Trump II

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Non Americans like to dump on America.  It makes them feel good. You don't have to look inward. I get it. It's just annoying to most Americans. But it seems to me that you have more important things to do like fixing your own countries?

This might be of interest:

"In views of diversity, many Europeans are less positive than Americans"

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/in-views-of-diversity-many-europeans-are-less-positive-than-americans/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump eyes top policy aide for communications director role: official
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN1AL0T4

QUOTE  August 6, 2017 / 1:47 AM  "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House may appoint a senior policy adviser with hardline views on immigration, who recently sparred with reporters in a televised briefing, as its new communications director, a senior administration official said on Saturday.

Stephen Miller, a top aide and speechwriter for President Donald Trump, is a candidate to lead the White House's communications team after a series of personnel changes in the more than six months that Trump has been president.

[...]

Retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, the new chief of staff who sources said was seeking to impose order on a White House riven with factions and backbiting, is said to have recommended the move."



Given Miller's track-record, this would be a gift to the media, and for Trump to point to somebody else (the media) as the cause of confusion.

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

While Trump drives around his golf course in a golf cart, Putin roughs it up in Siberia.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/world/europe/vladimir-putin-russia-summer-vacation.html

[Schewe]

Donald Trump has a sickening fetish for cruelty

It isn't very often that the public gets to see a man's soul die inside his body. To see his dignity immolated. His manhood ripped from his bones.

And to have it captured all in one picture. Oh, the picture.

Late last November, President-elect Donald Trump and former Republican nominee Mitt Romney settled into a four-course dinner at New York's Jean-Georges restaurant, dining on frog legs and diver scallops. Over the previous year, Romney had been bitterly critical of Trump, calling him "con man" and "a fraud" – yet upon winning, Trump dangled the possibility of naming Romney to the position of Secretary of State, leading to what would soon become Romney's Last Supper.

In a chilling photograph of the dinner, Romney has turned to the camera with the look of a man that would much prefer to be dining with the Grim Reaper. As Trump glowers at the camera with a mischievous grin, Romney's eyes yearn for a foregone era when he stood in resistance to the vulgarian-in-chief; a time before he was made to kiss the ring in exchange for serving his country as secretary of state. The only thing missing from the photo is a Sarah McLachlan song playing in the background and a phone number to call to stop the abuse.

Of course, two weeks later, Trump picked oil executive Rex Tillerson to be his secretary of state, ending Romney's parade of public humiliation. But Trump got exactly what he wanted — after the dinner, Romney told reporters that Trump "continues with a message of inclusion and bringing people together," and that his "vision is something which obviously connected with the American people in a very powerful way.” Romney became another well-coiffed head for Trump's trophy case.

It wasn't the first time Trump stripped a conquered foe naked and paraded him in the public square, Game of Thrones-style. (And just like the citizens of Westeros, the #MAGA crowd evidently has plenty of time to take off work to spit and yell "shame" at Trump's vanquished opponents.)

--snip--

These are not the actions of a well-adjusted person. Trump clearly has a maudlin fetish for cruelty – given his pattern of humiliating both friend and foe, the president's brain is occupied with little else than Electoral College results and revenge fantasies. Trump is basically a 71-year old kid cackling in delight as he melts ants under his magnifying glass. Only these ants are attorneys general, senators, FBI directors and governors.

Naturally, Trump's supporters think toying with peoples' dignity is a show of strength – but it is the exact opposite. He's a weak leader who wastes what little political capital he has settling personal scores. With apologies to Winston Churchill, Trump remains an immodest man with much to be modest about.

And it's just a matter of time before he's under Vladimir Putin's magnifying glass.

He's a petty man with little if any respect for other people or any caring for their feelings.

[Robert Roaldi]

He's a petty man with little if any respect for other people or any caring for their feelings.

It's easy to believe that of him, but what kind of wimps are the rest of them, guys like Romney, to put up with it? Do they really need to kiss that much a** just to land a cozy job?

[Alan Klein]

It's easy to believe that of him, but what kind of wimps are the rest of them, guys like Romney, to put up with it? Do they really need to kiss that much a** just to land a cozy job?

Romney, who I liked and voted for when he ran for president in 2012 and lost to Obama, disappointed me with his hostile and vile attacks on Trump.  He represented the elite, connected Republican establishment who felt Trump as a threat to them, their positions of power and wealth.  They were the group who hired the British spy who worked with the Russian spies to come up with that phony dossier on Trump.  I lost a lot of respect for Romney.  Watching him grovel and change his tune so he could get the appointment as Secretary of State under Trump was gratifying, frankly.  What a turncoat.  Well, he got a nice meal out of it, I suppose. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ah, yes, the Romney episode!

My first impression was Trump wanted to show he can rise above personal animosities and look to appoint the best people for the job, even if politically unfriendly. I also expected he would appoint some Democrats as well.

My second thought, however, before the final outcome was known, is that he was trying to humiliate Romney, by raising his hopes, then dashing them, all publicly. After all, as I said before, Trump is a naughty playboy billionaire, who can do what we mere mortals only wish we could, e.g., exact a sweet revenge on those who slighted us. All Romney had to say is "I appreciate the offer, but I don't see how I can reconcile working for the same man after what I said about him." Instead, he fell for the prank.

[Chris Kern]

I don't usually post links to newspaper opinion pieces, but I thought those of you who were following this thread's recent immigration tangent might be interested in an essay on the subject by Russ Douthat published today by the New York Times.  Douthat is a conservative columnist who, in the words of the left-wing publication Mother Jones, "is on a quest to save intellectual conservatism."  But the reason I'm posting the link to his piece isn't his political perspective—which in this instance is presented with a very light touch—but because of the way he explains the social and political factors that make any new legislation relating to immigration so contentious here.  It's one of the few concise treatments of the issue that I've read which is consistent with what I've been hearing for many years from immigration experts inside the federal government.

I'm not going to try to summarize Douthat's argument, but it's a quick read and I think the link I've provided should work just about anywhere except Iran, North Korea, and China (the keepers of "the Great Firewall" don't approve of the Times).  If not, you can try Googling for "Douthat elusive immigration compromise."

[Alan Klein]

Ah, yes, the Romney episode!

My first impression was Trump wanted to show he can rise above personal animosities and look to appoint the best people for the job, even if politically unfriendly. I also expected he would appoint some Democrats as well.

My second thought, however, before the final outcome was known, is that he was trying to humiliate Romney, by raising his hopes, then dashing them, all publicly. After all, as I said before, Trump is a naughty playboy billionaire, who can do what we mere mortals only wish we could, e.g., exact a sweet revenge on those who slighted us. All Romney had to say is "I appreciate the offer, but I don't see how I can reconcile working for the same man after what I said about him." Instead, he fell for the prank.

Now that I think more about it, I too thought that Romney might be a good pick for Secretary of State despite what he did.  I figured if Trump could forgive him and rise above it, he might make a good Secretary.  But now that Rex Tillerson is Secretary, I'm happy he was chosen.  Tillerson isn't flashy or a showboat, does his job, non-political.  He has a humble background.  Yet, his position as CEO of Exxon made him an experienced executive who dealt and negotiated with the highest levels of foreign governments.  Romney would be more concerned like Hillary was about running for future office.  Rex seems to just want to do his current job.  One of Trump's better picks. 

[Alan Klein]

I don't usually post links to newspaper opinion pieces, but I thought those of you who were following this thread's recent immigration tangent might be interested in an essay on the subject by Russ Douthat published today by the New York Times.  Douthat is a conservative columnist who, in the words of the left-wing publication Mother Jones, "is on a quest to save intellectual conservatism."  But the reason I'm posting the link to his piece isn't his political perspective—which in this instance is presented with a very light touch—but because of the way he explains the social and political factors that make any new legislation relating to immigration so contentious here.  It's one of the few concise treatments of the issue that I've read which is consistent with what I've been hearing for many years from immigration experts inside the federal government.

I'm not going to try to summarize Douthat's argument, but it's a quick read and I think the link I've provided should work just about anywhere except Iran, North Korea, and China (the keepers of "the Great Firewall" don't approve of the Times).  If not, you can try Googling for "Douthat elusive immigration compromise."

Americans aren't bigots as he implied somewhat.  Immigration policy will be determined by how jobs do.  As long as many Americans still can't find good paying jobs at the bottom, the middle, and the top, they will want less legal immigration and illegals thrown out.  It's not only the jobs at the bottom.  American engineers who would expect to earn let's say $100k are competing with foreign engineers who come here on job permits and who get paid $65K.  Americans can't compete.  So highly paid Americans are just as disgruntled as low paying.  In any case, once the job problem is solved, if it is solved, no one will care about immigration numbers.  Then, new immigration laws might be passed that get support from all sides. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"China, the EU and other trading partners put up formidable barriers to imports from America" (bold mine):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/free-trade-is-a-two-way-street-1501542569?nan_pid=1861518849

When it comes to trade in goods, our deficits with China and the EU are $347 billion and $146.8 billion, respectively. As the nearby chart shows, China’s tariffs are higher than those of the U.S. in 20 of the 22 major categories of goods. Europe imposes higher tariffs than the U.S. in 17 of 22 categories, though the chart does show that the EU and China are much different regarding tariff rates.

The EU charges a 10% tariff on imported American cars, while the U.S. imposes only a 2.5% tariff on imported European cars. Today Europe exports 1.14 million automobiles to the U.S., nearly four times as many as the U.S. exports to Europe. China, which is the world’s largest automobile market, has a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and imposes even higher tariffs on luxury vehicles.

[Peter McLennan]

who can do what we mere mortals only wish we could, e.g., exact a sweet revenge on those who slighted us.

I suggest you attend a screening of "Dunkirk" to perhaps adjust your attitude towards the idea of "sweet revenge".

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I'm not going to try to summarize Douthat's argument...

Luckily, I am here to do the hard work for you, you lazy boy  (bold mine)

mainstream liberalism has gone a little bit insane on immigration, digging into a position that any restrictions are ipso facto racist, and any policy that doesn’t take us closer to open borders is illegitimate and un-American... Liberalism used to recognize the complexities of immigration; now it sees only a borderless utopia waiting, and miscreants and racists standing in the way.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I suggest you attend a screening of "Dunkirk" to perhaps adjust your attitude towards the idea of "sweet revenge".

 

[Chris Kern]

Luckily, I am here to do the hard work for you

Sigh.  Talk about pulling a quote out of context.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Sigh.  Talk about pulling a quote out of context.

That's the price to pay for being (intellectually) lazy to express what is your own understanding of the article, to stake your own territory, so to speak. I am generally reluctant to click on a link in a post that doesn't provide at least a glimpse of what it might be about (other than generic "immigration'), but out of respect for you, I did.

[Peter McLennan]

  But now that Rex Tillerson is Secretary, I'm happy he was chosen.  Tillerson isn't flashy or a showboat, does his job, non-political.

Not according to those in the know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/06/us/politics/rex-tillerson-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Peter McLennan]

Obviously, you've not seen the movie.

[Alan Klein]

Not according to those in the know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/06/us/politics/rex-tillerson-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The State Department has been a runaway freight train for decades operating on its own design for decades.   The diplomats who complained to theNY Times are pissed off that the Trump Administration won't stand for it.   One complaint was that Tillerson stopped the  hiring of spouses of state department staff.  That nepotism is part of the Washington swamp he's trying to clean up. 

Of course the NY Times supports the diplomats now because they want too destroy Trump.   Every article they print is twisted into a negative against him.   The paper has turned to yellow journalism.   They're a disgrace.

[Robert Roaldi]

The State Department has been a runaway freight train for decades operating on its own design for decades.   The diplomats who complained to theNY Times are pissed off that the Trump Administration won't stand for it.   One complaint was that Tillerson stopped the  hiring of spouses of state department staff.  That nepotism is part of the Washington swamp he's trying to clean up. 

Of course the NY Times supports the diplomats now because they want too destroy Trump.   Every article they print is twisted into a negative against him.   The paper has turned to yellow journalism.   They're a disgrace.

I wasn't going to chime in on this, but can you appreciate the irony of complaining about nepotism in the era of the Trump family white house?