Thread: Kellyanne and others. Trouble in the White House Team. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020079
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Conway, that is. Getting her hands slapped for promoting her friend, Ivanka T's, clothing line on Fox News. Not supposed to do that as a government employee. (Though it appears your favorite dress--the pussy dress, which she has worn several times, is a Simplicity dress from the 70's)
Oh, sure, the Orange One can complain that Nordstrom has been so unfair to his daughter, but he is the President. The law does not apply to him (curiously). It applies to everyone else, but him.
And then there is Mike Flynn, calls the Russian ambassador the day Obama slap sanctions on Russia. Has a mind fart and cannot remember what was discussed. Something about arranging a phone call with the Orange One and the Bare Chested One.
Small matter it is against the law for a private citizen to conduct foreign affairs when you are not in the goverment.
Conway, gets slapped down. Flynn gets pass. I wonder what the dynamic is here.
[ 14. February 2017, 07:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It helps that Conway was caught on camera. There is no debate about what she said, it's all on the video.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Conway, that is. Getting her hands slapped for promoting her friend, Ivanka T's, clothing line on Fox News.
Has she gotten her hands slapped? At the moment all we have is a statement from Sean Spicer saying she's been "counseled", with no further explanation of what that actually means.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Oh, sure, the Orange One can complain that Nordstrom has been so unfair to his daughter, but he is the President.
Not necessarily. There are some indications that the author of the tweet was someone else using his account. This is not new.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And then there is Mike Flynn, calls the Russian ambassador the day Obama slap sanctions on Russia. Has a mind fart and cannot remember what was discussed. Something about arranging a phone call with the Orange One and the Bare Chested One.
Small matter it is against the law for a private citizen to conduct foreign affairs when you are not in the government.
Conway, gets slapped down. Flynn gets pass. I wonder what the dynamic is here.
There could be sexism at work, but it's more likely the fact that Conway did something incontrovertibly illegal on live national television and we can all watch the video replay, whereas Flynn's alleged wrongdoing depends on his own recollection (and therefore his cooperation) for proof.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And there is certainly some expectation among the pundit class that Flynn will pay the price. This is a free click, BTW.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Well, Flynn's own recollection and the statements of nine senior but anonymous intelligence officials.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not necessarily. There are some indications that the author of the tweet was someone else using his account. This is not new.
Oh no! Don't tell me he's using an unsecured Twitter account! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
On the one hand, Elizabeth Warren gets silenced for trying to read into the record Coretta Scot King's letter, but then the next day four male Senators complete the task.
There is a meme going around.
She was warned
She was given and explanation
Yet she persisted.
I am thinking Warren just got a campaign slogan for 2020, thanks to Mitch McConnell.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I don't have much sympathy for Kellyanne. She isn't some inexperienced young staffer making a rookie mistake, she is been in the Beltway circles for quite a while now, she should know about conflict of interest rules.
We are barely less than a month from the Inauguration and Trump has managed to produce more scandals than Obama did in eight years in the White House.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't have much sympathy for Kellyanne. She isn't some inexperienced young staffer making a rookie mistake, she is been in the Beltway circles for quite a while now, she should know about conflict of interest rules.
I agree. I understand she has been the head of her own consultancy business in this field for over 20 years. IMHO people are entitled to expect her both to know both the rules and the ethical principles that underlie them, and to live by them. Attempting to excuse this or explain it away, would be like a solicitor claiming he/she didn't know he/she was supposed to keep clients' money in a separate account from their own, and not pocket other peoples' money.
quote:
We are barely less than a month from the Inauguration and Trump has managed to produce more scandals than Obama did in eight years in the White House.
That's quite an achievement. Has any other new president managed to do this so quickly?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's quite an achievement. Has any other new president managed to do this so quickly?
I don't think any other new president has been quite so hated by the media.
There is plenty to hate, but I fear the signal to noise ratio is poor and the result more diversionary than anything else.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's quite an achievement. Has any other new president managed to do this so quickly?
I don't think any other new president has been quite so hated by the media.
Andrew Johnson comes to mind.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's quite an achievement. Has any other new president managed to do this so quickly?
I don't think any other new president has been quite so hated by the media.
Andrew Johnson comes to mind.
Nixon? With cause I might add.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Negative attention is what won trump the Election, and now negative attention looks likely to be his tactic for the next 4 to 8 years.
Just wondering if the rest of us have the necessary stamina to feed such a game over that amount of time.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think any other new president has been quite so hated by the media.
Andrew Johnson comes to mind.
Nixon? With cause I might add.
I'm not sure about the media, but Nixon was a lot more publicly popular when he entered office than Trump is currently. Nixon's net job approval rating (percent approve minus percent disapprove) was +54% during his first month as president according to Gallup. Trump's average net approval is -7% so far (ibid.). Nixon didn't achieve negative approval (more people disapproving of his job performance than approving it) until about six months into his second term.
Blogger Paul Campos breaks this down in terms of past presidents.
[ 10. February 2017, 18:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's quite an achievement. Has any other new president managed to do this so quickly?
I don't think any other new president has been quite so hated by the media.
There is plenty to hate, but I fear the signal to noise ratio is poor and the result more diversionary than anything else.
I recall the Bush II years and the Florida election controversy, now there was pointed and fervent opposition to Bush, but as I recall, while there was ridicule of his intellect, there was at least a grudgingly acceptance of Bush being a decent guy in person. The best remark I remember is by a critic at the time was someone who wrote that he would be fine having a conversation with W in a bar, but he was not fine with W in the White House.
With Trump, we have a person who eschews the basic norms of decency, and frankly I think he was coddled all his life, and never had to be accountable for anything. Far from being a brilliant businessman, it seems from watching documentaries about his life, that Trump has never had to face the consequences in any major way, which is deeply frightening.
To tie it to the Kellyanne issue, the explanation I can think of for her action isn't that she was ignorant of the rules, it's that her boss, Trump, by his example of shunning norms is giving carte blanche to his subordinates to do likewise. Trump's people "counselling" Kellyanne, isn't discipline, it's purely for show, to pretend that they care about the rules.
[ 10. February 2017, 19:03: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
To put it another way, rule-breaking is now becoming normalized. Standard operating procedure.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
To put it another way, rule-breaking is now becoming normalized. Standard operating procedure.
It's not rule-breaking -- they are now "alternative rules."
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Unfortunately, I think this is the reality of having an internet troll in chief.
Of course the media hates him. He goes out of the way to pick fights with them. A lot of people (at least enough to get him elected under our system) apparently love him for it. Has any President ever been this openly hostile to the media? (I guess G.W. Bush stopped calling on Helen Thomas for a while, but I don't think it ever rose from passive aggression to this level of overt aggression.)
My take on Conway's latest screw up is that she went out there not with the intention of endorsing Ivanka's line, but rather to troll the folks who had been going nuts over Trump's earlier tweet, not realizing that her statement could still (properly) get her into trouble.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Before Trump, I only encountered Kellyanne Conway through some clips of Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show, about 15 or so years ago. Back then, Kellyanne struck me as a reasonable, somewhat moderate Republican.
How things have changed.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
Here's a whole page of comments she made criticizing Trump last year... before he hired her:
Here's How Trump's New Campaign Manager Attacked Him As A Cable News Pundit
Boy, she's really come around since that time when she tut-tutted about "the danger of just saying things that aren't true and getting people to believe it and getting 20,000 people at a rally today to just lap it up as if it's true. "
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Flynn shouldn't survive. It looks as though he misled Pence over cosying up to the Russians.
Conway shilling for Ivanka demeaned both her office and her personally. She should also go.
Spicer is a shambles, loyally defending 'alternative facts' way beyond spin. He should go.
But I think all three may survive since their 'sins' seem to mirror and follow those of their Master. Who knows? They may even have been following 'implied instructions'.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
So what has shifted her? Money? Blackmail about something? Russian threats?
Or thinking that it's better to be inside where you might be able to modify things?
Or thinking that you might be able to sink the whole thing before disaster strikes?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Power, I should think. Plus I think there's something cult-like about the whole team.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Unfortunately, I think this is the reality of having an internet troll in chief.
Of course the media hates him. He goes out of the way to pick fights with them. A lot of people (at least enough to get him elected under our system) apparently love him for it. Has any President ever been this openly hostile to the media? (I guess G.W. Bush stopped calling on Helen Thomas for a while, but I don't think it ever rose from passive aggression to this level of overt aggression.)
My take on Conway's latest screw up is that she went out there not with the intention of endorsing Ivanka's line, but rather to troll the folks who had been going nuts over Trump's earlier tweet, not realizing that her statement could still (properly) get her into trouble.
The media is working them out, and to use a cricketing metaphor they just need to keep playing a straight bat and eventually the runs will come.
Some commentator tonight said that Trump has shown himself to be scandal-proof. But does anyone happen to have some footage of him burning an American flag?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's quite an achievement. Has any other new president managed to do this so quickly?
I don't think any other new president has been quite so hated by the media.
There is plenty to hate, but I fear the signal to noise ratio is poor and the result more diversionary than anything else.
Which is the chicken and which the egg here? The media coddled him for months until they for some reason realized maybe they should pay attention to whether or not what he was saying was true. As soon as they did that he turned on them. How dare they call him on his lies? Before that they didn't hate him, they loved him for the boost to their ratings. Now if they hate him it's because (a) he hates them and does everything in his power to undermine them, and (b) he's a liar and they are finally remembering it's their job to tell the truth.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And I think they are embarrassed for having been the most valuable member of his campaign.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Which is the chicken and which the egg here? The media coddled him for months until they for some reason realized maybe they should pay attention to whether or not what he was saying was true. [/QB]
Eh? The PG's sins were constantly on the media. Do you remember the blanket coverage of the "grab 'em by the pussy" footage? The shindy kicked up when he dissed the Muslim parents of a slain soldier? It wasn't for want of coverage; it was that the dirt, even though dredged from the well of truth, didn't stick. His base loved him in spite of these sins. The big worry is that they love him because of his vileness, because then what does that say about our countrymen?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Lock her up!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The press treated him as a joke instead of a threat. They covered his rallies entire, giving him free adverts worth millions. They clung to the myth of "balanced" coverage and they abetted the side show distraction of Clinton's e-mails, allowing the noramlisation of Trump's many faults.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Flynn's future now looks very uncertain. A story is circulating that he may have had encrypted communications with the Russian ambassador and there is some record of that. That, coupled with the non-reaction to Obama's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, means the whole question of Trump's relations with Russia prior to the election is surfacing again. Plus the White House is leaking that "the knives are out".
"Poor Kellyanne" is in a lot less trouble that.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
If Kellyanne has any inclination to quit and run, this might be a really good time to do it. So many other people and situations are in trouble that she might not get the full weight of the media going after her, right away.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
No, it's too late. She is chained to Crooked Donald with links of adamant. Who would hire her? Give her a platform? Sit at table with her? Her only hope is to cling to him and hope he doesn't go down like Icarus, in a ball of fire.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
After Kellyanne's 'POTUS has completely confidence in him' message, Flynn has fallen on his sword. Presumably it was that or 'You're fired!'. But I doubt that will be the end of the matter. What did Trump know and when did he know it?
SNL continues to do a great job on Spicey, but their 'Fatal Attraction' sketch on 'Poor Kellyanne' was OTT. That and the Flynn fallout may help her to survive. Despite the 'complete confidence' message. Whas she out of the loop?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Michael Flynn has resigned.
Apparently all to do with his russian contacts, and specifically with lying to Mike Pence about them. In his resignation letter Mr Flynn said he had quote:
"inadvertently briefed the vice-president-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador"
In other words, he lied to the VP (then elect) about discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador before the election.
Bearing in mind that it has emerged it was Mike Flynn junior who was responsible for the Pizzagate rumours about HRC, I think one can forgive a certain degree of schadenfreude in her tweeting "What goes around comes around".
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I find it interesting that Trump did not support Flynn. What was it about Flynn's actions that led to his getting the chop?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Well, speculation is already across the airwaves about whether The Orange One knew about the discussion on sanctions and, if so, was it before his inauguration.
Not that a chaotic first 100 days is anything knew: the first Clinton administration had a rocky start but then people were more inclined to cut Bill C some slack - perhaps because he hadn't alientated almost the entire fourth estate?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well, speculation is already across the airwaves about whether The Orange One knew about the discussion on sanctions and, if so, was it before his inauguration.
Not much speculation is needed, given that the White House was allegedly informed of Flynn's problematic Russian contacts by then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Yates was fired shortly thereafter.
This seems a clear example of Reagan's fork: a situation where the only plausible explanations are incompetence or corruption. Either "the White House" was informed that the National Security Advisor was compromised by a sometimes-hostile foreign power and this information somehow didn't filter up to Trump, or Trump knew and did nothing.
Three weeks in and we're already asking "what did the president* know and when did he know it?" Three weeks of Trump is like five years of Nixon.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not that a chaotic first 100 days is anything knew: the first Clinton administration had a rocky start but then people were more inclined to cut Bill C some slack - perhaps because he hadn't alientated almost the entire fourth estate?
This is the same Bill Clinton who was accused by the press of running drugs out of the Mena Airport and being complicit in the murder of Vince Foster? You and I seem to have very different ideas of what 'cutting slack' means.
[ 14. February 2017, 13:37: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The real question is, was Flynn a loose cannon, or was he speaking on behalf of Lyin' Don himself? Since this was in December we know who was president at that time, and it wasn't anybody orange.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The real question is, was Flynn a loose cannon, or was he speaking on behalf of Lyin' Don himself? Since this was in December we know who was president at that time, and it wasn't anybody orange.
Since Flynn was (allegedly) promising the ability to lift the sanctions against Russia he was either speaking on behalf of Trump or was fairly sure he could get Trump to do his bidding on this matter later on. I'm not sure which would be the worse explanation, which brings us back to Reagan's fork.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I am sure that one and all will insist that it was Flynn himself, running his mouth. He is the scapegoat now, and all sins may be laid upon him as he is driven out into the desert. But if it was Crooked Donald himself, then that is a crime. (Not that this really slows him down.)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After Kellyanne's 'POTUS has completely confidence in him' message, Flynn has fallen on his sword. Presumably it was that or 'You're fired!'. But I doubt that will be the end of the matter. What did Trump know and when did he know it?
SNL continues to do a great job on Spicey, but their 'Fatal Attraction' sketch on 'Poor Kellyanne' was OTT. That and the Flynn fallout may help her to survive. Despite the 'complete confidence' message. Whas she out of the loop?
I am starting to think that maybe no one is in the loop at the White House right now. Which might be the thing that ends up bringing the whole operation down. Fingers crossed.
It would be extremely brazen of Trump to try to lift sanctions against Russia at this point, right? I guess he could try to play it off as a completely unrelated decision based on his best business judgment, but the whole thing would stink.
(I have been thinking about re-reading "Tinker Tailor..." in recent months. The part of me that reads way too many spy novels is frantically trying to figure out how this is all part of the cover up. I can't quite make it work. If this were a planned thing to make it look like Trump is actually interested in getting Russian influence out of the White House while secretly keeping them in, certainly he would be crowing about this more, right? Any other cloak and dagger three degrees of backstabbing theories?)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The conspiracy theory is that Trump already had some kind of a deal with someone in Russia and the quid pro quo was the Hillary hack to help him get into power. All done through intermediaries of course, one of whom might have been Flynn.
The thing that doesn't quite compute is that Flynn must have known his call would be monitored. But there is a hint in one of the leaks that part of Flynn's communication was encrypted or coded. Which actually looks even more suspicious if true.
Og, you're right. It doesn't quite all add up. But it is smelly.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
It now seems the Russians have discovered one of the best ways to weaken NATO and the European Union is to financially support ultra-right nationalist parties in European countries. Get other countries to question the effectiveness of Nato, and Russia will be able to drive a tank through the gaps as it were.
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on
:
Personally I'm inclining towards the "incompetence" prong of Reagan's fork. ISTM that most of what goes on at the White House these days is just what happens when a bunch of inexperienced egotists are put in charge of something they don't really understand. If there is a conspiracy at the heart of all this, it's a risibly inept one.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Close observers agree with you. The money quote: "What decent and competent person at this point would walk into the West Wing, which seems more like the “Star Wars” bar scene with each passing day?"
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
It does seem like Trump and his advisors have relied a bit to heavily on the old "when the President does it, it isn't illegal" logic. That's essentially their argument in favor of the immigration EO, constitutional issues be damned.
Conway was on The Today Show this morning, again tying herself in knots to avoid answering basic questions. She alleges that the President fully supported Flynn yesterday afternoon, as she had said. It was only after he learned that Flynn had mislead the VP that he dropped his support. Only problem, as pointed out by Matt Lauer: we know that the President was briefed about this several weeks ago.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I have been thinking about re-reading "Tinker Tailor..." in recent months.
You need to read more Le Carré. There's at least as much incompetence as conspiracy (see, for instance The Russia House).
Of course, both can destabilise.
Either way, I'm sure Russia is having a good laugh at the mess in the White House regardless of how much of it they actually masterminded. Even more so if the actual answer is "none".
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Close observers agree with you. The money quote: "What decent and competent person at this point would walk into the West Wing, which seems more like the “Star Wars” bar scene with each passing day?"
Or to put it another way, there is no "loop" for people to be in or out of.
John
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sean Spicer did a pretty good job in answering questions. Much better than Kellyanne. But the key points in the defence are that the White House counsel assured Trump that Flynn had done nothing illegal. And Trump had not given Flynn a specific brief, he was just doing his duty.
This was the only way of managing the gap between the notification by the Acting AG, giving the White House a heads up re Flynn and the three week interval before his dismissal/resignation.
Will that story hold? Only if the transcripts confirm it. So I think there are powerful people in the Senate and the House who will want to see those transcripts.
This story has legs.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sean Spicer did a pretty good job in answering questions. Much better than Kellyanne. But the key points in the defence are that the White House counsel assured Trump that Flynn had done nothing illegal.
I'd love to see that legal analysis. Of course the only thing that would make such a determination plausible is if the White House counsel knew everything Flynn "had done". Given Flynn's lack of honest up to that point, that doesn't seem a safe bet to make.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Reportedly, Trump is considering Gen. David Petraeus to replace Flynn. (HuffPost)
Small problem: Petraeus has already proved that he can't handle classified info. He gave some to his biographer/mistress.
Not a great pick for a national security advisor.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sean Spicer did a pretty good job in answering questions. Much better than Kellyanne. But the key points in the defence are that the White House counsel assured Trump that Flynn had done nothing illegal.
I'd love to see that legal analysis. Of course the only thing that would make such a determination plausible is if the White House counsel knew everything Flynn "had done". Given Flynn's lack of honest up to that point, that doesn't seem a safe bet to make.
Spicer was saying that the analysis was based on the info the Acting AG presented i.e. some transcripts. Whether the analysis also included discussions with Trump about prior conversations or instructions isn't clear.
My understanding is that the White House counsel is not the President's lawyer and, in theory at least, has no reason to politicise advice. But you're right to wonder about the quality of the professional advice given in this case.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
He's appointed by the president, and the current one was Trump's counsel during the campaign, so I'd say the chances of getting politicized advice are pretty high.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It now seems the Russians have discovered one of the best ways to weaken NATO and the European Union is to financially support ultra-right nationalist parties in European countries. Get other countries to question the effectiveness of Nato, and Russia will be able to drive a tank through the gaps as it were.
Yes, it does seem that way, and indicates an ideological nihilism that I find unsettling. Years ago, when I was squatting in academia, I had the opportunity to have an informal conversation with an ex-KGB colonel*. I asked him whether the KGB, as a strategy of destabilisation, had ever funded or otherwise supported right-wing groups in western Europe, neo-nazis in West Germany, P2 or Ordine Nero in Italy, etc. Not only was he emphatic in saying that the KGB did no such thing, he seemed personally offended at the suggestion. I found it in some perverse way reassuring that however morally bankrupt the respective opponents were, at least the battle lines were clear. Now, not so much. Putin may be ex-KGB, but he is in service not to an ideology by to himself and his cohort. Has the right ever been anything than oppression in the service of kleptocracy? Racism and authoritarianism may have sincere roots (not justifiable, but sincere), but it doesn't take much for them to mutate into cynical covers for theft. View that through the lens of Stephen Miller's comments that the President's will will not be challenged, and Trump's own behaviour in business, and these are looking like dark times indeed.
*That sounds a good deal more 'Le Carre sexy' than it really was. He had defected recently and was promoting a book, and we had a drink at the faculty club. It was hardly exclusive access or a park bench on a foggy night.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
He's appointed by the president, and the current one was Trump's counsel during the campaign, so I'd say the chances of getting politicized advice are pretty high.
Didn't know that! Too much reliance on 'The West Wing' and Babich's characterisation.
Thanks Dave. I was clearly relating to a principle of the past.
One thing is for sure. We haven't heard the last of this.
[ 15. February 2017, 00:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
"... not to an ideology but to himself and his cohort..."
Sorry for the typo.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Has the right ever been anything than oppression in the service of kleptocracy? Racism and authoritarianism may have sincere roots (not justifiable, but sincere), but it doesn't take much for them to mutate into cynical covers for theft.
I have been wondering much the same thing of late.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Watching Colbert's opening monologue on tonight's "Late Show". He called Sean Spicer "the MC Escher of bullsh*t". He showed clips of Spicer explaining the Flynn situation. Spicer actually scared, rather than angry or defensive. Maybe he's becoming aware.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Has the right ever been anything than oppression in the service of kleptocracy? Racism and authoritarianism may have sincere roots (not justifiable, but sincere), but it doesn't take much for them to mutate into cynical covers for theft.
I have been wondering much the same thing of late.
Can't find the source online, but I am reminded of a couple of quotes attributed to Seymour Hersh, round about the time of Watergate. From memory.
"The abiding characteristic of this (Nixon) administration is that it lies".
"Administrations vandalise constitutional rights. It's what they do".
But I did find this Hersh quote online which also speaks to the point. It related to the Bush administration, but looks to be transferable.
"The National Security Adviser is supposed to be an arbiter of policy and open minded in internal debates. But the playing field was never balanced."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Is the White House Counsel's job to provide objective legal advice to the President to enable him to do his job better? Or is it to provide a legal imprimatur to the President so that he can wave a piece of paper around and say 'my lawyer says this is fine - if you don't like it, sue me'? Those aren't the same thing. And is the legal advice accessible under any sort of Access to Information?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is the White House Counsel's job to provide objective legal advice to the President to enable him to do his job better? Or is it to provide a legal imprimatur to the President so that he can wave a piece of paper around and say 'my lawyer says this is fine - if you don't like it, sue me'? Those aren't the same thing. And is the legal advice accessible under any sort of Access to Information?
Here's a link, Enoch.
Traditionally, the role has been to prevent the White House from getting into legal hot water, rather than provide a legal fig leaf for legally questionable policies.
But the Trump White House appears to have a somewhat dismissive view of all such niceties.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The conspiracy theory is that Trump already had some kind of a deal with someone in Russia and the quid pro quo was the Hillary hack to help him get into power. All done through intermediaries of course, one of whom might have been Flynn.
An intriguing update from CNN.
It is a leak of course. And no doubt will be characterised as "false news". But it feeds the theory.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There are two theories about this. One is that the PG's team was aware; this is all a deep cunning plot and we'll wake up one day with the hammer and sickle flying from our flagpoles. Deliberate and intentional sedition, in other words: a sin of commission.
The other (to which I personally incline) is that it's raw incompetence. Nobody realized that giving a Russian spy a clandestine shag would lead to this. Nobody had ever read John LeCarre or even Ian Fleming, or even seen the movies, or Homeland on TV. It was just fun, a one-night stand that would do in Hillary and win the White House for us. They dined with the Devil and didn't think to bring a long spoon. In other words, it was sedition by stupidity, a sin of omission. (Omitting all intelligent thought is omission, right?)
The question then becomes, is the penalty for deliberate sin the same as for stupid sin?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Pangolin wrote:
quote:
Yes, it does seem that way, and indicates an ideological nihilism that I find unsettling. Years ago, when I was squatting in academia, I had the opportunity to have an informal conversation with an ex-KGB colonel*. I asked him whether the KGB, as a strategy of destabilisation, had ever funded or otherwise supported right-wing groups in western Europe, neo-nazis in West Germany, P2 or Ordine Nero in Italy, etc. Not only was he emphatic in saying that the KGB did no such thing, he seemed personally offended at the suggestion. I found it in some perverse way reassuring that however morally bankrupt the respective opponents were, at least the battle lines were clear. Now, not so much. Putin may be ex-KGB, but he is in service not to an ideology by to himself and his cohort.
This is not an unprecedented shift. The USA went from supporting international anti-colonial movements, eg. Benito Juarez in Mexico and the Fenians on the Canadian border, ostensibly in homage to its own anti-colonial origins, to supporting the worst sort of elitist, neo-colonial riffraff, eg. pretty much any of their Cold War client states, but we'll confine ourselves to the Saudi royal family and the Latin American oligarchs.
In a nutshell, when the enemy was Europe, the allies were colonial insurgencies. When the enemy was the anti-imperialist USSR, the allies became pretty much any third-worlder who was overly fretful about Communism, which more often than not meant those who were rich, and had ancestral or political ties to the former metropolitan.
[ 15. February 2017, 14:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
In a nutshell, when the enemy was Europe, the allies were colonial insurgencies.
Well, some colonial insurgencies. The Haitian Revolution was an insurgency too far for the antebellum American republic, largely for domestic political reasons.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
In a nutshell, when the enemy was Europe, the allies were colonial insurgencies.
Well, some colonial insurgencies. The Haitian Revolution was an insurgency too far for the antebellum American republic, largely for domestic political reasons.
Heh. Yeah, it's been pointed out that Jefferson denounced the Haitian Revolution AFTER he had defended the Reign Of Terror.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Reportedly, Trump is considering Gen. David Petraeus to replace Flynn. (HuffPost)
Small problem: Petraeus has already proved that he can't handle classified info. He gave some to his biographer/mistress.
Not a great pick for a national security advisor.
In any case, he is under probation by State of Virginia authorities after his conviction, and would need his probation officer's permission to take employment outside the state, even in Washington. I do wonder what satirical writers would do with that one.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Reportedly, Trump is considering Gen. David Petraeus to replace Flynn. (HuffPost)
Small problem: Petraeus has already proved that he can't handle classified info. He gave some to his biographer/mistress.
Not a great pick for a national security advisor.
In any case, he is under probation by State of Virginia authorities after his conviction, and would need his probation officer's permission to take employment outside the state, even in Washington. I do wonder what satirical writers would do with that one.
Could Trump grant him a Presidential pardon? It would be a bit strange to grant him a PP and then hire him for a high-level government job, but nothing that Trump does can surprise me anymore.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
Seems like only yesterday that the screeching arm of the tea party was calling him General Betray Us.
But that was when he worked for Obama.
[ 15. February 2017, 16:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Reportedly, Trump is considering Gen. David Petraeus to replace Flynn. (HuffPost)
Small problem: Petraeus has already proved that he can't handle classified info. He gave some to his biographer/mistress.
Not a great pick for a national security advisor.
In any case, he is under probation by State of Virginia authorities after his conviction, and would need his probation officer's permission to take employment outside the state, even in Washington. I do wonder what satirical writers would do with that one.
And would he be able to get top level security clearance?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Seems like only yesterday that the screeching arm of the tea party was calling him General Betray Us.
I always thought that it was liberals who referred to him by that epithet, and wiki seems to back me up on that.
Possible the Tea Partiers used it too. I don't really have a dog in the fight, since I have no solid feelings either way about Petraeus. I'm not even sure why it was that people were angry at him.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Looks like Kallyanne may have been demoted, at least unofficially Instead they brought out Steve Miller on the Sunday Circuit. Now he is a piece of work. Even in high school, he was known as a dick. He complained about minority groups He even said disparaging things about the school's janitor staff.
He has no original thought. He kept saying he could prove that hundreds of illegal voters were bussed into New Hampshire but he offered no proof. Even the state secretary of New Hampshire said it never happened.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Pigwidgeon asks:
quote:
Could Trump grant him a Presidential pardon? It would be a bit strange to grant him a PP and then hire him for a high-level government job, but nothing that Trump does can surprise me anymore.
and then Cliffdweller poses a question:
quote:
And would he be able to get top level security clearance?
Clearly, yes to the first, as there are no limitations to presidential pardons (as there are for some state governors) and AFAI yes to the second, although there might be some statutory requirement I'm not aware of.
Whether or not Mr Trump makes those decisions are entirely political as far as I can figure out.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Stetson:
You're right, as a shift, per se, not unprecedented in the American case. In the Soviet case, they seemed to have been pretty ideologically consistent 1953-89+. Under Putin, it has become pure, utter, personal self-interest. Ideology be damned.
Putin and Trump are actually well matched in that I think that both see international relations in a 1815-1919 Great Power paradigm, in which national interest trumps (unintended) ideological considerations. Taken to the extreme, in Trump's view, it is more important that America thrive than a democratic America thrive.
Tangentially, I recommend Vladimir Sorokin's Day of The Oprichnik, a dystopian satire 'in the near future' which equates Putin's Russia (or, its logical conclusions) with that of the Muscovy of Ivan the Terrible. Unfortunately, the English translation provides very little in the way of notes, so if you aren't on intimate terms with Russian history, a lot will be missed. Worth the effort, nonetheless.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Taken to the extreme, in Trump's view, it is more important that America thrive than a democratic America thrive.
This seems pretty consistent with what you hear from Bannon, if you find some of his old talks. Lots of emphasis on "Judaeo-Christian Capitalism" without any mention of democracy.
I once sat through a classmate's presentation about how Pinochet's Chile might demonstrate how an absence of democratic freedoms might be the best way to develop a strong capitalist system. We might have guys willing to test this theory at the top right now...
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I wonder whether Ms Conway's ebullient support of Ivanka Trump's product lines on television was a further attempt to entrench herself as a highly favored member of the Trump team. She mentioned how she and Ivanka were great friends in the same interview. Perhaps she is trying to cultivate that friendship, and thus the favor of Trump himself, in the hope of becoming untouchable in an administration that is apparently riven by internal rivalries.
As other posters have mentioned, she has many years experience in politics. She knows the law. Perhaps she regards legal compliance and ethical behavior as factors to be weighed in the balance when determining how best to advance her interests.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Taken to the extreme, in Trump's view, it is more important that America thrive than a democratic America thrive.
This seems pretty consistent with what you hear from Bannon, if you find some of his old talks. Lots of emphasis on "Judaeo-Christian Capitalism" without any mention of democracy.
I think you are generous. If Crooked Donald's desire was for America to thrive it would astound me. It is clear that his goal is for his family and financial interests to thrive. America is a distant second, and the unfortunate GOP is way back there in the pack somewhere.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I'm talking about Bannon rather than Trump here. Trump is the face and mouthpiece of the operation, and sure, he hopes to make a fortune off of it. But there are greater policy aspirations behind the loudmouth up front.
In Bannon's own words (long transcript follows).
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Brenda:
To expand on my point, I suspect that in Trump's world view a (democratic or not) thriving America's telos is as a means of material enrichment, for him and his coterie (not just Ivanka, but Melania suing because the Daily Mirror scuppered her First Lady marketing opportunities!), not the common weal. I want my car to "thrive" as a means of transportation, not as a good in itself or means to "a more perfect" fill-in-the-blank (union, citizen/citizenry, etc): America as Trump's chauffeured limo.
We are, essentially, in agreement.
[ 16. February 2017, 00:23: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
I think the money/grifter aspect of Trump is just so ingrained into him Trump doesn't even notice that behaviour anymore. He would call it entrepreneurship and to him its as normal as breathing.
I think Trump is a true believer in making America into something he thinks is great.
What Trump really wants is to be this time period's version of Ronald Reagan, except with more of a brain.
He wants to be the sunny change agent from the perceived incompetent Democrat who proceeded him, and thus be loved by Hollywood, the people and business peers. Its a bit of a fantasy for him.
He is a true believer in his own ability to copy this pattern and once again make America great after it had become not great under the perceived incompetent.
This fantasy is why he gets so angry at people not liking him. Its why he is up there with world figures and acting sunny with them until he gets asked a question that undermines him and then he lashes out. This fantasy is also why he has been so prickly about numbers and stating how he is loved by so many people.
I don't think he's in it for the grift - he's in it for the ego and for getting America back to a time he liked - the 80's.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It's getting serious in the pundit class. The dean of the opnionators at the POST calls the PGinChief unfit to serve. A friend of mine points out that George F. Will (the eminence grise of the right-wing columnists) has said the same thing. When two such very opposite men say the same, it cannot be ignored.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's getting serious in the pundit class. The dean of the opnionators at the POST calls the PGinChief unfit to serve. A friend of mine points out that George F. Will (the eminence grise of the right-wing columnists) has said the same thing. When two such very opposite men say the same, it cannot be ignored.
Sadly, I think you are wrong. A lesson that we should all have learnt over the last year is that opinion has almost zero value, and will mostly be ignored. I had to wean myself off the Washington Post when it dawned on me that all they were printing was comforting opinion pieces that I agreed with and wanted to read - they weren't influencing anybody unless they came up with real scoops, and there have been precious few of those. If they can make a solid case for treason charges against the Fart and the barnacles that cling to him, then we'll be getting somewhere, but I don't think we're there yet.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's getting serious in the pundit class. The dean of the opnionators at the POST calls the PGinChief unfit to serve.
Unfortunately I (and I assume others) have reached our monthly limit of free clicks at the Washington Post. The workaround I had previously found seems no longer to work. I'd love to read the article you've linked to, but I'm not going to subscribe to the Post. If you still have access (which you seem to do), could you please summarize the article for us without quoting verbatim? Thanks.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I live in the area, so the Post is my local paper. Are you aware that the WaPo subscription is free for those with .edu, .mil, .gov email addresses or Amazon Prime? Go to their web site and slide to the bottom; I think the information is under the tab 'subscribe'. Alternatively, do you have a public library card? Go to your library's web site, and log on. You may well be able to read all these periodicals through their web site. Not for free, but free in the sense that the subscription is already paid for by your county or city taxes.
Dionne points out that Crooked Donald has lost the confidence of much of the country; if he is not seditious he looks too much like it. And that it is the duty of Congress to investigate the heck out of the situation. Nothing outrageously novel, but the headline, and from Dionne, is new. Many people were willing to give the PG a chance; now he's had it and it has not gone well.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... Lots of emphasis on "Judaeo-Christian Capitalism"...
I must be missing something. What's the connection between the double adjective and the noun there?
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough
... Dionne points out that Crooked Donald has lost the confidence of much of the country ...
So what? Stuff whether the country has lost confidence in him. Now he's in power, he's grabbed it by the p***y. The press, the thinking classes, those with any brains in their heads or moral integrity in their spirits, can all complain.
Talking and disapproving are not enough. Unless there are still other levers of power within the system, and those who actually have their hands on any of those levers are skilled enough, angry enough and are prepared to use them, he can ignore you.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Various shows are refusing to book Kellyanne (Yahoo).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Pangolin Guerre--
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Brenda:
To expand on my point, I suspect that in Trump's world view a (democratic or not) thriving America's telos is as a means of material enrichment, for him and his coterie (not just Ivanka, but Melania suing because the Daily Mirror scuppered her First Lady marketing opportunities!), not the common weal.
Please explain. AFAIK, Melania doesn't have a business. All she wants to do is stay in Manhattan to take care of her son. And she reportedly is very unhappy with being first lady.
Thx.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Brenda Clough
The general guideline we have for links to subscription sites is that if they aren't accessible to all members for free, we may provide the link (for those who can get it) but should also provide a brief summary of the relevant point(s) the link supports. if in doubt, do the summary anyway. Personally, unless the content of the link is obvious, my normal practice is to do both.
I've been a bit remiss in not pointing this out earlier; sorry for that. A "slip of the brain".
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Pangolin Guerre--
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Brenda:
To expand on my point, I suspect that in Trump's world view a (democratic or not) thriving America's telos is as a means of material enrichment, for him and his coterie (not just Ivanka, but Melania suing because the Daily Mirror scuppered her First Lady marketing opportunities!), not the common weal.
Please explain. AFAIK, Melania doesn't have a business. All she wants to do is stay in Manhattan to take care of her son.
It's not the Daily Mirror. It's the Daily Mail:
From the Guardian.
I love the claim that she's suing because she has lost the opportunity to use the position of First Lady for profit but of course she doesn't want to do so.
The Trump family vs the Daily Mail. How to pick a side...
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Various shows are refusing to book Kellyanne (Yahoo).
CNN said the same thing and then had her on.
Richard Deitsch from Sports Illustrated has indicated that much of this is actually what's called in wresting a worked shoot. Something that looks like its a real argument between the media and a person but isn't really.
There are individual journalists at CNN and other organizations working to report and do journalism on this administration. But the live TV booking aspect of those networks is all about the eyeballs.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Thank you to Dafyd for the correction and the link.
GK, as to Melania's misery, I sincerely don't wish her pain, but as we say in Canada (probably not exclusive to us), Ya dance with the lady what brung ya. If anyone deserves pity, it's young Barron.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Please explain. AFAIK, Melania doesn't have a business. All she wants to do is stay in Manhattan to take care of her son. And she reportedly is very unhappy with being first lady.
Thx.
Like her daughter-in-law, Melania has put her name on cosmetics, jewelry, fashion, etc., including $150-an-ounce caviar moisturizer.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Various shows are refusing to book Kellyanne (Yahoo).
If only the media had that kind of integrity before the election.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... Lots of emphasis on "Judaeo-Christian Capitalism"...
I must be missing something. What's the connection between the double adjective and the noun there?
It is his term rather than mine. As I said above, you can read in his own words what this means to him.
TL/DR: Bannon seems to think that the two greatest aspects of Western culture are "Judaeo-Christian" values (read: moral values that conform to traditional norms) and capitalism. He believes that both aspects are under attack, both externally by ISIS and like-minded groups, and internally, with the left attacking traditional moral norms and the right replacing pure capitalism with crony capitalism (bailouts, free trade agreements that take away manufacturing jobs, lose immigration laws to cut the price of labor, etc.). He sees large coastal cities as the center of both internal attacks, a characterization that played a major part in Trump's strategy and victory. He seems to believe that there was a golden age where morally conforming members of the middle class could get ahead, and that that world has disappeared. And naturally, he would like to bring it back.
Now for the purposes of my comment above, one of the interesting things about the speech is that he leaves out a few things that many might consider to be great aspect of Western culture, republican or democratic forms of government, and civil liberties. Making America Great Again is not about building up strong democratic institutions or protecting individual liberties. It is about favoring traditional moral values, and making conforming individuals feel like the government is protecting their economic interests.
A lot to pick apart and disagree with there, to be sure. But it's useful to read, because he's really not that hard to understand, and it might help put the whole sometimes chaotic movement into better context.
[ 16. February 2017, 16:20: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Under the term: Trouble in the White House
Another advisor, Sebastian Gorka, has been photographed with a medal that was used to identify Nazi collaborators in Hungry. See this report.
Don't tell me this administration is not filled with known fascists.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Wow, re Gorka. (I skimmed the article.)
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Haitian Revolution[/URL] was an insurgency too far for the antebellum American republic, largely for domestic political reasons.
Insurgencies are (in the view of the US power structure) only OK when perpetrated by white people. Compare the handling of the Bundy gang's occupation in Oregon vs. Black Lives Matter protests.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
"Judeo-Christian values" is so post-second world war it's not funny. Is this an episode of Foyles War? The term is an undead term used by a bloke who could not be fairly described as Jewish or Christian.
I'd like to hear-hear and stamp my feet at the idea that at this point, you need a hand on a powerful lever to have any chance of touching Trump. Fortunately, the USA's federal system means that there are a plethora of levers, many controlled by Democrats. That immigration battle was a MASSIVE WIN. Round 3 is coming up soon as the Administration re-drafts the executive order, but they are still 0-2, and a substantial limb of injustice, that those out of the country couldn't get back, has been hacked off.
Unless something amazing happens, Trump's going to be President for the next four years. I reckon American Lawyers can keep him pretty tied up. And he thinks the media is the enemy ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Thanks to everyone who provided info about Melania's jewelry business.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
According to this report in the Guardian , it seems that Trump's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Mr Andrew Puzder, has also been forced to withdraw. The report suggests that Puzder advocated a labor policy that favoured robots over humans and that "his burger empire was built on low pay, wage theft, sexual harassment and intimidation". Isn't that what every one of Trump's business mates wants?
Can any USA-based shipmates tell us more?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Can any USA-based shipmates tell us more?
He employed an undocumented immigrant as a housekeeper for several years, and didn't pay employment taxes. He has in the past supported immigration reform measures that are in direct opposition to the Trumpist xenophobia.
Plus his ex-wife went on Oprah years ago and claimed he was abusive. But that doesn't make a difference - Republicans are comfortable with that.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Further trouble.
Other reports suggest that Harwood was concerned about the muddy chain of command.
Whatever his reasons, it's another blow to team formation.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Even the kindest and most charitable pro-PG observer must admit that Crooked Don is the pattern-card of bad bosses. Abusive, disorganized, contradictory, short-fused, mendacious (and this is completely putting aside the misogyny, racism, and grabbing of genitals) -- he's the nightmare you never want to work for. You pay for the prestige or the salary in wear on your stomach lining and gray in your hair. Unless you were desperate, or deluded, you would never sign on with him.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I'm looking for an American newspaper with a mainstream conservative and intellectually rigorous reputation. Obviously I'm interested in their political reporting and analysis and not much else. By mainstream conservative I mean a paper that perhaps supported the smaller Bush administration, but not uncritically.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
While you're at it, why don't you wish for a pony, too?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm looking for an American newspaper with a mainstream conservative and intellectually rigorous reputation. Obviously I'm interested in their political reporting and analysis and not much else. By mainstream conservative I mean a paper that perhaps supported the smaller Bush administration, but not uncritically.
In my former RL, I had to occasionally scan the US media for such, and found the Wall Street Journal fairly good for this (their Saturday edition IMHO is not a bad North American match for the Weekend FT). One of my media friends thought that the Washington Times fit the bill well, and a quick scan of a current issue suggests that it might.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Cheers. That makes sense. The Australian paper I was modeling my fantasy American paper on was The Financial Review. I'll give it a look.
On another front, I noticed some fake news reports recently. One said that Trump wears false teeth. Those are not his real teeth, but a set donated by his helicopter pilot. Another said that there was a terrorist attack in Sweden yesterday.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The Washington Times is famously funded by the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Moon. The cult is particularly known for the group weddings (200 couples or so at a time). Their reportage is allegedly independent, but I would hesitate to support them monetarily. The paper is almost completely unknown in the DC area. They used to give it to us for free, where I work (just drop it on the doorsteps of the office buildings) but nobody would pick them up to read and they would pile up untidily in the vestibule until the janitor carted them away.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Cheers. That makes sense. The Australian paper I was modeling my fantasy American paper on was The Financial Review. I'll give it a look.
On another front, I noticed some fake news reports recently. One said that Trump wears false teeth. Those are not his real teeth, but a set donated by his helicopter pilot. Another said that there was a terrorist attack in Sweden yesterday.
Mind you, some of us bolshie Canadians, labouring under the dual oppression of Queen Elizabeth and a single-payer health system, find the New York Times & the Washington Post both lickspittle corporate lackies, so our notion of what is conservative should be looked at with care.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Brenda - thanks for the reminder re access to The Washington Post through the local library, it even extends down here.
Huia - at the other end of the world
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So, as on the Standing With Sweden thread, our hope that there is Trouble is deluded, irrelevant. He's doing more than fine, Kellyanne is his Condi, his Athena. It's rally all the way, 100 times, to glorious retirement in 2025. Meanwhile Christians need to get invisibly busy being incarnational in the real world.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It's an interesting point that "being incarnational" might actually entail consciously not ranting, despite, the flak that might bring.
(Just considering strategy in the event of a Le Pen win you understand).
[ 20. February 2017, 11:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, exactly, it comes with the opportunity cost of not actually doing anything for its own reward and actually being part of the problem, reinforcing the demagoguery.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Brenda wrote:
quote:
The Washington Times is famously funded by the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Moon. The cult is particularly known for the group weddings (200 couples or so at a time).
I think I might have mentiones this somewhere on the Ship recently, but I've known a few Moonies(and yes, they do answer to that name) here in Korea who were married in arranged, mass weddings. The couple I knew best seeemed rather happy.
The Moonies I've met have almost all been foreigners, ie. not Korean, though a few of the women were married to Korean men(who I've never met). For whatever reason, the Unification Church doesn't seem to have caught on much with the average person over here.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Remember all those conservatives who were defending Milo Yiannopoulos' right to say whatever damn thing he wants on someone else's podium? I wonder how many are still gonna be saying that now?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm looking for an American newspaper with a mainstream conservative and intellectually rigorous reputation. Obviously I'm interested in their political reporting and analysis and not much else. By mainstream conservative I mean a paper that perhaps supported the smaller Bush administration, but not uncritically.
Do you happen to have found a mysterious old lamp recently?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm looking for an American newspaper with a mainstream conservative and intellectually rigorous reputation. Obviously I'm interested in their political reporting and analysis and not much else. By mainstream conservative I mean a paper that perhaps supported the smaller Bush administration, but not uncritically.
Simon:
Not a newspaper, but a columnist you might find interesting is Rachel Marsden, a Canadian-born conservative, now based in Paris, and writing in what I would broadly call the populist current, eg. pro-Brexit, pro-Trump, skeptical without being outright xenophobic on immigration etc. She's also pretty pro-Russian and pro-Putin, as you could probably surmise from her other enthusiasms.
I don't really subscribe to her whole worldview, but she is a relatively thoughful and informed defender of one particular, fairly influential, tendency of conservativism these days.
[ 20. February 2017, 17:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Brenda wrote:
quote:
The Washington Times is famously funded by the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Moon. The cult is particularly known for the group weddings (200 couples or so at a time).
I think I might have mentiones this somewhere on the Ship recently, but I've known a few Moonies(and yes, they do answer to that name) here in Korea who were married in arranged, mass weddings. The couple I knew best seeemed rather happy.
The Moonies I've met have almost all been foreigners, ie. not Korean, though a few of the women were married to Korean men(who I've never met). For whatever reason, the Unification Church doesn't seem to have caught on much with the average person over here.
The Washington scuttlebutt is that the Times either is, or is being maintained so that in future it can be, an advocate for Moonie issues in the nation's capital. It also functions as a tax shelter -- the good Lord alone knows that the paper is not making any money. You can tell by hefting it that it has perhaps a tenth of the pages of the Post. Rumor also has it that the Unification church has a stake in many of the Japanese and Korean restaurants around town. It is far easier to launder money through small businesses.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
scuttlebutt
Well that's just the kind of thorough-going, well-documented reasearch that definitely won't be classified as "fake news", and makes the lunatic Republican rumour mill look stupid and ready to latch on to any conspiracy theory ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
scuttlebutt
Well that's just the kind of thorough-going, well-documented reasearch that definitely won't be classified as "fake news", and makes the lunatic Republican rumour mill look stupid and ready to latch on to any conspiracy theory
It is a known fact that the Washington Times is owned by the Moonies. Whether it's being maintained to advance Moonie interests in the future, I don't know(the Church does not exactly seem to have a bright road ahead, membership-wise), but certainly such an agenda would plausibly have been in the Reverend's mind when he started it up.
As for the restaurants, well, I do know that the Moonies own numerous businesses in Korea and the US, possibly elsewhere, and are known for making political donations, as well as donations to religious organizations(google "Jerry Falwell Reverend Moon"). Whether this fits the legal defintion of "money laundering", I don't know. I think that usually applies to money being moved from criminal enterprises into seemingly legit businesses, doesn't it? Apart from Moon's tax problems in the early 80s, I haven't heard many allegations of outright criminality in the organization.
[ 21. February 2017, 03:32: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is a wide gray area when it comes to churches, at least as far as taxes go. If you can just organize yourself as a church then (however wacky your creed) many benefits can accrue, and abuses are rife. But it's difficult to crack down, because established churches do enjoy their breaks and fight to keep them.
The Unification Church gossip has been rolling around for at least twenty years, nothing new. A number of the more respected journalists at the Times quit in a huff some years ago, because the Church tried to meddle in their editorial stance. After that they gave up trying to have subscribers and are now mainly on line. Which is a sort of answer to the OP -- this is not a respected news outlet, and is by no means major in the DC area. Look at it on their web site if you want, but I wouldn't send them money. There are better papers.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The ownership is a matter of public record. The aspersions cast on ethnic restaurants, less so, and that is what I was objecting to.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The ownership is a matter of public record. The aspersions cast on ethnic restaurants, less so, and that is what I was objecting to.
Well, from the LA Times...
Big Seafood Business Helps Keep the Rev. Moon Afloat
It seems the church controls a lot of the sushi industry in the US. Doesn't say much, if anything, about them owning the restaurants directly though.
Personally, if somebody said, even inaccurately, that a certain place was owned by the Moonies, it wouldn't have a negative impact on my decision to go there, because, apart from their right-wing politics(which is shared with lots of other groups), I really don't have much against the Unification Church.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
( As an aside, i Do have a bit against the Unification Church. I'd got to know a Unification Church member while she was giving out tracts in our town centre. A coffee and chat was about to happen in two days time as she had indicated to me that she was scared. She never showed. The house they were staying in was suddenly empty. A postcard arrived from a distant european country, with just her name on the bottom. Thirty seven years on...i do rather wonder what happened to her.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a wide gray area when it comes to churches, at least as far as taxes go. If you can just organize yourself as a church then (however wacky your creed) many benefits can accrue, and abuses are rife.
Yes, L Ron Hubbard, we're looking at you.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Wait until they enact the promised repeal of legislation preventing churches from lobbying. Then you'll see the faux denominations pop out of the woodwork. Satanists, the church of Cthulhu, the Pastafarians.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
( As an aside, i Do have a bit against the Unification Church. I'd got to know a Unification Church member while she was giving out tracts in our town centre. A coffee and chat was about to happen in two days time as she had indicated to me that she was scared. She never showed. The house they were staying in was suddenly empty. A postcard arrived from a distant european country, with just her name on the bottom. Thirty seven years on...i do rather wonder what happened to her.)
Fair enough. There's obviously a lot going in the group that outsiders aren't aware of, some of it possibly of a dodgy nature.
I guess my main point is that, contrary to the general stereotype, the Moonies I have met did not seem brainwashed. At least no moreso than, say, Roman Catholics who turned a blind eye to priestly sex abuse because "Well, everyone sins, and those men do such good work for the community."
One of my encounters with a Moonie was rather odd. She had been a teacher at my school prior to my arrival, and seconds after being introduced to her, I mentioned that I was living in her old apartment, with a few other teachers. Her reply...
"I hope you're not having pre-marital sex, because I don't believe in that."
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
What an odd remark. Does she really not believe that premarital sex happens?
Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm looking for an American newspaper with a mainstream conservative and intellectually rigorous reputation. Obviously I'm interested in their political reporting and analysis and not much else. By mainstream conservative I mean a paper that perhaps supported the smaller Bush administration, but not uncritically.
Do you happen to have found a mysterious old lamp recently?
Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm looking for an American newspaper with a mainstream conservative and intellectually rigorous reputation. Obviously I'm interested in their political reporting and analysis and not much else. By mainstream conservative I mean a paper that perhaps supported the smaller Bush administration, but not uncritically.
Have you looked at the Christian Science Monitor?
[ 01. March 2017, 21:45: Message edited by: Meconopsis ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Getting back to the original topic of this thread: Kellyanne’s latest faux pas.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Getting back to the original topic of this thread: Kellyanne’s latest faux pas.
In the article, she's quoted as saying:
quote:
People should take very seriously the import of their words
I'm guessing her double standard is invisible to her.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
They probably have the motto engraved on their calling cards: For me, not you. I get to insult people or talk like a moron, you get every remarked jumped upon and denounced. Oh, and I get Supreme Court nominees, you don't, and I get to send troops off to Yemen.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I do rather like the new way of answering questions in the Trump White House.
Questioner: Did you steal the biscuits?
Answer: No.
Questioner: What about this <evidence of biscuit stealing>
Answer: Oh I thought you were asking me about biscuits I didn't steal.
Official WH Spokesman: HOW DARE you ask honorable members of the WH team about biscuits! It doesn't matter if they steal biscuits! What matters is that you people have NO RESPECT.
Trump: You've never met anyone who loves biscuits less than me. Listen: I can't even be in the same room as a biscuit, can't stand the sight of them. It's the truth.
Journalists: Turns out that Trump has a massive biscuit empire.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Heard on the news that the Attorney General is in hot water for lying to Congress, during his confirmation hearing, about contact with Russia.
I really hope someone is turning all of this into a series of comic books.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
The comic books will of course be printed in Russia!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Could I ask a question of US Shipmates?
Has there been any criticism of Kellyanne Conway not for the person she's representing but of her own professional ability?
In the video clips I've seen of her, she doesn't come across as very good at her job. For somebody whose presumably supposed to be good at PR and persuasion, she just doesn't persuade. She may think she does, but unless there is some cross-cultural difference involved, she doesn't. She talks flat out in a loud, shouty voice that's actually rather monotone, a bit like a machine gun. It's as though she's terrified that if she leaves even a breathing space, her questioner will get in another question that she won't be able to answer. To me, it makes her look insecure, a bit like a rabbit in the headlights. It is as though she thinks that because she never gave her questioner the chance to return her serve, she must have won the argument.
People who are confident of their position normally speak slowly, with appropriate modulation. It makes what they say easier to take in, and more persuasive.
Has anyone commented on her weaknesses? Are people fooled by them? Or is her native audience simply impressed that she's got guts, that she's shown 'em?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Tukai: quote:
The comic books will of course be printed in Russia!
More likely China - most things are printed in the Far East nowadays. I daresay the Chinese will be crying all the way to the bank.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sessions is in trouble. He was certainly economical with the truth.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Enoch, Kellyanne is of a piece with the entire team fielded by Li'l Donny. Competence and experience have taken a far-distant back seat to the ability to toady, and physical appearance. The PG famously wants people who 'look right'. One cannot be astonished that she is pretty lousy at her job, but her boss doesn't care and therefore she continues.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
I really hope someone is turning all of this into a series of comic books. [/QB]
There's a story in the New York Times today about the Obama administration's final actions. They knew, because of course they had access to all the intelligence reports, about Lyin' Don's contacts with the Russians. But they couldn't tell anyone about it. So they buried the information. Not too deeply. In the first place that an investigative reporter would dig. In the back garden, under a loose layer of compost, stick a few plastic daffs in. And they walked away, whistling idly, and waited for the incoming administration to make the first false step. And of course they did, they could not fail to, because character is destiny.
Which brings me around to that comic book. I see the ex-President as the Magic Negro of TVTropes, saving the nation from his secret HQ. It's probably in the garden shed out back behind his new house in DC. There's an elevator that goes down, to the underground command center where he's keeping all the data sticks, the trapdoors into the government websites, the keys into the secret passages under the White House. He doesn't wear a costume, because that would be inappropriate for an ex-President, but his action team does. A thoroughly ethnically diverse group, of course. In spandex, with jackets. All we need is the name and the logo, and we're good to go with the comic book, which should be a cinch for an action movie...
[ 02. March 2017, 14:18: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
I really hope someone is turning all of this into a series of comic books.
There's a story in the New York Times today about the Obama administration's final actions. They knew, because of course they had access to all the intelligence reports, about Lyin' Don's contacts with the Russians. But they couldn't tell anyone about it. So they buried the information. Not too deeply. In the first place that an investigative reporter would dig. In the back garden, under a loose layer of compost, stick a few plastic daffs in. And they walked away, whistling idly, and waited for the incoming administration to make the first false step. And of course they did, they could not fail to, because character is destiny. [/QB]
All of which of course only confirms my belief that Pres. Obama is one of the finest presidents, with the most impeccable character, we have ever had-- with or without the superhero status and underground batcave.
But of course, when all this comes to light it will be spun by the right and particularly by TrumpCo as evidence that Obama had a vendetta against him and planted evidence to frame him. Oh, wait, we're already there....
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Which brings me around to that comic book. I see the ex-President as the Magic Negro of TVTropes, saving the nation from his secret HQ. It's probably in the garden shed out back behind his new house in DC. There's an elevator that goes down, to the underground command center where he's keeping all the data sticks, the trapdoors into the government websites, the keys into the secret passages under the White House. He doesn't wear a costume, because that would be inappropriate for an ex-President, but his action team does. A thoroughly ethnically diverse group, of course. In spandex, with jackets. All we need is the name and the logo, and we're good to go with the comic book, which should be a cinch for an action movie...
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
He was the reason why I was comfortable with both my children joining the US Army. I wanted their commander in chief to be a man I could trust with their lives. The most intensely admirable quality of our previous Prez is his subtlety, and his ability to play the long game. Qualities which (it is shatteringly plain) do not infest the current holder of the office at all.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sessions is in trouble. He was certainly economical with the truth.
He stepped in it.
We attorneys always advise clients to give the shortest accurate answer possible when under oath. And for the love of God, don't start volunteering information.
I listened to Sen. Franken's question. He didn't even ask if Sessions had met with any Russians. He just asked if, in the future, allegations came up of contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign, would the Sessions be comfortable investigating the allegations.
Sessions then volunteered this answer about how he had not met with any Russians himself.
So not only did he lie under oath, the question didn't even call for that answer. He went out of his way to lie.
They are saying now that he met in his capacity as ranking member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and that he was thinking of that as separate from any roll he had in the Trump campaign. Two problems. First, as I said above, he was never even asked if he met with the Russians in his capacity as a Trump campaign advisor, so he's drawing distinctions that never existed in the question. Second, NPR is reporting that there was a significant uptick in diplomatic meetings with Sen. Sessions this summer, obviously because the diplomats wanted to discuss Trump's possible foreign policy positions.
Just dumb.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I am In No Sense a lawyer.
But I have noticed several lawyers and legal commentators suggesting Sessions is going to (try to) get away with this because he was answering the substance of the question if not the literal one.
The substance being that he says he didn't talk to the Russians as a part of the incoming administration.
Now that is going to be tough to fly, one would think, for two reasons. First, as I said above, he appears to be pointing at stolen biscuits and saying that this wasn't the biscuit he was answering questions about. Second, he said himself that he was some kind of poster-boy (I can't remember the exact quote) for the administration even during the time he was apparently having meetings with the Russians.
It seems to me that in ordinary circumstances it would be kinda hard to prove that someone close to a political administration talking to the Russians was not actually talking - even vaguely - on their behalf when talking to the Russians. So volunteering that one wasn't talking to the Russians seems like a stretch when one had been.
And anyway, presumably during the Senate hearings he wasn't actually a part of the administration (because isn't that the point of the hearing?) so any conversations he had with the Russians can't have been official ones in his administration role anyway.
Either way, it seems like he's painted himself into a corner.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Thanks everyone for the tips re conservative American viewpoints. I've subscribed to the Wall St Journal for $2 till 24 April. The story of my epic bargain is in the main thread. Incidentally, WSJ opinion is that Trump et al are stupid not sinister over the Russian thing, as the Sessions recusal breaks. Sessions does seem to be a monumental eejit for answering the Committee's question in the way he did. It is within a whiff of misleading the senate, if not actually misleading, and he should really just push off in shame.
Thanks especially to Stetson for pointing me towards an articulate right-wing columnist. I shall check her out. I also got a recommendation to the Christian Science Moniter. I always thought Christian Scientists were fruit loops, due to an experience my family had in Yosemite NP when I was a young teenager. Have I unfairly generalised this experience to the detriment of Christian Scientists?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Sorry to double post. This Jeff Sessions bloke has been a senator for 20 years. Does he have a reputation for stupidity, or is his stupidity on this occasion a one-off?
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I also got a recommendation to the Christian Science Moniter. I always thought Christian Scientists were fruit loops, due to an experience my family had in Yosemite NP when I was a young teenager. Have I unfairly generalised this experience to the detriment of Christian Scientists?
My parents were members of the Christian Science church for most of their lives. (The church established a presence in Glasgow early in its history, which is where my father's family became attached to it). I'd characterise them as being extremely logical in their doctrine, generally orthodox in the mainstream protestant sense, but not crazy. It led them along paths that I was relieved to abandon as soon as I could, and the presbyterian gene soon re-emerged in me. As in all denominations, you'll find the occasional zealot who can't engage in discussion of other viewpoints, but I think they are mostly harmless. (Two of my sisters have become Quakers, and one is still with the CS church). Their newspaper has enjoyed a solid reputation for decent and accurate reporting for as long as I can remember, so I'd say that was a good recommendation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
I'd characterise them as being extremely logical in their doctrine, generally orthodox in the mainstream protestant sense, but not crazy.
Except for the aversion to medical treatment. I understand not all are fanatical about that, but isn't prayer is better than medicine still a prominent feature?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Sorry to double post. This Jeff Sessions bloke has been a senator for 20 years. Does he have a reputation for stupidity, or is his stupidity on this occasion a one-off?
It wasn't a one-off. He compounded the error in a written questionnaire response. His argument is I suppose defensible (he was thinking Trump campaign, not normal Senator duties) but it strikes me as a bit too convenient. It's clear that the Trump administration doesn't want too much focus on the Russian dimension during the campaign. So Sessions' claimed "gaffe(s)" certainly helped that cause.
I think Sessions is very loyal to Trump, so I reckon he would know what was expected. Doesn't make his words any less stupid, but I think it makes them understandable.
[ 03. March 2017, 09:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It strikes me that a lot of this can be explained by Trump and co thinking that the information "wouldn't get out" and that he/they would never have to answer questions about them and therefore what nobody knew wouldn't hurt them.
Hence we have the whole phenomena of the presidency attacking intelligent leaks - not because they're untrue, but because they are disloyal.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Hence we have the whole phenomena of the presidency attacking intelligent leaks - not because they're untrue, but because they are disloyal.
Reminds me of a Nixon quote after the 8-0 verdict by the Supreme Court re executive privilege and tapes(which effectively killed his presidency).
"How could they not vote their consciences. support me?"
Large egos get in the way of common sense.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
I'd characterise them as being extremely logical in their doctrine, generally orthodox in the mainstream protestant sense, but not crazy.
Except for the aversion to medical treatment. I understand not all are fanatical about that, but isn't prayer is better than medicine still a prominent feature?
There seems to be a difference between their theory and their practice on this. The few members of the church that I still know will be praying on their way to the doctor just like everybody else, but perhaps that was what they were supposed to do anyway.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I always thought Christian Scientists were fruit loops, due to an experience my family had in Yosemite NP when I was a young teenager. Have I unfairly generalised this experience to the detriment of Christian Scientists?
Their theology you are on your own with. But their newspaper? It is what the Washington Times tried but failed to be: an independent journalistic voice. So far as I know the church does not try to meddle with the paper's coverage (or if they do they act subtly enough that nobody can see). Unfortunately all print newspapers are on their uppers these days, and the CSM doesn't have a large =web= presence. This is a bad omen; you can't be an opinion shaper if nobody is reading your opinions.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Hence we have the whole phenomena of the presidency attacking intelligent leaks - not because they're untrue, but because they are disloyal.
So true! Like so many budding despots the PGinC values devotion to his own person and cult far more than any other abstract principle. He has rejected reasonably competent candidates for cabinet or subcabinet positions, because at one time or another they had said something unkind about him. And there was the whole thing about interviewing Mitt Romney to be Secretary of State -- an exercise in humiliation.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Brilliant comment in the Guardian comments section -
"Trump and Putin are just the bosses of different mafia gangs. All the theatre is just distraction for the Proles, while the bosses and their respective gangs take all the money, made for them by the Proles.
Problem is that the Proles are too stupid to see past the bigotry, racism and lies, which make them feel important and think that their misery is appreciated by their boss.
More misery is coming to the Proles.
And they will still blame the immigrants, single parents and dole-bludgers as the wealth flows to Trump, Putin, May and their gangs.
Ah well.
As Winston said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Ooops!
It appears that Hillary Clinton was not the only one to use private email. Mike Pence did so when he was governor, "at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues."
He was a critic of Clinton. And he will spin this somehow. That's how he rolls.
sabine
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I have this theory that Trump and chums were projecting everything they said in the campaign and since. They went to town on the emails because they had an issue with emails and so on. It wasn't enough to talk sensibly about the Holocaust, Trump had to go to town on how he wasn't anti-Semitic (whilst at the same time as shutting up a Jewish reporter). It wasn't enough to say that he was listening to the Congressional Black Caucus, he had to be seen to be entertaining the uncomfortable-looking leaders of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Every time they deny something - or go to town on what someone else has done, it is an exact cover for something that they've done.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, and obviously with fake news, of which Trump is the master, but projects onto others.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Sarah Palin was the first government official I remember getting into trouble for this sort of thing -- using a Yahoo account. She was hacked because she used the name of her high school (which could be found in any biographical information on her) as a security question.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
You could not make it up!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You could not make it up!
Accuse your opponents of doing what you're doing. Republicans have excelled at this for decades. I'm sure it works with the base. A lie, once told into a willing ear, never comes out.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
As with all of the PGinC's tweets, even when they are superficially moonbat lunatic they usually have a dim distant connection to the real world, usually via Fox News. This may be what he thinks he's talking about, although I would not swear to it. This is a free click and summarizes the actions the previous administration took (or was alleged to take) when they saw the intelligence.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Surely, if an administration became aware that someone was covertly communicating with a foreign power who might not be considered to be friendly, they would be negligent if they did not do what they could to check out what was going on.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Surely, if an administration became aware that someone was covertly communicating with a foreign power who might not be considered to be friendly, they would be negligent if they did not do what they could to check out what was going on.
Unless of course that administration was at the very highest levels complicit in the exact same kind of covert communications.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Sigh. . . .Trump's tweets. It's like the advice against drunk-tweeting your ex. Just don't do it. Don't sleep-deprived-tweet the nation.
But, alas. his supporters (unlike the hapless ex) actually seem to like his tweets. I saw an interview with one women who opened a Twitter account so she could receive them. She said it was thrilling to wake up in the morning and see the latest tweet from him on her feed. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
sabine
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
If you cast your mind back to December/January, you will recall that the PGinC was ubiquitous. Any revelations would have been denounced as partisan sore-losering. Furthermore, they are but clues. More investigation must be done, to lay the true corruption bare. (The tax returns are key; I believe that the Russians have Lyin' Don by the balls through loans and money. They are using rubber gloves, of course, for sanitary purposes, and sugar tongs, because they're wee.)
Warned, the incoming administration could either concoct an airtight cover story, or simply destroy the evidence. The only hope was to hide what evidence there was, so that when the fecal matter hit the propeller unit the data could be found.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Surely, if an administration became aware that someone was covertly communicating with a foreign power who might not be considered to be friendly, they would be negligent if they did not do what they could to check out what was going on.
Unless of course that administration was at the very highest levels complicit in the exact same kind of covert communications.
And cheeto only cares that what happens is beneficial to him.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Public servant / private email: when a woman does it, it's bad. When it turns out a bunch of old white guys do it too, it's suddenly no big deal.
And Pence still uses AOL? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I thought we all tossed those damned discs.
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
Frankly, I don't think it's a gender thing. At least not this time.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Frankly, I don't think it's a gender thing. At least not this time.
I agree partially. The intensity of the focus on Clinton was in part because misogyny. However, the dismissal on the part of Team Trumpelstiltskin is more of the irregular verb type.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I would attribute it to the pervasive and consistent 'For me, not you' mindset of this entire administration. Everything good or positive is for me; everything bad is for you. I am a victim, you are a budding criminal and need many, many Congressional hearings. When I discriminate it is crime-fighting and defending the American people; when you do it you should be denounced. I get draft deferments, you go and die in wars. It's endless.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Whose facts are alternative?
"The Deflector-in-Chief is at it again."
The level of rage only goes to confirm my agreement with Croesos (on the other thread).
Here.
And now Sessions is in trouble with Trump for recusing himself. An act of disloyalty? Or a realisation that a part of his defensive wall has just collapsed?
The Russian connection will run and run.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would attribute it to the pervasive and consistent 'For me, not you' mindset of this entire administration. Everything good or positive is for me; everything bad is for you. I am a victim, you are a budding criminal and need many, many Congressional hearings. When I discriminate it is crime-fighting and defending the American people; when you do it you should be denounced. I get draft deferments, you go and die in wars. It's endless.
I think it goes even further to projection. When Trump makes some wildly hyperbolic accusation or fixates compulsively on someone's infraction, you're pretty much assured that's precisely what he's been about. It's his tell. He's like a comic book villain who can't stop himself from leaving clues at the scene of the crime
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would attribute it to the pervasive and consistent 'For me, not you' mindset of this entire administration. Everything good or positive is for me; everything bad is for you. I am a victim, you are a budding criminal and need many, many Congressional hearings. When I discriminate it is crime-fighting and defending the American people; when you do it you should be denounced. I get draft deferments, you go and die in wars. It's endless.
This isn't just this administration. This is the theme song for the Republican Party.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I saw Mark Levin's so called evidence of Obama's wiretapping authorisations. The bottom line is that the Obama administration will have known that there were ongoing enquiries into Trump-Russian links. That's a far cry from authorising or even setting them in motion. It seems as though Trump's source was a Breitbart report on a Levin broadcast. In other words, far fetched BS.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
mousethief: quote:
This isn't just this administration. This is the theme song for the Republican Party.
You want the new theme song for the Republican Party? Here you go. [NSFW unless you have earphones on]
[ 06. March 2017, 11:35: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It seems as though Trump's source was a Breitbart report on a Levin broadcast. In other words, far fetched BS.
They cannot have failed to notice President Short Attention Span considers them his "intelligence" briefing. How much of their excrement is direcrly intended for his ears, I wonder.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sure. Trump himself must be one of the main causes of trouble in the White House Team. It really does look like the Court of the Mad King.
No way this chaos can last for 4 years.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm actually surprised by how mad it seems. I thought that Trump would buckle down and try to be normal, or something. I guess he can't.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This isn't just this administration. This is the theme song for the Republican Party.
This is demonstrated on a daily basis. I get Supreme Court nominees, you don't. When I hold a gun it is my proper Second Amendment rights, when you hold one the cops will properly shoot you because you deserve it. I get health care and insurance, you are not a maker but a taker. And, of course, promises do not apply to me even if I made them on camera, but you should be held to your lightest utterance.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm actually surprised by how mad it seems. I thought that Trump would buckle down and try to be normal, or something. I guess he can't.
He thinks he is normal. Even without questioning his mental stability, he is a narcissist who lived in an echo chamber his entire adult life. Likely before to an extent.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He thinks he is normal. Even without questioning his mental stability, he is a narcissist who lived in an echo chamber his entire adult life. Likely before to an extent.
Personally I don't really think the amateur mental health analysis is necessary. We probably can't tell if he is mentally ill from a distance; but we can clearly tell that he's an arse.
Where you see the effect of living in an echo-chamber, I see more a deliberate, considered effort to deflect and downplay accusations by repeating them back. I suspect that he's been advised that the accusations lose their power if he reduces them to common-currency knock-about political language. Saying something has happened which is reminiscent of Watergate sounds serious until everyone is using the same language and (as it may well seem) everyone is pointing at everyone else and calling each other Nazis.
I think it is quite a clever way to extinguish attacks.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I saw Mark Levin's so called evidence of Obama's wiretapping authorisations. The bottom line is that the Obama administration will have known that there were ongoing enquiries into Trump-Russian links. That's a far cry from authorising or even setting them in motion. It seems as though Trump's source was a Breitbart report on a Levin broadcast. In other words, far fetched BS.
Trump seems to be completely ignorant about how the U.S. government actually works and has a personality-oriented understanding of the world. Thus when he says "Obama" did something, he seems to equate "Obama" with "everyone in the U.S. government who isn't me".
On the other hand at least one U.S. Senator is claiming that transcripts exist of conversations between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. Senator Coons claims to not have seen these transcripts and expresses frustration at the fact. This interview took place less than 24 hours before Trump's Twitter meltdown about wire taps.
It's conceivable that the possibility that such transcripts exist is terrifying to the White House and this is a ham-fisted attempt to 'flip the script' by getting the public and the press to be (preemptively) more interested in how such transcripts (if they exist) were obtained than what is actually in them. Which is a lot of chutzpah for someone who publicly begged Russia to hack his opponent's e-mail.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Trump seems to be completely ignorant about how the U.S. government actually works and has a personality-oriented understanding of the world. Thus when he says "Obama" did something, he seems to equate "Obama" with "everyone in the U.S. government who isn't me".
That seems very plausible to me, certainly about actions by government agencies prior to Trump becoming President.
He must be a nightmare to work with. He gets plaudits for a much more statesmanlike approach in his address to Congress, then a couple of days later he pisses all over himself again.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Here's a POST article arguing that this is all a deliberate ploy on the PGinC's part that he frequently resorts to, to distract and divert attention from things he wants us to not consider.
As to his hellaciousness as a boss -- is there one woman, one business, one contractor, who can say that working with him went well? One entity who will say, "Yea, I had a relationship with him and it was mutually beneficial, worked out fine"? At the very best you get silence, enforced by prenups or settlements.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
I think it is quite a clever way to extinguish attack
Effective, yes. Not too sure about clever.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He gets plaudits for a much more statesmanlike approach in his address to Congress.
Of which he didn't write one single word. Had he written his own speech, it plus the reaction to it would have been very, very different.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Brilliant comment in the Guardian comments section -
"Trump and Putin are just the bosses of different mafia gangs. All the theatre is just distraction for the Proles, while the bosses and their respective gangs take all the money, made for them by the Proles.
Problem is that the Proles are too stupid to see past the bigotry, racism and lies, which make them feel important and think that their misery is appreciated by their boss.
More misery is coming to the Proles.
And they will still blame the immigrants, single parents and dole-bludgers as the wealth flows to Trump, Putin, May and their gangs.
Ah well.
As Winston said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
Sorry. I don't get to these pages often enough. But Trump, Putin and THERESA MAY all have gangs? THERESA MAY???????????
This commenting person is putting Theresa May in the same category as those two? It's like saying John Major was a bikie, riding along on his Malvern Star trying to keep up with the Banditos.
Maybe if the writer meant May had a gang like Cliff Richard or Annette Funicello had gangs I could accept it, but a mafia gang? Who's her enforcer? Jeremy Hunt?
I mean really. She's a proper Conservative isn't she, not a Breitbart mouthpiece or an Imperialist like Putin. I mean, putting May in there risks clothing the other two in respectable green tartan pants suits.
[ 06. March 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: simontoad ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He gets plaudits for a much more statesmanlike approach in his address to Congress.
Of which he didn't write one single word.
Pretty normal. Presidents have their Sam Seabourns and Toby Zieglers for such major speeches. They just edit a bit - or not at all.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
On the other hand at least one U.S. Senator is claiming that transcripts exist of conversations between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. Senator Coons claims to not have seen these transcripts and expresses frustration at the fact. This interview took place less than 24 hours before Trump's Twitter meltdown about wire taps.
The existence of transcripts of contacts with the Russians was reported weeks ago. Is it likely that a mention of transcripts would have set Trump off? If the calls were monitored, they'd be taped; doesn't seem like transcription would make things worse.
Slate has an article suggesting that maybe it was really Sessions' recusal that precipitated the freakout; Trump & Co. may have been relying on Sessions being in place to hamstring potential investigations.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, President Trump went invisible today, as his Executive Order Mark 2 re immigration was rolled out.
Keeping a lower profile? Although early in the Presidency, it may be a little late for that.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
simontoad: quote:
She's a proper Conservative isn't she, not a Breitbart mouthpiece or an Imperialist like Putin. I mean, putting May in there risks clothing the other two in respectable green tartan pants suits.
If by 'proper Conservative' you mean 'raving neo-Fascist' you could be right. Don't be fooled by the power dressing; she's a control freak (as her record as Home Secretary shows). Since she became Prime Minister the rhetoric coming from Whitehall has become more and more inflammatory (you're going to crush the EU if they don't give you a good deal after leaving, are you, Theresa? You and whose army? You're surely not relying on the Mango Mussolini... oh wait, you are). She is Prime Minister by virtue of being the last senior member of the Government standing after the shambolic referendum campaigns; she actually campaigned (half-heartedly) for Remain but has somehow reinvented herself as the hardest of hard Brexiters. That suggests to me that she doesn't really care what happens to the rest of the country as long as she remains in power... ok, maybe you're right, that is typically Conservative.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
May invited Trump for a state visit only seven days after he became president. Any respect I had for her melted right there and then. She's a right wing and uncaring as the rest of them imo.
I'm glad she doesn't send crazy, infantile tweets in the middle of the night - but her policies will likely be just as damaging as Trump's.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Mrs May made what seems to be a commitment to a Trump state visit invitation so quickly because (a) she was the first foreign head of state to visit Washington after the election, and (b) it was being screeched by everyone - but especially the REMAIN camp - that the Brexit vote would leave the UK isolated and that we should protect the "special relationship" at all costs. The newspapers were also full of the view that UK trade would need to increase exports to the US after leaving the EU.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mrs May shares any of Mr Trump's views, and to suggest otherwise is unfair. Far from being right wing (which you imply is automatically a bad thing) Mrs May has a reputation for being neither of the left nor the right. As for her being "uncaring", again where is your evidence?
The fact is, some people seem to be anti Mrs May simply because she is a conservative: that thinking is as sloppy as it would be for an assumption to be made that anyone who self-described as "left-wing" to have been in sympathy with the likes of George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
[May] actually campaigned (half-heartedly) for Remain but has somehow reinvented herself as the hardest of hard Brexiters. That suggests to me that she doesn't really care what happens to the rest of the country as long as she remains in power...
It suggests to me that she takes the result of the referendum seriously and views it as her duty as PM to carry out the people's stated desire to leave the EU, regardless of her own feelings on the matter.
I'd have far less respect for her as PM if she went into the job with an attitude of "fuck what the people say they want, I'm doing whatever I want to do".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Please take the tangent re Theresa May to the Brexit thread, or, alternatively, open up a new thread if you want to discuss her leadership in more general terms.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, President Trump went invisible today, as his Executive Order Mark 2 re immigration was rolled out.
Keeping a lower profile? Although early in the Presidency, it may be a little late for that.
Even if Ivanka or Bannon are snubbing his leash short, it won't last. He is irrepressible, and they don't seem to have taken away his cell phone. When he takes it with him into the bog that's when the tweets fly.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
Brenda... The mental image you have implanted with that comment is indescribably dreadful.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... When he takes it with him into the bog that's when the tweets fly.
That must, though, be the only time when the crap comes out of the end it is supposed to come out of.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... When he takes it with him into the bog that's when the tweets fly.
That must, though, be the only time when the crap comes out of the end it is supposed to come out of.
And not sua sponte*, I would imagine.
_________________
* Of its own accord
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0