Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

spacecoyote

everlast75 wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/mitt-romney-the-president-shapes-the-public-character-of-the-nation-trumps-character-falls-short/2019/01/01/37a3c8c2-0d1a-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html#click=https://t.co/tNfvqV977d

Looks like Trump won't have it so easy anymore.

I say "looks like", as while I know Romney is thinking of a future Pres run, we have just lost a "Flake". We will have to wait and see if maybe we have just gotten another one...

Absolutely, whilst he did make a number of strong statements, he tempered a lot of it with broad statements saying he would vote with the president if he agreed with some piece of policy. So that does give him a bit of a get out of jail free card to work with should he be called out on hypocrisy

Rjd2

spacecoyote wrote: »

Absolutely, whilst he did make a number of strong statements, he tempered a lot of it with broad statements saying he would vote with the president if he agreed with some piece of policy. So that does give him a bit of a get out of jail free card to work with should he be called out on hypocrisy

Playing both sides like Sasse and Flake. Will rant on twitter but ultimately will back Trump and the GOP on pretty much everything.

spacecoyote

Rjd2 wrote: »

Playing both sides like Sasse and Flake. Will rant on twitter but ultimately will back Trump and the GOP on pretty much everything.

Well he is going to be interviewed by Tapper today, so will be interesting to see if he has the balls to back up his statement when put to him directly, in person.

Trump has already come out with his dig back:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1080447092882112512

pixelburp

It's a toss up as to what's more ineffective and meaningless in the rhetoric of GOP politicians: their 'thoughts and prayers' crocodile tears after another school shooting, or the hang-wringing indulged when they need to affect concern over Trumps crude bombast. Bonus points for any Republican who conveniently discovers his spine, just as he's about to step down from Office.

Romney's waffle is a sham, and bar actually speaking in terms approximate to Trump himself - or simply that of the Democrats - I don't expect his interview with Tapper to be anything beyond sanctimonious puffery.

Trump's actually right: Romney will simply become the new Jeff Flake.

serfboard

pixelburp wrote: »

Romney's waffle is a sham

Yeah, Mitt, let's remember what you actually said yourself, at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser held at a hedge fund manager's mansion:

Mitt Romney wrote:

there are 47 percent ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them.
...
My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Well, Mitt, how is that:

Mitt Romney wrote:

elevat[ing] the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.

How is that:

Mitt Romney wrote:

promoting policies that strengthen us rather than promot[ing] tribalism by exploiting fear and resentment.

And tell me this.

Mitt Romney wrote:

I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive

Does that mean that you're going to speak out against yourself?

Mitt Romney wrote:

[Trump] was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.

Indeed. The problem the Republican party has with Trump is not that his policies are for the rich and the corporations and against anyone else - it's just that Trump is so obvious about it.

I said it when Trump was elected that I thought that it would be a good thing in the long run for the Republicans to control all the levers of government - because the population would then really see just how despicable their policies are.

Itssoeasy

Well mitt Romney is someone who is politically flexible depending on which is needed.

Mancomb Seepgood

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1080549357232025601

He's held one or those televised cabinet meetings,with the usual craziness including an endorsement of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because terrorists were going into Russia.More of the same from everyone's favourite stable genius.

pixelburp

I don't know the history of the USSR in Afghanistan, but is that even vaguely right; did Afghan terrorists attack the Soviets? At this stage it's a default to simply presume Trump is waffling his usual mix of confused falsehoods, but simply because I just don't know the history of Soviet Russia all that well, I'm curious about that particular passing comment.

prawnsambo

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't know the history of the USSR in Afghanistan, but is that even vaguely right; did Afghan terrorists attack the Soviets? At this stage it's a default to simply presume Trump is waffling his usual mix of confused falsehoods, but simply because I just don't know the history of Soviet Russia all that well, I'm curious about that particular passing comment.

Nope. The USSR invaded to support their 'friendly' regime there who were coming under pressure from the mujahideen who were supported by the USA and Saudi as well as Pakistan.

So the usual proxy war. Which lasted almost a decade.

Mancomb Seepgood

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't know the history of the USSR in Afghanistan, but is that even vaguely right; did Afghan terrorists attack the Soviets? At this stage it's a default to simply presume Trump is waffling his usual mix of confused falsehoods, but simply because I just don't know the history of Soviet Russia all that well, I'm curious about that particular passing comment.

Nope.Afghanistan had a pro-Soviet,communist leader who was murdered by one of his colleagues (the Afghan party had two factions which despised each other).Brezhnev didn't trust the new guy and sent the troops in.

There was already an insurgency in Afghanistan at this point,but it was aimed at the Afghan govvernment.

It just seems to be another case of Trump inventing historical facts as he goes along.I can't imagine that he put much thought into it.

pixelburp

Yeah, that's what I thought but sure better to at least ask than automatically assume Trump is talking nonsense - even if it invariably shows to be true.

26000 Elephants

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought but sure better to at least ask than automatically assume Trump is talking nonsense - even if it invariably shows to be true.

Wait until someone explains to him that the US paid the proto-Taliban's bills for years....

jooksavage

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought but sure better to at least ask than automatically assume Trump is talking nonsense - even if it invariably shows to be true.

I recently got around to watching Adam Curtis' Bitter Lake film, which among other things, did a decent job explaining the Afghan-Soviet war. Its sad to see footage of Kabul from just before the war - looked to be headed towards an open, modern, equal society until the war created a vacuum that fundamentalists were happy to fill.

One of the central planks of the film is how the US' refusal to confront Saudi Arabia, allowing them to export Wahhabism to regional neighbors while at the same time providing them with support and security, is at the heart of the problems in the region.

Trump shows no sign of reversing this. But while other administrations may have argued strategic justifications for this policy, Trump, for all the swamp-talk, is motivated, it seems, by personal intetests with the Saudis (45th floor of Trump Tower along with God knows what else)

everlast75

Just wondering if anyone here, following on from Trump's behaviour over Christmas and indeed up to yesterday's performance, believes that the 25th amendment should be considered?

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone here, following on from Trump's behaviour over Christmas and indeed up to yesterday's performance, believes that the 25th amendment should be considered?

Just on the basis of the tweets he looks like a man unravelling before the world. In reality I dont think he's had quite the Howard Hughes-esque psychological break. Going by what I've read about Nixon, it sounds like he was much closer to a full-on breakdown before resigning. Thing is, even in this state, paranoid and drunk half the time, Nixon was still capable of fulfilling his basic duties as president. Trump hasn't been doing that much for at least 18 months. If his administration was a business, the shareholders would have sacked him 12 months ago.

The problem is 1) the framers of the 25th werent considering the problem a bad, feckless, amoral idiot - they were thinking more along the lines of "what if JFK had been left comatose rather thsn killed?" 2) Senior Rs have hitched themselves to Trump now for better or worse. Short of Trump going completely senile, i dont think theyre going to entertain a motion to replace him.

jooksavage

As much as I dislike Bill Kristol, I have to give him credit for this one in the wake of Trump's support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If he said that stuff back in the 80's he'd have been public enemy #1. The thing that makes me really wonder though: "Doesn't Trump remember Rambo 3?"


https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1080661001534619655

pixelburp

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Wait until someone explains to him that the US paid the proto-Taliban's bills for years....

The sad part of the whole thing is the apparent death of critical thinking in the Office of the Presidency, or indeed the staff around the post given there's no-one left to challenge the man. We may be very far removed from the era, but the Roman concept of "Bread and Circuses" is alive and well when the President can be so wilfully, gleefully ignorant, yet his supporters remain distracted as they clap and whoop at the prospect of the biggest, brashest boondoggle - one that is literally paralysing the government & country from functioning (even looking at the comments section of TheJournal and you see those taken in by the showiness of a "big, beautiful wall")

There's space for a serious discussion on immigration and curbing illegal smuggling (not least because the coyotes are far from reputable, humane characters at the best of times, leaving aside the credentials of the migrants trying to find a better life). Yet here an apparent mature, powerful country lies, ground to a halt by what amounted at the time to a fantastical brain-fart from a candidate throwing red-meat soundbites to a braying crowd. "Build that wall!" "Lock her up!" A President too proud, too stubborn, too emotionally incontinent to recognise the idiocy of a giant wall across the gigantic land border.

And so a great nation further sinks into a quagmire of Hyperbole-as-Policy, politics rendered as a sport.

Parachutist Trump supporters cry "Echo chamber", yet what else is there with the occupant of the most powerful political seat on the planet is beyond self-awareness, humility or just some basic cop on?

Rjd2

jooksavage wrote: »

As much as I dislike Bill Kristol, I have to give him credit for this one in the wake of Trump's support for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If he said that stuff back in the 80's he'd have been public enemy #1. The thing that makes me really wonder though: "Doesn't Trump remember Rambo 3?"


https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1080661001534619655

And this is another issue I loath about the Trump reign. War mongering garbage like Bill Kristol and to a lesser extent Max Boot getting credit and praise for speaking up against Trump. Kristol cheer leaded like hell for the Iraq war and is obsessed with US overseas "exceptionalism" ,,,their is numerous people who are fighting Trump, but bloodthirsty vulture hawks like Bill Kristol getting praise is horrific. You should not get a pass for been an evil pos just because you criticise Trump.

everlast75

Rjd2 wrote: »

And this is another issue I loath about the Trump reign. War mongering garbage like Bill Kristol and to a lesser extent Max Boot getting credit and praise for speaking up against Trump. Kristol cheer leaded like hell for the Iraq war and is obsessed with US overseas "exceptionalism" ,,,their is numerous people who are fighting Trump, but bloodthirsty vulture hawks like Bill Kristol getting praise is horrific. You should not get a pass for been an evil pos just because you criticise Trump.

Its a conundrum alright - I mean, on the one hand we criticise republicans who don't speak out against Trump, and when there are those that do, we give them grief.

AbusesToilets

jooksavage wrote: »

I recently got around to watching Adam Curtis' Bitter Lake film, which among other things, did a decent job explaining the Afghan-Soviet war. Its sad to see footage of Kabul from just before the war - looked to be headed towards an open, modern, equal society until the war created a vacuum that fundamentalists were happy to fill.

One of the central planks of the film is how the US' refusal to confront Saudi Arabia, allowing them to export Wahhabism to regional neighbors while at the same time providing them with support and security, is at the heart of the problems in the region.

Trump shows no sign of reversing this. But while other administrations may have argued strategic justifications for this policy, Trump, for all the swamp-talk, is motivated, it seems, by personal intetests with the Saudis (45th floor of Trump Tower along with God knows what else)

Yes, it's the US's fault for Islam's extremism

Rjd2

everlast75 wrote: »

Its a conundrum alright - I mean, on the one hand we criticise republicans who don't speak out against Trump, and when there are those that do, we give them grief.

Nothing wrong with thinking both Kristol and Trump are awful and America would benefit from both of them been less relevant.

Its an issue though with politics everywhere especially in Ireland, time forgives everything. Kristol got so much wrong in the Iraq war and was speculating about regime change in China recently:rolleyes: ., but this Trump regime seems to have rehabilitated him and other Bush neocons. :eek:

To be fair on the other side, look at how Sean Spicer made fortunes after leaving the Trump regime, even getting a great reception at the Globes which was a genuine wtf moment.

Itssoeasy

So added to the revisionist take from Trump about the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, it seems that Trump made some other daft statements yesterday. He said he'd have been a good general, which given he didn't seem that willing to be in the military either by the draft or voluntarily, you'd wonder why he thinks that. He also is supposed to have said(I'm quoting Lawrence O'Donnell) as saying he "could run for any office in Europe," which he couldn't baring Scotland given his mother was from there, this guy clearly isn't a fan of running in general.

jooksavage

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, it's the US's fault for Islam's extremism

That's not what Adam Curtis is saying. Saudi Arabia spent decades minimizing their own insurgency risk by exporting fundamentalist wahhabism to other countries -they're the ones who are to blame for a lot of the problems in the region. The US (and the west in general) turned a blind eye and propped up the Saudi regime for oil, so yeah, there is some blame there but it's more complicated than the "it's all their fault" line that hardliners on both sides try to peddle.

Itssoeasy

Also, the 25th amendment which was mentioned last night on this thread and it's use. The 25th ammendment was a response to the lack of clarity in the US constitution over what powers the Vice President would have and what he would be called if he became president, and also no mechanism over how a new Vice President would be selected.

There had been deaths and assassinations of US presidents prior to it(25th Amdt.) being ratified and there was a presidential succession act(which I've not read up on in a while) which didn't help clear it up. There was the John Tyler assuming of the presidency(can't remember the name of his succesor of hand) and that seems to have been the start of some kind of process for what would happen.

The think that kind of hurried it up, was the assasintsion of JFK. JBL and his family had a history of heart problems and I think he'd had one, and he died of one in 1972. And the speaker of the house and president pro tempore of the senate were in their seventies and eighties so not ideal.

jooksavage

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So added to the revisionist take from Trump about the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, it seems that Trump made some other daft statements yesterday. He said he'd have been a good general, which given he didn't seem that willing to be in the military either by the draft or voluntarily, you'd wonder why he thinks that. He also is supposed to have said(I'm quoting Lawrence O'Donnell) as saying he "could run for any office in Europe," which he couldn't baring Scotland given his mother was from there, this guy clearly isn't a fan of running in general.

Another thing that was pointed out during O'Donnells show (by no less than David Frum, another bloody neo-con!) was that Trump said the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in response to terror attacks against them. This is a very peculiar thing to say. In addition to being factually incorrect, it's the exact same lie that Putin's government peddles about the Afghan war. Comrade Trump seems to be listening very carefully to Moscow...

Midlife

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, it's the US's fault for Islam's extremism

erm...yes, quite a lot of it is.

To say anything otherwise is to ignore the last 100 years of history or so.

AbusesToilets

Midlife wrote: »

erm...yes, quite a lot of it is.

To say anything otherwise is to ignore the last 100 years of history or so.

Somewhat ironic comment on your part.

WinnyThePoo

Issues in the middle east, just aren't as simple as America's foreign policy or Saudi Arabia exporting wahabism. It's a cacophony of complex actions and complex cultures. For instance , America's invasion of Iraq was a resource grab and naive idea they could install an 'American democracy'. The effects of 9/11 allowed an American government install Guantanamo Bay and create new systems to survey it's own citizens, talk about spreading freedom.

Look at Afghanistan as well. The American's failed, but they where never gonna achieve anything other than a resource grab.

Midlife

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Somewhat ironic comment on your part.

Care to explain?

AbusesToilets

Midlife wrote: »

Care to explain?

Your painting of the US as being responsible for Islamic extremism, ignores centuries of violence on the part of Islamic nations, under the guise of said religion. In a modern context, it both assumes more influence on the part of the US and denies the culpability of those nations and people for their choices and actions.