Trump II

[Alan Goldhammer]

Interesting, I've not really studied confirmation bias.

Jeff - Two really fine books to read on the topic are "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman and the story of Kahneman's friendship with Amos Tversky whose untimely death prevented him from receiving the Nobel prize with his colleague:  "The Undoing Project:  A Friendship that Changed our Minds" by Michael Lewis (author of "Moneyball", "The Big Short" and a lot of other fine books).  Both are good reads that make you think about stuff in ways that are counter-intuitive.

[Alan Goldhammer]

While I agree that most of the press does treat him as the enemy, and I think that they have stopped being jupurnalists and turned into rabid attack dogs for their ideologies, it is still a far cry from seeing them as "the enemy of the American people." Definitely not cool.

Perahps so but how to explain President Trump's treatment of the young Jewish Reporter who asked a pretty straight forward question of the President on Thursday and then was slammed in response?  Trump went off on a riff as why he was the least anti-Semitic person he knew and never answered the question.  this was just plain rude and deserving of an apology. 

[Alan Klein]

Perahps so but how to explain President Trump's treatment of the young Jewish Reporter who asked a pretty straight forward question of the President on Thursday and then was slammed in response?  Trump went off on a riff as why he was the least anti-Semitic person he knew and never answered the question.  this was just plain rude and deserving of an apology. 

Trump was wrong by jumping to a conclusion about the question that he incorrectly felt was just another attack on him blaming him for whenever there are attacks on Jews.  After all the unfair attacks on him by the press for these things, he was hyper-sensitive.  He should have waited for the guy to finish the question which was about what the government will do to prevent such attacks from happening and prosecuting those involved.  The reporter and his newspaper, who write for Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn,  are actually very pro-Trump and he should apologize if only because they represent some of the people who support him.   Real news; not fake news!   

[Alan Klein]

While I agree that most of the press does treat him as the enemy, and I think that they have stopped being jupurnalists and turned into rabid attack dogs for their ideologies, it is still a far cry from seeing them as "the enemy of the American people." Definitely not cool.

He was referring to when media releases confidential info that would hurt America in the process of trying to hurt him.  For example, he said releasing the conversation he had with the Australian President is one thing.  But what if it was a conversation he was having with North Korea maybe to reduce tensions about their nuclear development.  The release of that secret conversation could blow the deal hurting America and frankly peace in the whole world.   In the past, responsible journalists and newspapers often did not release information they received from leaks if it would appear to hurt us.  The papers often checked with Administrations or the Department of Defense who would ask them to hold the news as it could endanger us if it was released.  For example, if there was a military operation, the papers would wait until the operation was in process or done before releasing it.  That's responsible journalism. 

[Rory]

This topic is about a very divisive issue and I'd just like to thank everyone involved for maintaining such a civilized discourse when it could easily devolve into personal attacks.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

This topic is about a very divisive issue and I'd just like to thank everyone involved for maintaining such a civilized discourse when it could easily devolve into personal attacks.

+1

[Alan Goldhammer]

He was referring to when media releases confidential info that would hurt America in the process of trying to hurt him.

What about Wikileaks?  Those were definitely designed to hurt people.  Are you OK with what they have done.  What about the Pentagon Papers, Deep Throat, and there are plenty of other examples where someone either leaked or spoke up to help preserve our democratic institutions.

  In the past, responsible journalists and newspapers often did not release information they received from leaks if it would appear to hurt us.  The papers often checked with Administrations or the Department of Defense who would ask them to hold the news as it could endanger us if it was released.  For example, if there was a military operation, the papers would wait until the operation was in process or done before releasing it.  That's responsible journalism.

But there are lots of times when it is not wise to ask someone in the Administration.  Do you think Woodward and Bernstein would have gone to Nixon or Daniel Ellsberg to LBJ?  These are all judgements that journalists have to make every day.  Both Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham had to make a tough call on the Deep Throat story. 

[Rob C]

But the problem is the man: he doesn't have the discipline for politics. He only has bluster. And money. Those two are difficult enough to deal with for anyone, and deadly in world affairs.

Regarding relationships with the press: caution all the time, and no hostages to fortune, please! And never make enemies of them. They can help you if you give them a fair break, but never forget they are there to do a skilled job. If something be rotten in the State of Denmark, then be sure they'll find it before too long. It's what they do.

[Farmer]

First off Obama was the President who was embarrassing my country.  He was pissed on by Iran and China and others including many of our allies.  No one respected him because he was feckless and weak.  Your interests as a non-American do not match mine.  You'd prefer a weak president while I want a strong President who will defend American interests not yours.  It's nothing personal.  You have your country's interest to protect; and I have mine. 

Which of your allies pissed on you?

Obama was seen as a statesman on the world stage - not perfect, not by any means, and it was obvious he had issues with domestic issues.  I think some people agreed he was too soft at times, but overall, I don't think the world view was negative and certainly not embarrassing.

Trump, on the other hand, is seen as a feckless, spoilt, narcissist who is rude, purely self-serving, and as making the US the laughing stock of the world.  Seriously, that's how you're being seen by a significant portion of the world.

As to preferring a weak president?  Why on earth would I want one of Australia's allies, let alone such an important one and one with which we share a long and proud friendship, to have a weak leader?  We are perfectly able to understand that the US will want their leader to put the US first, we just seem to disagree on what that means.  With Trump, it appears to be settings the stage for his business interests and for him to look good (in his opinion).  And that's it.  Nothing he's doing seems likely to make America great again.  The economics he's proposing on US companies mean I will be investing in hi-tech and in particular robotics (and Japan is a good place to look there, but some US and no doubt some as-yet-to-start start-ups in the US, too).

If he actually gets his way, he'll put millions out of work.  He doesn't understand manufacturing - he's never made anything in his life.  Real estate is all about impressions and emotion and the whim of the market.  His hotels, resorts and so on - yes, he had things built (buildings and golf courses), but that's a far cry from manufacturing.  Real estate doesn't become commoditised.  He doesn't get that.

My other point about him changing things is that many of the more radical campaign promises have been eliminated or weakened.  Such as a nuclear Japan, a two China policy, getting out of NATO.  But there are many other changes that he will do that Obama didn't do and Clinton probably would not do.  These include better immigration policies, reducing taxes for individuals and business, focusing on jobs and the economy, trade policies.  While we can debate the details of each of these, none really is radical, and he is proceeding with implementing them more or less the way the proposed during the campaign, keeping his promises to his supporters.  And give the guy a chance.  It took God almost a week to create the universe.  Trump's only been at what he's trying to do for 4 weeks.

Stronger border control is something that I think most people can actually accept, but proposing walls, billing other countries for it, even having a very early draft of an idea to suggest using the national guard to round up illegal immigrants - these are not useful policies.  Proposing economic variations that will make Mexico weaker, for example, is not going to stem desire for people to get into the US.

Reducing taxes is a great idea, if you can afford it, but with current debt levels, the US needs to reduce expenditure, not income.  Sure, a small decrease, targeted well, could add to overall revenue, but general reductions in taxes at the levels being proposed will cut income dramatically and it will take time for any benefit to flow back (and it's unlikely to be enough even in the long run), and in the meantime debt spirals again.  It's a complex issue but he lacks the nuance to deal with it, instead looking for simplistic (rather than simple) solutions.

Yes, he's keeping some promises, but he's also wildly breaking others.  He's no different.  4 weeks and he's lost a top advisor (and still apparently thinks that what was done was OK), had another confirmed position rejected even with majority backing in both houses, had another nomination decline, told US federal judges "SEE YOU IN COURT" as if that's somewhere they wouldn't be at home because he rushed through an EO without thinking it through and despite insisting he wouldn't back down, is now drafting a new one that might be constitutional.  He's discussed national security matters in public view and he's racking up enormous travel costs because he doesn't like the White House (considering how often he had a go at Obama for golfing, he's done an awful lot himself).

Overall, he's floundering and badly.  He has advisors who think they can just lie and bluster their way forward - that may work for a little while, but not forever.  The one really top-notch advisor he has (Mattis) is already on a different page to him (and that's because Mattis is a real leader).

[Alan Klein]

Phil, Other countries had been laughing at us because of Obama's fecklessness and weakness.  While calling him a statesman to make his ego feel good, they were secretly laughing behind his back.  He was disrespected and rolled not only by Iran and China, but by many of our Allies.  In Europe, the countries there are suppose to be paying certain amounts for their defense but have been derelict leaving it up to the American taxpayers to defend them in blood and treasure.  Meanwhile they're spending their saving on government health care laughing at America for not doing the same while we spend money defending them.  Of course most European countries are upset at Trump because he wants them to pay up and Hillary wouldn't.  They want a strong America but a weak President who won't insist on putting America first.  Hopefully that ends with Trump.  Frankly, I wonder if he has the will to really follow through with them supporting us defending them.  We'll see.

Regarding you, an Australian, calling Trump's policy against illegal immigration as pretty wrong is hypocritical.  Australia has very heavy rules regarding illegal immigration.  Your President begged Obama to take those refugees Australia has been holding in those terrible detention camps on Australian Islands because you refused to take them in to Australia proper.  Trump at first balked at that bad deal for America but went ahead anyway because Obama had made the deal and he would respect it.  But come on.  To complain that America wishes to deal with illegal immigration unlike Australia is just hypocritical.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that we have more illegals than you do percentage wise.    In any case, I don't really see much space between America and Australia.  That phone call between our Presidents was just a minor spat.  We've been good friends through the years and I hope we remain that way.  With China wanting to expand more as they get richer, those islands in the South China Sea they built up is just the tip of their spear going forward.  We really need to work together to keep them in check.  I'm sure you agree. 

[Rob C]

Obama weak? Strange conclusion. What was weak was the perpetual and disgraceful opposition he met every single time he tried to do something positive such as introduce a little bit more gun control. Each new school massacre created the sad spectacle of the poor guy trying to do his best against a political and manufacturing system married to a 'sporting' lobby that blocked his every turn. There's money to be made in selling death. And politicians know it takes bags of money to be there. They will say thanks to every source. The exception is the exception.

He is an intelligent, well-educated gentleman with a lot of presence, in essence everything that Mr T has not chosen to display. Hell, he was even truthful enough to tell the Brexiting Brits that they should think twice, that any rainbow-coloured fantasy solve-it-all trade deal with the States was largely in their minds, and at best, rather far down the queue. What's not to like about somebody who tells it how it is? But that's not how the 'news' was received in the UK, was it? Nope, he was accused of 'interfering', of trying to vo¡ce an opinion! That should tell anyone all they need to know about the great public out there: lemmings have rights, too!

Regarding making America Great Again, I don't really think people pre-Trump went around thinking it was anything but. Okay, it did have some looneys running amok with guns, but as a country, it still had clout and presence, even if international moral credibility was being sacrificed on the alter of Israel, but as most folks imagine that the tribes already own the banks, the markets, and probably America, what's new? It was only the constant chanting of that slogan that made people wonder just how badly America might actually be doing, despite good employment figures compared with most other countries. Hey, if a presidential candidate screams all day long that the place is at death's door, you end up having to believe him, don't you?

Return all manufacturing to America? That's just fantasy. The work left America because of labour costs. Exactly as happened in Britain, in Japan; each place with cheap labour gets successful and then inevitably expensive, and the circus has to leave town for the next cheaper option. To keep costs down will force even more automation, so inevitably fewer jobs, not more. Cars are made not in isolation: bits come from all around the planet, just like with washing machines: my old, but good Zanussi ended up several shades of white before it died! It's all a part of keeping prices to a marketable level. That Detroit-built beauty that nobody can afford ain't gonna bring prosperity, just bankrupt more companies if they are forced to relocate there.

Evolution rolls on, with or without presidents playing Canute.

Rob

[Farmer]

Phil, Other countries had been laughing at us because of Obama's fecklessness and weakness.

No, they (we) hadn't.

While calling him a statesman to make his ego feel good, they were secretly laughing behind his back.  He was disrespected and rolled not only by Iran and China, but by many of our Allies.  In Europe, the countries there are suppose to be paying certain amounts for their defense but have been derelict leaving it up to the American taxpayers to defend them in blood and treasure.

No one was laughing at him, as a general rule.

NATO has a guideline of 2%.  The US, Greece, UK, Estonia and Poland all met or exceeded that.  The guideline is total defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP, not just NATO related expenditure.

NATO also has an "Equipment as share of Defence Expenditure" guideline of 20%.  In order, that is exceeded or met by Luxembourg, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Norway, United States, France, Turkey, UK, Italy.

Those figures cover the last 3 years, but the latest report at http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf has data for the last 8 years.  Some use this to suggest it was all Obama's fault.

Check here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11

It shows data since 1991 and it's clear that many nations have been below the 2% guideline since well before Obama.  In that time you had Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush (by terms).

The assertion that they have been laughing at the US is just wrong.  Also, the US presence in NATO and it's overall defence expenditure doesn't all go to defending Europe (whereas almost all European expenditure does).  The US spends roughly 1/3 of its total defence expenditure toward forces and operations involving NATO.  That's not just to protect Europe - that's protecting US interests (which are again highlighted by the threatening posture of Russia).  So when we look at the US spending 3.6% of GDP on defence about 1.2% of that is NATO.  That's less than many NATO countries are spending which is exclusively on European defence.

In other words, it's a lot more complicated and involved than the poor headlines and sound bites that are generally pedalled on the subject and far more complex that Trump tells as his story.

Regarding you, an Australian, calling Trump's policy against illegal immigration as pretty wrong is hypocritical. 

So now I'm personally responsible for Australia's formal policies and if I have a view on something that differs I'm a hypocrite?  Let's not resort to name calling, particularly when it's so absurd.

Trump's approach is wrong.  Australia is an island and we have the physical capacity to do what we're doing.  The US has a much bigger influx and for different reasons and a large land border across which most of the illegal immigrants come.  The two situations are different in marked ways.  It's not surprising that different approaches might be needed.  You'll also find that our approach (which has significant opposition locally, despite being supported by the two major political parties) is only a portion of the policy.

Australia has very heavy rules regarding illegal immigration.

Yes.  So what?  Where did I say the US shouldn't?

Your President begged Obama to take those refugees Australia has been holding in those terrible detention camps on Australian Islands because you refused to take them in to Australia proper.

Firstly, we've discussed this, Australia doesn't have a president.  If you want to discuss the subject, please check your facts.  Our government didn't beg Obama to do any thing.  They approached him and negotiated a refugee SWAP.  We get the exact same number of refugees as we send.  Did you know that?  Did you check?  The idea is that our government doesn't want to process the current detainees in line with their policy, but they have no problem taking in genuine refugees.

Also, they are not in detention on Australian islands - the whole point of the policy is to stop them getting to Australia - any part of it.  They are in PNG, but an agreement with PNG to process them ended due to legal / constitutional issues in PNG.

The detention camps aren't great, but they're a whole lot better than being in the middle of a war.

Trump at first balked at that bad deal for America but went ahead anyway because Obama had made the deal and he would respect it.

He didn't know much about it, reported it incorrectly, and made a lot of noise about it for domestic political reasons.  It's not a bad deal for the US at all.

[Schewe]

Obama weak? Strange conclusion. What was weak was the perpetual and disgraceful opposition he met every single time he tried to do something positive such as introduce a little bit more gun control.

Rob, it goes further than just guns...as an aside, "the Republican Senate and House have managed to act with lightning speed in striking down a sensible Obama administration rule designed to stop people with severe mental problems from buying guns". The NYT editorial board had this to say Congress Says, Let the Mentally Ill Buy Guns

Yes, Obama was weak but the majority of his weakness was due to the fact that GOP leaders in the House and Senate determined to be the The Party Of No. Michael Grunwald reported and wrote a book about the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

Add to the that the Koch Brothers with big oil and big tobacco to take over the GOP. This Time article outlines THE SECRET ORIGINS OF THE TEA PARTY. The Tea Party did well in the 2010 midterm elections and gained control of the House. That furthered the House GOP's goal of saying no to anything the Democrats or Obama tried to do.

The ultimate goal was to regain the presidency in 2012. That didn't happen so the House GOP dug in even deeper and Tea Party Senators like Ted Cruz tried to force force President Obama to strip the funding from the landmark health-care law that had come to bear his name — Obamacare — by threatening to shut down the government. He says he thought Obama and top Democrats would be cowed. He says he thought Senate Republican leaders would be willing — at least in public — to take the risk.

In both cases, he was wrong.

But the GOP was successful in fighting anything and everything that Obama wanted to do. That made Obama weak...the GOP made Obama weak, the GOP made America weak.

I'll admit (as did Obama) that his handling of Syria was seriously flawed. Obama was also unable to recognize the serious risk of ISIS until ISIS got too much traction. In spite of all the obstructionism Obama did do some things right. He took the country from the brink of a major recession/depression to a robust economy to hand over to Trump. Trump says America is a mess? Yeah, not so much.

Domestic accomplishments of President Obama:

Signed economic stimulus legislation like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus) and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 into law in response to the Great Recession of 2008

Signed the Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, strengthening financial regulations to an extent not seen since the Great Depression

Pushed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) overhauling the nation's health insurance system through Congress in 2010

Signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly support same-sex marriage

Repealed a Bush-era policy preventing federal tax dollars from being used to fund research on new lines of embryonic stem cells

Signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 ending the role of private banks in lending out federally insured student loans

Foreign policy accomplishments of President Obama:

Ended US military involvement in the Iraq War and increased US troop levels in Afghanistan

Substantially increased the number of drone strikes targeting suspected terrorists around the world

Ordered U.S. military involvement in Libya following a popular revolt against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi

Authorized the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011

Signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia reducing the number of long-range weapons held by both countries

The above comes from the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. millercenter.org and before you ask, the Miller Center is a nonpartisan institute that seeks to expand understanding of the presidency, policy, and political history, providing critical insights for the nation’s governance challenges.

One can quibble on some of the items and Trump & the GOP are hellbent to undo as much as they can regardless of the implications and ramifications, but I think Obama will go down as a good and important president...Trump? I seriously doubt he will contribute much other than increasing the debt and making the world a much more dangerous place...YMMV

[Alan Klein]

Phil like I said I consider us friends so that's how I'm going to leave it. 

[Alan Klein]

Schewe:  It was Obama's unilateral powers as President and Commander-in-Chief that I was referring to when I called him weak and feckless and why the world laughed at him.    It had nothing to do with Congress, the Republicans or anyone else.  He did it all by himself.

It was his decision alone to pull out of Iraq in 2011 and open up a vacuum to be filled by ISIS.  It was his decision alone to draw a red line in Syria then erase it telling every bad guy in the world that they could do whatever they want and Obama and America would do nothing.  It was his decision alone to do nothing to stabilize Libya after his stupid decision (and Hillary's) to encourage the overthrow of Gadhafi. (you think they would have learned from Bush's nation building mistakes in Iraq).  It was his decision to do nothing while China appropriated those South China islands against UN vote and turned them into military bases to expand their empire.  All Obama did was send a frigate by now and then to see how the construction was going.  He made a deal with Iran so his legacy could be  written into the history books making a bad deal and giving them 150 billion dollars to help them expand their sphere of influence throughout the Middle East.  He even paid 1.5 billion in cash to release prisoners they were holding (but not all of them).  In return we got a non-verifiable promise that they won't build atomic bombs for ten years. Because of this agreement, he ticked off all our Arab partners and that started wars between Saudi and Iranian proxies in Yemen and elsewhere.    He let Russia take the Crimea and settle into east Ukraine.  When he flew to China for a visit, instead of the Chinese welcoming him with balloons and fireworks for his gift of those islands, they made him leave Air Force 1 from the service entry refusing to provide a proper boarding staircase.  He should have turned the jet around and flew home.  But, instead, he sucked it up and got off.  What a joke.  I'm embarrassed as an American and so should you be. 

[Schewe]

I'm embarrassed as an American and so should you be.

I am now that America elected Donald J Trump...

Let's remember to have a discussion in 4 years time to see how badly Trump screws things up.

Maureen Dowd had an interesting article in the NYT (assuming you haven't drank the Kool-Aid and relegated the gray lady Fake News status).

Trump’s Gold Lining

Listen up, haters.

The brief reign of Donald the First has been completely head-spinningly nuts so far. But let’s stay calm and look for the silver lining, or in this case, the garishly gold lining.

Donald Trump has indeed already made some of America Great Again.

Just not the aspects he intended.

He has breathed new zest into a wide range of things: feminism, liberalism, student activism, newspapers, cable news, protesters, bartenders, shrinks, Twitter, the A.C.L.U., “S.N.L.,” town halls, George Orwell, Margaret Atwood, Hannah Arendt, Stephen Colbert, Nordstrom, the Federalist Papers, separation of powers, division of church and state, athletes and coaches taking political stands and Frederick Douglass.

–snip–

Every time our daft new president tweets about the “failing” New York Times, our digital subscriptions and stock price jump, driven by readers eager for help negotiating the disorienting Trumpeana Oceana Upside Down dimension rife with gaslighting, trolling, leaking, lying and conflicts.

Similarly, whenever Trump rants about Alec Baldwin’s portrayal of him and tweets that “Saturday Night Live” is “not funny,” “always a complete hit job” and “really bad television!,” the show’s ratings go up. They’re now at a 20-year high.

–snip–

Trump has made facts great again. By distorting reality so relentlessly, he has put everyone on alert for alternative facts.

–snip–

Given the fever pitch on both sides, we’re going to have to pace ourselves, as David Axelrod tweeted. Still, the main way that Trump is proving that America is great is that the affronted and angered are rising up to take him on.

Yeah, The Donald has done us a favor, he's awakened the masses from their political slumber. It's the "gold lining" with what happened 11/8/2016

Let's touch base on 11/4/2020 and see what has transpired. Assuming The Donald actually lasts that long–I don't think he will.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Yes, I think that was Maureen Dowd's finest essay.

[Petrus]

Phil, Other countries had been laughing at us because of Obama's fecklessness and weakness.  While calling him a statesman to make his ego feel good, they were secretly laughing behind his back. 

You are wrong. Trump is a joke we laugh at every day. A bad joke, so bad that he could never been invented by a novelist. Elected by a system which does not work as intended, by people who are frighteningly ignorant.

[Schewe]

And speaking of fake news...

When A Politician Says 'Fake News' And A Newspaper Threatens To Sue Back

From the article:
"A news outlet publishes a story that a Republican politician dismisses as "fake news." Sounds familiar, right?

But in this case, there's a twist. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel in Colorado is accusing state Sen. Ray Scott of defamation and threatening to sue. If filed, legal experts said it would be the first suit of its kind, potentially setting a legal definition for what is considered fake news and what is not."

Hum...wouldn't it be delicious irony if a fine purveyor of "fake news" (according to you know who) decided to sue the litigious one?

[Schewe]

Then this...

Internet memes mock Donald Trump by making him look small - literally

From BBC:

ALAMY
Many of the doctored images will be familiar to anyone who has followed recent news - but they have a small twist

Then there's also this from BBC...
'Enemies of the people': Trump remark echoes history's worst tyrants


Trump's remark drew comparisons with dictators Stalin and Mao

At a different time, in another country, it was effectively a death sentence.
Being branded an "enemy of the people" by the likes of Stalin or Mao brought at best suspicion and stigma, at worst hard labour or death.
Now the chilling phrase - which is at least as old as Emperor Nero, who was called "hostis publicus", enemy of the public, by the Senate in AD 68 - is making something of a comeback.

Yeah, Trump is gonna Make America Great Again.