Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

robinph

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm actually surprised by this, even if it was just Don's half of the conversation it would have given his part verbatim without any editing. Either it tells volumes about the status of Don's telephone calls or there is a degree in sophistry in what is recorded in the WH and other locations that Don uses. I suppose he did communicate with the NOK & families of the other 3 deceased soldiers.

It doesn't exist = he was lying.
It does exist, but doesn't back up Don = he was lying.
It does exist, and backs up Don = there is someone sane working in the White House who knows that it is still wrong to admit to it existing and is trying to save him from himself.

Beechwoodspark

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's right - it was discussed in this thread a few weeks ago. Apparently Tillerson, Mnuchin and Kelly have made a pact - one out, all out. If that happened, I couldn't see Trump surviving. Which gives them great leverage.

It would be a horror show but knowing Trump, he would hobble on regardless. Once he was centre of attention he would revel in the chaos.

Long article about tillerson in the ny times hinted that he won't leave until he does a year in the Secretary of State post as otherwise he would take a major hit on shares he divested following his appointment.

JRant

frag420 wrote: »

Well considering Trump took 12 days to call the families of other fallen soldiers, then the Congresswoman was taking a real punt on the chance he may call while she was in the car with the soldiers widow, a real stroke of good luck for the Dems eh!?!?

More likely she is a politician with integrity and compassion who wanted to show support to the widow of a soldier who died fighting for his country an escort her to meet her husbands body as it was returned!!

The widow has backed up everything that the Dem congresswoman said and apparently it has been verified by others who also heard the call!

Even Sarah Suckabee Saunders is not denying it anymore...

Trump does not need to be set up for him to look like a complete fool, he manages that all by himself!

That could well be the case but I have my doubts to be honest. Too many coincidences for something like this to happen in such a manner.

If what you say is true about more people being privy to the call then it looks more like a conference call than a private conversation between the widow and POTUS.

Anyhow that's just my opinion on this matter.

Professor Moriarty

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It would be a horror show but knowing Trump, he would hobble on regardless. Once he was centre of attention he would revel in the chaos.

Long article about tillerson in the ny times hinted that he won't leave until he does a year in the Secretary of State post as otherwise he would take a major hit on shares he divested following his appointment.

Well he is a businessman first and foremost I suppose. There's something sadly unprincipled in that attitude though. Trump might limp along for a while but I couldn't see Trump surviving a full term under those circumstances and, with respect to the soldiers who dies in combat, I think Kelly's conscience might be key to Trump's downfall.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

It's very likely she was with the woman for the same reason presidents call these people - because she had recently lost her son while serving the country. It's also very likely she had the woman's blessings to bring it up or may have even been asked to, as the woman backed up the story the very same day when Trump challenged it.

Furthermore, if this is to be seen as scummy behaviour due to politicians talking about dead people with regard to other politicians, then what are we to make of the likes of the Benghazi incident or Trump brazenly lying and even throwing his own chief of staffs dead son (something he has worked to keep out of the public) in front of himself as a shield when it turns out Obama did a lot more than just call John Kelly?

It is scummy behaviour regardless of party affiliation, it's that simple. The dead bodies of solider have been used as political pawns by both side for a long time now and I've no time for either side doing it.

everlast75

JRant wrote: »

It is scummy behaviour regardless of party affiliation, it's that simple. The dead bodies of solider have been used as political pawns by both side for a long time now and I've no time for either side doing it.

"There were bad people there.... on both sides - on both sides.."

Quin_Dub

JRant wrote: »

That could well be the case but I have my doubts to be honest. Too many coincidences for something like this to happen in such a manner.

If what you say is true about more people being privy to the call then it looks more like a conference call than a private conversation between the widow and POTUS.

Anyhow that's just my opinion on this matter.

As far as I have seen/read the call came through to the Widow whilst she was in the car heading to the airport to collect her husbands casket and there were several people in the car including the congress-women , the call was on speaker(car kit perhaps?) so all in the car heard the conversation.

I'm assuming that on the Trump end there were aides of varying types in the room as I'm guessing he's rarely alone during waking hours.

SHS suggested that Kelly was in the room for the conversation but that there was no recording.

frag420

The woman was on her way to meet her husbands body. You hardly think she was going to go alone do you? Of course there would have been more people with her such as family, local representatives, military representatives perhaps?

The thing with Trump is that he spouts so much crap so frequently that to call it a coincidence is pure nonsense...

JRant wrote: »

That could well be the case but I have my doubts to be honest. Too many coincidences for something like this to happen in such a manner.

If what you say is true about more people being privy to the call then it looks more like a conference call than a private conversation between the widow and POTUS.

Anyhow that's just my opinion on this matter.

Beechwoodspark

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well he is a businessman first and foremost I suppose. There's something sadly unprincipled in that attitude though. Trump might limp along for a while but I couldn't see Trump surviving a full term under those circumstances and, with respect to the soldiers who dies in combat, I think Kelly's conscience might be key to Trump's downfall.

Well tillerson I suspect sees himself as one of the sane people in the mad house. So that's another reason he wants to stay on.

Also, there is reportedly a lot of tension between him and trump and it's strictly a professional relationship, not friendship. (Reading between the lines tillerson can't stand the sight of trump but seems to be doing the role out of a sense of national duty)

JRant

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As far as I have seen/read the call came through to the Widow whilst she was in the car heading to the airport to collect her husbands casket and there were several people in the car including the congress-women , the call was on speaker(car kit perhaps?) so all in the car heard the conversation.

I'm assuming that on the Trump end there were aides of varying types in the room as I'm guessing he's rarely alone during waking hours.

SHS suggested that Kelly was in the room for the conversation but that there was no recording.

This may very well be the case. It's still pretty sad to go running to the news outlets over such a personal matter that doesn't even involve the congresswoman.

I can't see Kelly getting involved in this at all.

JRant

frag420 wrote: »

The woman was on her way to meet her husbands body. You hardly think she was going to go alone do you? Of course there would have been more people with her such as family, local representatives, military representatives perhaps?

The thing with Trump is that he spouts so much crap so frequently that to call it a coincidence is pure nonsense...

So it's nonsense to have an opinion on something that we don't know exactly what happened then?

JRant

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Well tillerson I suspect sees himself as one of the sane people in the mad house. So that's another reason he wants to stay on.

Also, there is reportedly a lot of tension between him and trump and it's strictly a professional relationship, not friendship. (Reading between the lines tillerson can't stand the sight of trump but seems to be doing the role out of a sense of national duty)

Tillerson seems to be doing a fairly decent job so far. It's a good thing that they only have a professional relationship as to me it says that he is not afraid to say no to Trump.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

This may very well be the case. It's still pretty sad to go running to the news outlets over such a personal matter that doesn't even involve the congresswoman.

I can't see Kelly getting involved in this at all.

So you moved from it all being a set up to it being terrible that it did happen but its a tad unfair to Trump?

He got himself into this mess by making it out that he was far superior to all previous POTUS in this area. Had he simply said at the Press Conf that he would be contacting the families shortly and expressing the nations thanks for their sacrifice then nothing would have happened.

Instead, he had to make it out like he was the best at it, the only one that really cared and that it was really difficult for him. Then he threw the COS dead son on the fire to try to protect himself.

Only one person made this political, Trump. He lit the fire, to make himself appear great, and it blew up in his face. He then compounded it by not simply letting it roll off him. He should have stayed silent, maybe a small "I called Mrs Johnson, and what we talked about is private and will remain so. I thanked her family on behalf of all Americans etc"

But no, it called them out as liars and said he had proof. Then his Press Sec won't deny he actually said it.

You want to know who to blame for this mess? Its not the Media, its not the Dems or the Swamp, its not the family of the soldiers. Its Trump. No conspiracy, no set up. Trump made this mess all by himself and his constant lying and bullying points to this being entirely within his character rather than some once off event

FatherTed

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you moved from it all being a set up to it being terrible that it did happen but its a tad unfair to Trump?

He got himself into this mess by making it out that he was far superior to all previous POTUS in this area. Had he simply said at the Press Conf that he would be contacting the families shortly and expressing the nations thanks for their sacrifice then nothing would have happened.

Instead, he had to make it out like he was the best at it, the only one that really cared and that it was really difficult for him. Then he threw the COS dead son on the fire to try to protect himself.

Only one person made this political, Trump. He lit the fire, to make himself appear great, and it blew up in his face. He then compounded it by not simply letting it roll off him. He should have stayed silent, maybe a small "I called Mrs Johnson, and what we talked about is private and will remain so. I thanked her family on behalf of all Americans etc"

But no, it called them out as liars and said he had proof. Then his Press Sec won't deny he actually said it.

You want to know who to blame for this mess? Its not the Media, its not the Dems or the Swamp, its not the family of the soldiers. Its Trump. No conspiracy, no set up. Trump made this mess all by himself and his constant lying and bullying points to this being entirely within his character rather than some once off event

In his comments about this yesterday, he didn't even say "Mrs Johnson" but called her "the woman" and "the wife". I guess he had already forgotten the name. So sincere.

demfad

JRant wrote: »

Tillerson seems to be doing a fairly decent job so far. It's a good thing that they only have a professional relationship as to me it says that he is not afraid to say no to Trump.

Tillerson has presided over the absolute destruction of the State department. Funding has been slashed and all the best personnel have left or being forced out. Indeed many of the top diplomatic and admin positions remained unfilled.

He must be the worst secretary of State ever given the condition of the department when he arrived versus several months later.

He is there to do deals with Russia and other oil rich nations; to join the vicious assault on climate denial that keeps these guys in business; and to dismantle the State department.

frag420

Do you honestly think the widow is telling a lie?

In this debacle who would benefit more from lying, the widow or Trump?

He claimed he didn't say those things to the widow and has a recording to prove it yet Sarah Suckerbee Saunders then came out and said there is no recording. Even when it became known that there was more people in the car that cold verify that he said it he still denied it, the guy is a lunatic!!

Being of the belief that a proven compulsive lyer is telling the truth is nonsensical, hence why I said it was nonsense!!

JRant wrote: »

So it's nonsense to have an opinion on something that we don't know exactly what happened then?

Beechwoodspark

demfad wrote: »

Tillerson has presided over the absolute destruction of the State department. Funding has been slashed and all the best personnel have left or being forced out. Indeed many of the top diplomatic and admin positions remained unfilled.

He must be the worst secretary of State ever given the condition of the department when he arrived versus several months later.

He is there to do deals with Russia and other oil rich nations; to join the vicious assault on climate denial that keeps these guys in business; and to dismantle the State department.

I agree with all of the above. Far as I'm concerned tillerson will go down in history as one of the worst if not the worst Sec of State ever and he deserves whatever opprobrium he gets.

Part of it is that Trump's people didn't renew the contracts of lots of senior diplomats (some of them worked there for decades). The feeling seems to have been that they had failed and they were tainted by working for the Obama administration (crazy really when these people are career civil servants and work for whoever is in the White House).

And as of now loads of those posts remain vacant. Lot of people don't want to work for trump and who would blame them.

Quin_Dub

frag420 wrote: »

Do you honestly think the widow is telling a lie?

In this debacle who would benefit more from lying, the widow or Trump?

He claimed he didn't say those things to the widow and has a recording to prove it yet Sarah Suckerbee Saunders then came out and said there is no recording. Even when it became known that there was more people in the car that cold verify that he said it he still denied it, the guy is a lunatic!!

Being of the belief that a proven compulsive lyer is telling the truth is nonsensical, hence why I said it was nonsense!!

##Mod Note##

Cut out the silly nick-names please.

robinph

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As far as I have seen/read the call came through to the Widow whilst she was in the car heading to the airport to collect her husbands casket and there were several people in the car including the congress-women , the call was on speaker(car kit perhaps?) so all in the car heard the conversation.

I'm assuming that on the Trump end there were aides of varying types in the room as I'm guessing he's rarely alone during waking hours.

SHS suggested that Kelly was in the room for the conversation but that there was no recording.

From what I saw they were in a limo when the call came through via another military officer in the car who put the call on speakerphone. The congresswoman tried to take the phone to respond to Trumps comments but the officer wouldn't let her.

The president is hardly going to be calling peoples personal phones at a random time or location. At least one end of the conversation is going to be handled professionally by other service personnel turning up to making sure that the person the president is speaking to is the right person and that they are not wandering around the shops or on the loo at the time and then the call is made to that specific phone that the military have arranged it for.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you moved from it all being a set up to it being terrible that it did happen but its a tad unfair to Trump?

He got himself into this mess by making it out that he was far superior to all previous POTUS in this area. Had he simply said at the Press Conf that he would be contacting the families shortly and expressing the nations thanks for their sacrifice then nothing would have happened.

Instead, he had to make it out like he was the best at it, the only one that really cared and that it was really difficult for him. Then he threw the COS dead son on the fire to try to protect himself.

Only one person made this political, Trump. He lit the fire, to make himself appear great, and it blew up in his face. He then compounded it by not simply letting it roll off him. He should have stayed silent, maybe a small "I called Mrs Johnson, and what we talked about is private and will remain so. I thanked her family on behalf of all Americans etc"

But no, it called them out as liars and said he had proof. Then his Press Sec won't deny he actually said it.

You want to know who to blame for this mess? Its not the Media, its not the Dems or the Swamp, its not the family of the soldiers. Its Trump. No conspiracy, no set up. Trump made this mess all by himself and his constant lying and bullying points to this being entirely within his character rather than some once off event

Where are you getting this first part from?
To me it doesn't look great and to be honest all your pontificating means diddly squat. The congresswoman had no business using this as a political football and dragging this widow into it. It's cheap points scoring and nothing else.

He should have stayed quiet and let this pass but obviously can't help himself and doesn't know the meaning of the word tact.

rossie1977

Really worrying research shows that 46% of all Americans believe the media are making up stories to make Trump look bad. 76% of Republicans and even 20% of Democrats believe this.

28% of the country now believe the government should be able to revoke licenses of media they believe are fabricating stories about the president.

Actually insane that over 1/4 of us citizens now think the first amendment should be done away with if someone reports something the president doesn't like. We are at a point now where it's nearly impossible to hold Trump accountable for anything because almost half the country view any negative news on Trump as 'fake'. When you aren't accountable that usually means you can do anything without repercussion...

JRant

demfad wrote: »

Tillerson has presided over the absolute destruction of the State department. Funding has been slashed and all the best personnel have left or being forced out. Indeed many of the top diplomatic and admin positions remained unfilled.

He must be the worst secretary of State ever given the condition of the department when he arrived versus several months later.

He is there to do deals with Russia and other oil rich nations; to join the vicious assault on climate denial that keeps these guys in business; and to dismantle the State department.

The State department had become a bloated mess under the last administration. Now it is inexcusable that senior diplomatic positions have yet to be filled but claiming he the worst ever is complete hyperbole.

everlast75

rossie1977 wrote: »

Really worrying research shows that 46% of all Americans believe the media are making up stories to make Trump look bad. 76% of Republicans and even 20% of Democrats believe this.

28% of the country now believe the government should be able to invoke licenses of media they believe are fabricating stories about the president.

Actually insane that over 1/4 of us citizens now think the first amendment should be done away with if someone reports something the president doesn't like. We are at a point now where it's nearly impossible to hold Trump accountable for anything because almost half the country view any negative news on Trump as 'fake'. When you aren't accountable that usually means you can do anything without repercussion...

It is incredible to think that he has that level of devotion (I can't think of any other word) despite the press being free to report, and yet we marvel at how gullible the North Koreans are when they have no freedom of the press at all

everlast75

JRant wrote: »

The State department had become a bloated mess under the last administration. Now it is inexcusable that senior diplomatic positions have yet to be filled but claiming he the worst ever is complete hyperbole.

In my honest opinion, nothing, and I mean nothing, about the last administration can be anything but exemplary compared to the absolute shítstorm that is currently running the U.S.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

Where are you getting this first part from?

This

Now this thing stinks of a complete set up to me

Followed by this

This may very well be the case. It's still pretty sad to go running to the news outlets over such a personal matter that doesn't even involve the congresswoman.

JRant wrote: »

To me it doesn't look great and to be honest all your pontificating means diddly squat. The congresswoman had no business using this as a political football and dragging this widow into it. It's cheap points scoring and nothing else.

Fair enough, thats your view but I assume you also feel the same way about Trump trying to score cheap political points against Obama based trying to make himself look good and you are hugely put off by the way Trump used John Kelly's son to try to back up his baseless point. Perhaps I missed those posts!

JRant wrote: »

He should have stayed quiet and let this pass but obviously can't help himself and doesn't know the meaning of the word tact.

And maybe the congresswoman is the exact same. Difference is she is not POTUS, she did not claim to be the best ever POTUS and dealing with the fallen ever. Yet you have, up until the above post, tried to pass this off as some set up and bad form by the congresswoman. At least you have finally accepted that Trump was wrong in this. A victory of sorts

aloyisious

I know the units of the men concerned will have given the families the best of care and the members will do so at a personal level over the next few years. The main thing I'm glad at in this controversy in the US is that the other R word has not been raised in relation to it & I hope it doesn't become a factor there.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

This



Followed by this








Fair enough, thats your view but I assume you also feel the same way about Trump trying to score cheap political points against Obama based trying to make himself look good and you are hugely put off by the way Trump used John Kelly's son to try to back up his baseless point. Perhaps I missed those posts!



And maybe the congresswoman is the exact same. Difference is she is not POTUS, she did not claim to be the best ever POTUS and dealing with the fallen ever. Yet you have, up until the above post, tried to pass this off as some set up and bad form by the congresswoman. At least you have finally accepted that Trump was wrong in this. A victory of sorts

I absolutely feel the same way about Trump or any party using dead soliders as some sort of political capital. I clearly stated that in an earlier post, couldn't be clearer and it's there in black and white for you to read.

What's with the "victory of sorts" stuff? I never said Trump was right or did no wrong. My opinion is that what this congresswoman has done is wrong, simple as. Nothing to do with Trump being right.

Manic Moran

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Cbs news is reporting that Donald trump told one of the widows of the soilders killed in Niger that he "knew what he signed up for" I mean yes her husband probably did know the risks involved in being in the US army but you don't say after he's dead.

It really depends on how it's said. It's something we take pride in, a common phrase is "A veteran is someone who wrote a blank check, payable to the United States of America for an amount up to and including his life."

If the tone was "well, you can't go complaining about it, it's what he knew he signed up for", that's one thing. If the tone was more intended to be "I respect the fact that he willingly signed up to serve, at the risk of being killed", that's something entirely different. The exact same phrasing can either be respectful or insulting, it's all down to tone and context. And, unfortunately, an understanding by both parties of what the context was supposed to be.

strandroad

Manic Moran wrote: »

If the tone was "well, you can't go complaining about it, it's what he knew he signed up for", that's one thing. If the tone was more intended to be "I respect the fact that he willingly signed up to serve, at the risk of being killed", that's something entirely different. The exact same phrasing can either be respectful or insulting, it's all down to tone and context. And, unfortunately, an understanding by both parties of what the context was supposed to be.

Valid point but I'm trying to think of an example of Trump speaking with true respect and gravitas and I'm failing, whereas examples to the contrary abound. And his reaction pretty much gives him away too.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

It really depends on how it's said. It's something we take pride in, a common phrase is "A veteran is someone who wrote a blank check, payable to the United States of America for an amount up to and including his life."

If the tone was "well, you can't go complaining about it, it's what he knew he signed up for", that's one thing. If the tone was more intended to be "I respect the fact that he willingly signed up to serve, at the risk of being killed", that's something entirely different. The exact same phrasing can either be respectful or insulting, it's all down to tone and context. And, unfortunately, an understanding by both parties of what the context was supposed to be.

Honestly Trump has long used up any benefit of the doubt he may have once had here. If someone acts like a jerk a few hundred times they are going to lose the benefit of the doubt from people. That Is how trust works.

It is also something that is not hard to play safe and remove the possibility of someone missing the point a bit.

blackcard

I think sooner or later a tipping point is going to occur. Something happens and Trump calls it fake news. Then, irrefutable evidence shows that Trump is lying. Some Trump supporters recognise this and question all his other declarations of false news and turn against him. The swell of people turning against him will turn into a flood. I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I think it will take General Kelly to turn against him

Quin_Dub

blackcard wrote: »

I think sooner or later a tipping point is going to occur. Something happens and Trump calls it fake news. Then, irrefutable evidence shows that Trump is lying. Some Trump supporters recognise this and question all his other declarations of false news and turn against him. The swell of people turning against him will turn into a flood. I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I think it will take General Kelly to turn against him

Sadly , this has already happened multiple times and yet his "base" seem unperturbed thus far.

Someone mentioned it a while ago , it's going to take a direct impact to them to make a dent.

All his bluster up to now hasn't had a direct daily impact on them , even the Tax stuff won't hit them directly - Some rich guy getting a tax break won't take food off their table (at least not directly)

If his Exec order on Healthcare actually comes to pass then that will hit his base directly - They will lose health cover , they will lose access to medication.

When they and their families start dying because they can no longer afford coverage , maybe just maybe they might start to blame him...

Obvious Otter

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Sadly , this has already happened multiple times and yet his "base" seem unperturbed thus far.

Someone mentioned it a while ago , it's going to take a direct impact to them to make a dent.

All his bluster up to now hasn't had a direct daily impact on them , even the Tax stuff won't hit them directly - Some rich guy getting a tax break won't take food off their table (at least not directly)

If his Exec order on Healthcare actually comes to pass then that will hit his base directly - They will lose health cover , they will lose access to medication.

When they and their families start dying because they can no longer afford coverage , maybe just maybe they might start to blame him...

I’m not sure about that. I think his base will stick by him until the next populist comes along promising major reform.

If we’re talking solely about health care people are used to being let down by the American Health Care system and that includes ACA.

The only way Trump will lose his base are if Bannon and co stop supporting him.

robinph

blackcard wrote: »

I think sooner or later a tipping point is going to occur. Something happens and Trump calls it fake news. Then, irrefutable evidence shows that Trump is lying. Some Trump supporters recognise this and question all his other declarations of false news and turn against him. The swell of people turning against him will turn into a flood. I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I think it will take General Kelly to turn against him

We had irrefutable proof of him lying on day one regarding crowd sizes, and many times since. Not made a whole lot of difference to him getting away with calling everything fake news.

pgmcpq

blackcard wrote: »

I think sooner or later a tipping point is going to occur. Something happens and Trump calls it fake news. Then, irrefutable evidence shows that Trump is lying. Some Trump supporters recognise this and question all his other declarations of false news and turn against him. The swell of people turning against him will turn into a flood. I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I think it will take General Kelly to turn against him

A large number of Trump supporters voted for him to just go and "kick over tables" in DC. I recently overheard a conversation that I think is typical in which one Trump supporter told another that he was enjoying watching "liberal heads explode". In that context little is going to make a difference.

Equally the evangelical right seem to regard him as an instrument of god :eek: so they are also going to stick with him despite personal distaste.

It is interesting - what I heard was reported on Fox News last night about his call to the veteran 's widow included a different considerably less insensitive statement that was presented implicitly as a quote. The presenter than ask "so why the outrage?". The point being that people getting their news from Fox or similar outlets (even worse Facebook/Twitter) will simply never see the negative stories. At best they will see Trump dismiss another "attack" as fake news.

Manic Moran

strandroad wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Valid point but I'm trying to think of an example of Trump speaking with true respect and gravitas and I'm failing, whereas examples to the contrary abound. And his reaction pretty much gives him away too.

Kelly came out strongly on this today. He said that Trump asked him what he should say, which is not an unreasonable thing to do, considering that he lost his son in combat. What Kelly suggested matches with the intent I put above. So, yes, it seems the intent was honestly to be consoling. Given he is not an astounding orator, however, it is entirely possible he flubbed the delivery. Or that the congresswoman let her bias against trump misinterpret it.

None of this, of course, excuses or explains the daftness which came from him afterwards.

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

strandroad wrote: »

Kelly came out strongly on this today. He said that Trump asked him what he should say, which is not an unreasonable thing to do, considering that he lost his son in combat. What Kelly suggested matches with the intent I put above. So, yes, it seems the intent was honestly to be consoling. Given he is not an astounding orator, however, it is entirely possible he flubbed the delivery. Or that the congresswoman let her bias against trump misinterpret it.

None of this, of course, excuses or explains the daftness which came from him afterwards.

In many ways, Kelly and his ilk are even more deplorable than Trump. They aren't stupid yet they defend the indefensible and the unconscionable.

Noel82

Rjd2

Manic Moran wrote: »

strandroad wrote: »

Kelly came out strongly on this today. He said that Trump asked him what he should say, which is not an unreasonable thing to do, considering that he lost his son in combat. What Kelly suggested matches with the intent I put above. So, yes, it seems the intent was honestly to be consoling. Given he is not an astounding orator, however, it is entirely possible he flubbed the delivery. Or that the congresswoman let her bias against trump misinterpret it.

None of this, of course, excuses or explains the daftness which came from him afterwards.

Yeah I think Trump likely made a mess of what he said which he has form for and of course the Democrat here has made political hay of it. He just isn't good at empathy despite what at the time I assume was his best intentions.

"I sacrificed lots,I hired lots of people"

In a perfect world Kelly, Mc Master or Mattis would be making these calls, but alas its Trump who just can't get anything right it seems.

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

I really believe that if he said the sky was green his aides would come out saying they were shocked how people had not interpreted that as Trump loving America and of course anyone could see it should be interpreted as blue. What he said Trump meant bore absolutely no relation to what Trump actually said.

It is also a complete admission that Donald Trump (shock) lied again for the umpteenth time. He mentions the congresswoman heard the phone call so she was right and Trump lied (shocking I know). Wasn't the phone on speaker? I mean surely that means she could not avoid hearing the conversation so the accusation of listening in would be baloney in this case and avoiding talking about Trump lying about the phone call.

Noel82

Christy42 wrote: »

It is also a complete admission that Donald Trump (shock) lied again for the umpteenth time. He mentions the congresswoman heard the phone call so she was right and Trump lied (shocking I know). Wasn't the phone on speaker? I mean surely that means she could not avoid hearing the conversation so the accusation of listening in would be baloney in this case and avoiding talking about Trump lying about the phone call.

Who knows, although I'd agree with the sentiment above that he purposely didn't seek to dishonor the family or the deceased. John Kelly is trending on twitter now and this popped up, anyone know if it's accurate?

Peregrinus

I don't know whether it's accurate, but its pretty meaningless without an account of what these various bills were supposed to do, and why she voted against them.

Manic Moran

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know whether it's accurate, but its pretty meaningless without an account of what these various bills were supposed to do, and why she voted against them.

Seems accurate, the screenshot seems to be from https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/17319/frederica-wilson#.Wel7LVtSyUl
There are summaries in the links on the site.

Going down that list:
S1094 designed to make it easier to fire high-level VA employees, claw back moneys paid by bad employees etc. Strong bipartisan support bill.
HR1181 was designed to encourage veterans to seek help for any mental health issues they might have by ensuring their firearms would not be confiscated unless a judge adjudicated them to be a threat. Fairly partisan vote.
HR1259 Similar to S1094, although it generally only covered lower-level employees. S1094 was designed to fill in the gap. Generally partisan support.
HR5620. Same general concept, establishes whistleblower protection office, and establishes punitive actions. Unsure why it took four bills to do all this. Somewhat Bipartisan support.
HR2577 Seems to be rather convoluted, covering anything from Zika funding, base housing construction, and possibly defunding planned parenthood. though the initial vote was rejected in favour of a more acceptable Senate bill. Partisan vote.
HR1994 Another VA related thing to punish folks underperforming. Somewhat partisan.
One not on that list, but I note was passed over, HR 3230, partially partisan, appropriated pay for military reservists
HJ72. Primarily appropriated $2.46bn for the VA. Somewhat partisan.
HR 933. General appropriations, about $320bn for the military, $60bn for VA, $11bn for NASA, $3.5bn for Dept of Commerce, $18bn for DoJ, $15bn for DHS, $1.5bn for Dept of Health, $7bn for Supplimental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, $77bn for nutrition assistance program, $4bn for Dept of Agriculture inspections. Bipartisan bill.
HR4310. National Defense appropriations. Bipartisan support, though it did prohibit the use of military installations for same-sex marriages.
HR839. Terminated the program used to modify home loans, after only $800m out of $30bn allocated was used. Saved $1.4bn. The only thing relating to veterans was a section to investigate whether veterans were using the program more than other. Generally partisan vote.

I really believe that if he said the sky was green his aides would come out saying they were shocked how people had not interpreted that as Trump loving America and of course anyone could see it should be interpreted as blue.

Kelly is pretty well respected by most everyone on both sides, and his twenty-minute appearance is being reported as sincere and powerful. I see no reason not to take his comments on this at face value.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Seems accurate, the screenshot seems to be from https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/17319/frederica-wilson#.Wel7LVtSyUl
There are summaries in the links on the site.

Going down that list:
S1094 designed to make it easier to fire high-level VA employees, claw back moneys paid by bad employees etc. Strong bipartisan support bill.
HR1181 was designed to encourage veterans to seek help for any mental health issues they might have by ensuring their firearms would not be confiscated unless a judge adjudicated them to be a threat. Fairly partisan vote.
HR1259 Similar to S1094, although it generally only covered lower-level employees. S1094 was designed to fill in the gap. Generally partisan support.
HR5620. Same general concept, establishes whistleblower protection office, and establishes punitive actions. Unsure why it took four bills to do all this. Somewhat Bipartisan support.
HR2577 Seems to be rather convoluted, covering anything from Zika funding, base housing construction, and possibly defunding planned parenthood. though the initial vote was rejected in favour of a more acceptable Senate bill. Partisan vote.
HR1994 Another VA related thing to punish folks underperforming. Somewhat partisan.
One not on that list, but I note was passed over, HR 3230, partially partisan, appropriated pay for military reservists
HJ72. Primarily appropriated $2.46bn for the VA. Somewhat partisan.
HR 933. General appropriations, about $320bn for the military, $60bn for VA, $11bn for NASA, $3.5bn for Dept of Commerce, $18bn for DoJ, $15bn for DHS, $1.5bn for Dept of Health, $7bn for Supplimental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, $77bn for nutrition assistance program, $4bn for Dept of Agriculture inspections. Bipartisan bill.
HR4310. National Defense appropriations. Bipartisan support, though it did prohibit the use of military installations for same-sex marriages.
HR839. Terminated the program used to modify home loans, after only $800m out of $30bn allocated was used. Saved $1.4bn. The only thing relating to veterans was a section to investigate whether veterans were using the program more than other. Generally partisan vote.



Kelly is pretty well respected by most everyone on both sides, and his twenty-minute appearance is being reported as sincere and powerful. I see no reason not to take his comments on this at face value.

A few reasons. The man has priors and has insulted those who get captured. I can't see why those killed would be different in his estimation.

The administration has already lied about this call and now feel the need to put out a different story.

Kelly seemed to claim that Trump meant that the soldier died doing what he loved and surrounded by some of the finest individuals on the planet. What Trump said was that the guy knew what he signed up for. I can't see how those statements mesh. He did not even reference Trump's statement which might have helped him build up what Trump meant by it.

I am a little tired of this administration being proven wrong. As you say Kelly has a more honest profile so maybe that is different. I still feel like this administration needs to earn back some of the benefit of the doubt. Granted this is a statement unlikely to be proven beyond doubt either way.

Colsin91

Now that more and more negative stories are pouring out from Washington, his supporters will feel vindicated. It is will further strengthen their beliefs that there is some ongoing conspiracy to maintain the status quo. They will see the negative stories as increasingly desperate attempts by the establishment to prevent him from rocking the boat, and proof that he is doing something write.

I read the Washington Post, but I try to keep an open mind and read the different online editions in the US. The problem is this massive gulf between the publications; on on hand CNN denounces any form of Trumpism, or traditionally conservative values. Fox on the other hand tells us sycophantically how wonderful Trump is, and how America needs to return to its grassroots. Either extreme is just too far apart to appeal to the opposite side, so they end up dismissing the opposing views, and feeling more strongly about their held views. What the US needs is some middle ground.

The thing that scares me is that Trump may very well be elected again if he runs. Who ever thought that he would get into presidency in the first place?

Manic Moran

With respect to the third paragraph, they mesh in exactly the same way that both Kelly, in his statement, and I, in my previous post, indicated it would. Yes, we know what we signed up for. We did it anyway. We view it as a matter of pride, not as an insulting comment.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that Trump actually tried to give an honest condolence, and flubbed the delivery. Then he reverted back to form in the subsequent media frenzy.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect to the third paragraph, they mesh in exactly the same way that both Kelly, in his statement, and I, in my previous post, indicated it would. Yes, we know what we signed up for. We did it anyway. We view it as a matter of pride, not as an insulting comment.

The simplest and most likely explanation is that Trump actually tried to give an honest condolence, and flubbed the delivery. Then he reverted back to form in the subsequent media frenzy.

Your post presumes that Trump has any honesty, their have yet to be any indication that he does in any of his dealings with anyone.

He's quite clear that he simply doesn't give a hoot about anyone or anything. It's not about fluffing delivery. He doesn't care of the consequences of anything he says just enjoys saying words.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

The simplest and most likely explanation is that Trump actually tried to give an honest condolence, and flubbed the delivery. Then he reverted back to form in the subsequent media frenzy.

This. Trump is emotionally and socially inept. I don't imagine for a moment that he set out to offend or insult the widow or to disparage the dead soldier. He just has no sense of what other people are thinking or feeling and therefore has no idea what is appropriate or supportive to say in an emotionally fraught situation such as this.

But he also seems to lack any awareness that he has this difficulty, which is why he keeps walking himself into situations like this, and has no idea how to respond to them in a way which doesn't make him look cruel and callous. It's just a huge blind spot for him that he doesn't know he has.

spacecoyote

https://www.ft.com/content/fec7b6a8-b509-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399

Who'd have thought George Dubya would be the voice of reason in modern times. He makes some very strong, well reasoned points

Bullying and prejudice in our public life sets a national tone, provides permission for cruelty and bigotry, and compromises the moral education of children. The only way to pass along civic values is to first live up to them

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism, forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade, forgetting that conflict, instability and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism

Our identity as a nation — unlike many other nations — is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood . . . That means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally American. It means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed

recedite

Christy42 wrote: »

I really believe that if he said the sky was green his aides would come out saying they were shocked how people had not interpreted that as Trump loving America and of course anyone could see it should be interpreted as blue. What he said Trump meant bore absolutely no relation to what Trump actually said....

Its sad that you can't recognise the heartfelt honesty and sincerity in that televised statement from General Kelly, and instead imply that he is a liar.
I can only assume that you cannot recognise these qualities because you lack them yourself.

If there are questions to be asked, then they revolve around why the congresswoman was riding in the car with the soldier's widow at that time. Was she hoping to pick up on something that she could use for political point scoring? Its exactly the sort of slimy politicking that lost the last election for the democrats. Perhaps we will even see this widow brought out before the crowd at the next democrat Convention? Is nothing beyond the pale for them?
As Kelly said, some things should be kept out of the political arena and left private.