellite that basically excerpted local news broadcasts from the middle east. Many were broadcast in english but some that weren't in english were translated into english. There was a very distinct difference between what they said in english for western consumption (and propaganda purposes) and their local language broadcasts. I remember one newscast about military maneuvers with an Iranian military pilot just matter of factly speaking in perfect english.

I just googled and there are translations around of some of Abbas' speeches, but it's was hard to know what to trust before all the fake news.

The news program is no longer funded so I haven't seen it for years, but here is link to a report by the Washington Post (or at least it looks like it is them) that cites several examples. This is back when Ahmadinejad was the Iranian spokesman (president? )  There was also a bunch of drama about the exact translation... (He really meant love and kisses for Israel).

Ok, so it is as I suspected, and it's very interesting since it really foreshadowed what occurred this year. Your very last comment is very telling, because taken in context it really means that it doesn't really matters what people actually say, what matters is what you think they mean. The only problem is that you refer to what they say as proof of what they mean, and when it turns out that they didn't say what you said they said, it still means what you think it means. It's essentially confirmation bias and it's exactly what drove this entire election.

Do this: Go find the translation into English and find what was problematic with it (it was likely along the lines of "wipe Israel off the map"), then find the keywords "wipe off" and "map" in Farsi in the original quote. Try it.

So, the coy "He really meant love and kisses for Israel" only proves that you have no intent at all to try to understand what people really mean. It's enough for you that someone said he meant that Israel the country with its people should be destroyed. No intellectual process to actually figure out the true meaning.

And, just to show that there is something to the criticism of the interpretation you willingly accept; what Ahmadinejad did was quote someone else, and in that speech he said that the regime, not the nation with all its people, would eventually cease to exist (I believe the translation was roughly "wiped from the pages of time"). This is absolute no different from western leaders talking about regime change. When W Bush said that Saddam had to go it was the exact same thing. Same thing was said about Afghanistan's Taliban. Same about North Korea. In none of those cases was the statement to nuke any of the nations (despite of course the US then continuing to demolish two out of the three).

So, as usual, there's a double-standard at play. We can say that we want regime change, and it means only regime change, when "they" say a regime will cease to exist, people like you jump to nuclear annihilation.

Now, why would that be the case?

These guys routinely say death to America, so I guess that's normal for them..

Yeah, but at least Iran didn't overthrow the US' elected leaders like the CIA overthrew Mossadegh, and it didn't attack, invade and occupy US' neighbors like the US did Afghanistan and Iraq, and at least it didn't materially and financially support a neighbor attacking the US like the US did Iraq during its attack on Iran, and at least Iran has never ever used a nuclear weapon on a civilian target like the US has done twice.....

You know what I mean? Like, perspective?

 

[mattiasNYC]

Just to be clear here:

"Iran has stated their intentions to make Tel Aviv glow in the dark"

came from

"wipe off the map"

came from

"“This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”



Words appear to mean nothing these days. Not that they ever did I guess....

 

[mattiasNYC]

this attachment stuff is not solid...

pdf didn't work, lets see if jpeg is working.

JR
[edit=  OK jpeg works...    here's another question were the mall rioters right wing or left wing... I think they are the radical center.    /edit]

Whose banner is it, and whose opinion do the originators correctly say it describes?