Trump II

[Alan Klein]

Turkey under Erdogan is not a very reliable NATO partner.
Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel said on Monday that Germany would explore moving its troops from Turkey's Incirlik airbase after German politicians were blocked from visiting soldiers based there. The air base is being used in the international fightback against so-called "Islamic State" (IS) militants.

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-likely-to-pull-troops-out-of-incirlik-air-base/a-38842366

Yes,  Erdogan is going to be more and more a problem.   Lots of countries are problems.  Does that mean we shouldn't try to work out things when we have common interests? Same with Russia,  North Korea,  China,  Cuba, etc

[Otto Phocus]

Foreign affairs and their resulting relationships arecomplicated and nuanced.  They can rarely be explained in a sound-byte or posting on an Internets Tubes forum.

[Alan Klein]

Foreign affairs and their resulting relationships arecomplicated and nuanced.  They can rarely be explained in a sound-byte or posting on an Internets Tubes forum.

Relationships can be explained pretty simply.  Life's not that complicated.  The challenge is to do it honestly without bias?  For example, we have 137 pages about Trump, mostly with bias for and against.  Nobody's minds have been changed.  Like spitting in the wind. 

[LesPalenik]

Relationships can be explained pretty simply.  Life's not that complicated.  The challenge is to do it honestly without bias?  For example, we have 137 pages about Trump, mostly with bias for and against. Nobody's minds have been changed.  Like spitting in the wind.

The worst thing is also Trump hasn't changed. How is it called when someone is doing crazy things over and over again, and people expect a good result?

[Otto Phocus]

Nobody's minds have been changed.  Like spitting in the wind.

Since when has anyone's political opinion been changed by reading other people's opinions posted on an obscure photography internet forum?

If you are not here for the entertainment, you will be disappointed.

The last thing anyone should expect is a reasonable, logical discussion on topics here. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Relationships can be explained pretty simply.  Life's not that complicated.  The challenge is to do it honestly without bias?  For example, we have 137 pages about Trump, mostly with bias for and against.  Nobody's minds have been changed.  Like spitting in the wind.

I disagree with this. Although I started out thinking that he was probably just another snake oil salesman promoted to his level of incompetence, after seeing the links to various articles and reading the increasingly lame excuses for his bizarre behaviour, I am now convinced that he is in fact a skin-deep reality TV clown with few redeeming values. He is the kind of guy I would never hire. I am not gloating, this is a bad thing for the USA and for everyone else. Let's hope that your democratic institutions can withstand the worst of this.

I think back to that moment in one of the Republican leadership debates where he made that silly and phoney speech about witnessing a baby being injected with a vaccine with a horse needle and two weeks later was found to be autistic. You know that didn't happen, there was probably no such baby, doctors don't use horse needles on babies, and I don't believe for one second that he witnessed any such thing. I have read in these pages that Trump makes bombastic statements and everyone expects him to. Yeah, no kidding. But that kind of lame-ass excuse for repulsive behaviour is sounding more and more pathetic every day.

As David Frum continually points out, politics is not a game played by two teams. It actually really affects people's lives and requires adult participation, not reality TV fakery.

[Schewe]

I have read in these pages that Trump makes bombastic statements and everyone expects him to. Yeah, no kidding. But that kind of lame-ass excuse for repulsive behaviour is sounding more and more pathetic every day.

To add to the problem of Trump's inability to to be believed, he often unfortunately steps on the attempts by supporters to support him. The latest victim is  National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster who said he was in the room and it didn't happen. Then the next day Trump tweets he DID sensitive information with the Russians and claimed he was legally entitled to...so, McMaster trots out and said it didn't happen then Trump says it did. No wonder the WH claim that the Comey memo didn't accurately represent what Comey and Trump talked about was unsigned because nobody wanted to have their name involved with a denial that Trump, if he behaves as usual, will come out and say he did say that to Comey but he was only joking...(he's used that one before).

Hard to be a Trump supporter or surrogate these days...

Bit By Bit, Trump Is Shredding Credibility Of White House Officials

Can you rely on what White House officials say on behalf of the U.S. government to be true?

The answer, even by the account of President Trump himself, is no.

Of all the crises and controversies consuming this White House, perhaps none is more fundamental than the collapse of its credibility. And a close look at some of the administration's policies, statements and controversies suggests chief responsibility of that collapse can be laid at the feet of the man who works in the Oval Office.

Take one of the latest dramas to play out in Washington, D.C.: whether Trump revealed highly classified secrets in a White House meeting with senior Russian diplomats, as alleged by The Washington Post on Monday.

Monday night, Trump dispatched National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who is held in high regard by leaders of both parties and by journalists, to knock down the story. McMaster called it false even as he confirmed much of the rough outline of the story.

And yet the questions intensified on Tuesday — not least because Trump himself tweeted that he had shared sensitive information with the Russians. Trump even noted that he is legally entitled to do so — which legal analysts largely say he is, because he is president.

So Trump directly undercut his own national security adviser's statements on a controversy reaching a fever pitch in the nation's capital.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Trump needs better IT people at his properties.  https://www.propublica.org/article/any-half-decent-hacker-could-break-into-mar-a-lago?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Before the bombing US authorities were aware of Tsarnaev - a radical Muslim - but decided he posed a "far greater threat to Russia" than to the US, the New York Times says.

Now, lets pause for a moment and think about the implications of this alt-left (loony left) way of thinking.

Soooo...we knew he is dangerous, but that's was apparently ok because he is a "far greater threat to Russia." So, we decided to let him go, because, well, if he harms Russia, that's ok, he would be actually helping us, right?

Sooo... when he traveled to Russia in 2012 and spent six months there, in a Muslim-dominated region, apparently for training and indoctrination, did WE warn Russia about it? That we think he is a danger to them? A year after they warned us first? And now we have the audacity and chutzpah to complain they didn't help us "more"? It only serves us right the he turned around and actually harmed us instead of Russia.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...so, McMaster trots out and said it didn't happen then Trump says it did...

You should read what happened more carefully. There is no contradiction.

McMaster said (emphasis mine): " “at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed.”

Trump tweeted: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

"Sharing facts" is perfectly possible without disclosing "sources or methods." Again, no contradiction, just another fake news.

[Alan Klein]

You should read what happen more carefully. There is no contradiction.

McMaster said (emphasis mine): " “at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed.”

Trump tweeted: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

"Sharing facts" is perfectly possible without disclosing "sources or methods." Again, no contradiction, just another fake news.

+1

[Schewe]

In case you need to read it...

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

Just to be clear, the WaPo article never said Trump disclosed methods or sources (since it turned out Trump hadn't been briefed) nor any military operations. But this is a transcript of what McMaster said:

H.R. MCMASTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Hey, good evening everybody! I just have a brief statement for the record. There's nothing that the President takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The President and the Foreign Minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.

At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed, and the President did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials, who were present, including the Secretary of the State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. That on the record account should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen. Thanks, everybody.


That kinda sounds like a non-denial denial. "That on the record account should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen."

What didn't happen? Trump did or didn't disclose sensitive intel he wasn't supposed to do because it violated the agreement by which it was shared with US intel?

So, then Trump tweets: As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining.......to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

Yeah, ok...what didn't Trump do or not do? We know he pissed off the CIA, NSA and all of our intel partners. So, yeah, Trump pretty much hung McMaster out to dry...

But hey, let's see if our good friend Vlad can come to Trump's rescue...

Putin ready to provide records of Trump-Lavrov talks to prove no secrets were leaked

Russian President Vladimir Putin says he is ready to provide records of the recent meeting between US leader Donald Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, where US media claim state secrets were leaked.
"If the US administration deems it possible, we are ready to provide the Senate and Congress with the transcript of the conversation between Lavrov and Trump," Putin said at a press conference, following a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni on Wednesday.

Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov followed up on Putin's statement with a clarification that there was no audio recording at the Trump-Lavrov meeting, and the only form of record available is a transcript.

Ah, so, Russia didn't bug the Oval Office...wonder if Trump did?

Wow, with friends like that you sure don't need "friendimies", right?

RT went on to tweet:

‘Reading US papers is dangerous’: Moscow ridicules report that Trump shared secrets with Russian FM on.rt.com/8bu7

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So, yeah, Trump pretty much hung McMaster out to dry....

I had no doubt that you'd let lowly, simple rules of logic I presented change your preconceived views on the matter. Instead, you are trying to drown it with a deluge of citations, links and pictures. Funny, but not useful much.

[Farmer]

First off the Washington Post (WAPO) and the NY Times (NYT) are American newspapers unlike RT which is Russian.  WAPO and NYT have had the most political influence throughout the world and in Washington DC.  Many of their articles are re-broadcasted to other media by reuters and other similar outlets throughout the world so they have immense power to influence public opinion throughout the world.  The rest of the world's newspapers just pick up the biased news from WAPO and NYT.  Unfortunately, both are biased liberal and pro-democrat and have been for decades.  Lately, the Post has gone off the rails totally with their Trump hatred and distorted news.  NYT tries to be less "tabloid" but their true colors shows.   A good way to tell who reads these papers is to look at the comments at the bottom of an article.  95% of the comments are anti-Trump.  The ones in WAPO are more vile then the more erudite anti-Trump comments in the NYT..  Both papers write for their liberal readership just like MSNBC broadcasts their liberal content for anti-Trump and liberal believing viewers. 

I don't know about the Guardian or the Spiegel.  But like I said, if they get their info from liberal media in the US, they're just taking the same liberal points of view as the NY Times and Washington Post.

Fox isn't a newspaper but a broadcaster on cable.  There are actually two Fox channels.  One is more conservative oriented and present more conservative panels like MSNBC and CNN present more liberal panels.  But FOX also does straight news that's more fair and balanced.

Wow.  You really do think the whole world revolves around the US.

Most of the world's news outlets do not get their news from US sources.  They get US news from US sources, often their own, but also often from other US media outlets.  Even when they get information from US sources (and not their own) it typically has local analysis and very frequently shows the various differing views coming out of the US.

Major news organisations around the world have their own staff in the US, Europe, Asia, and so on.  You need to get out more.

[Schewe]

I had no doubt that you'd let lowly, simple rules of logic I presented change your preconceived views on the matter.

 

Can we at least agree that Trump has a jump start at knocking James Buchanan off the title of Worst President EVER?

Worst. President. Ever.

[Schewe]

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation By the Justice Department...

Now we'll get to the bottom of all this stuff. I'm actually impressed that the assistant AG did this and it takes the investigation out of partisan politics.

[Farmer]

How long before the Asst. AG is fired? ;-)

[ppmax2]

Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation By the Justice Department...

Now we'll get to the bottom of all this stuff. I'm actually impressed that the assistant AG did this and it takes the investigation out of partisan politics.

Payback's a bitch for trying to pin the blame for firing Comey on Rosenstein (before implicating himself at a later point in time).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Can we at least agree that Trump has a jump start at knocking James Buchanan off the title of Worst President EVER?...

Ok, I give you that it's been a pretty bad start 

[ppmax2]

Ok, I give you that it's been a pretty bad start 

Admitting you have a problem is the fist step toward recovery. Gook luck!

Here's some soothing reading while you contemplate a full recovery:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/deconstructing-mcmaster