US General Election 2016

He strikes me as a native New Yorker. I think if you see a video of that exchange, you'll see he's enjoying himself. I think Petty nailed it by saying he seems to come straight from the movies, but that's how these guys really talk to each other. It's a jovial sort of confrontational style. It's not something I'm any good at because I'm not from the area, but I get it. The problem with Trump is that he's got the confrontational part down, but not the easy-going undercurrent that makes it fun. I get the fun undercurrent off of Scaramucci, which is why I enjoy him but loathe Trump.

{{ Anyone see Trump's comments regards police using force in arrests? I did. It's been claimed it was meant as a joke, and that's possible though it did not sound like a joke in the traditional sense to me- but thing is, even if it was, it was a hugely stupid, irresponsible, badly timed, never should have been said joke.

For those who missed it whilst addressing a rally of police Trump said the following about detaining suspects-

'When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon. You see them thrown in rough. I said, 'Please don't be too nice.' Like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody. I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'"

Given the often volatile and dangerous relationship in the US between police and public and all the recent cases of police shooting innocent folk ect to say this now is beyond stupidity.
Fortunately most police districts seem to be condemning his words and distancing themselves from him, but not all.
The Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff's Police Benevolent Association and the union representing Cleveland's rank-and-file police officers both said their support was 'unwavering' for Trump and that it was just a joke. Though as Ive no idea who these two groups or or how influential they are its hard to judge the importance of that or how many they speak for.

But no mention of the fact that even as a joke it was a woefully dumb thing to say. }}}

Everyday it seems like there's a new leak, scandal, resignation, firing or rumour, say what you like about the competence of his administration and policies but at least this shitshow isn't boring...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpgret/

Early on I was considering voting for him just for the entertainment value. As he became increasingly loathsome I just couldn't do it, but now I feel like I'm getting ringside seats for free!

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/anthony-scaramucci-white-house-communications-director-184104011--abc-news-topstories.html


NOOOOoooo!! What am I supposed to do with all this $%#@!! popcorn I ordered?

Can't Sqooch the Mooch

{{{ That Trump bus is never short of people thrown under it!
Got to be apparent to everyone by now that accepting a job from Trump is career suicide.

Halfy- I think you might need that popcorn yet for the end of the world- Trump has to make big decisions about N Korea now! }}}

I'm doubling down on popcorn. We're not even done with Monday!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Halfy- I think you might need that popcorn yet for the end of the world- Trump has to make big decisions about N Korea now!      

If it can't be done in 140 characters it ain't happening. Or in other words, N. Korea will just keep doing what they're doing 'cause you can't mobilize grand strategy via Twitter.

{{You can get 'nuke' em' into 140 characters }}

I suppose the launch codes are no more than 20 characters come to think of it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/?utm_term=.5e37094ac06b

http://ijr.com/the-response/2017/08/939744-lazy-boy-trump-taken-vacation-obama-8-years/

http://www.gq.com/story/trump-17-day-vacation

So much for high energy...

Trump seems to be spending most of his vacation time at his various Golf Courses, assuming all his staff/security pay entrance fees and/or refreshments on the premises is he technically paying himself money on these vacations?...Is that legal? Should it be viewed as promoting his business interests?

I would have assumed Presidents had to surrender/wind down conflicting buisness obligations when they took on the job?

That's what all presidents before him did. But it's not actually written in stone anywhere, so he flaunts the tradition (of course, being written down as opposed to broadcast practically ensures he wouldn't be aware of it).

{{Maher gets an Obama impersonator to read Trump quotes!}}

That was brilliant.

https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/10/trump-says-he-is-very-thankful-to-putin-for-expelling-u-s-diplomats-from-russia/

That is not a joke.

So he seems to be under the impression that

A) These diplomatic staff were ''fired'' by Putin, but even though they were ''fired'' the United States was still the ones paying them

B) These diplomats will all automatically be fired or stop being paid merely because they were expelled from Russia...I was under the impression that people were hired for contracts by the Department Of State on a general basis, moved around to different embassies depending on each embassy's current needs, surely these staff will just get reassigned elsewhere? Does Trump actually have the power to directly fire this people (and if he is so happy about this decision, why hasn't he fired staff in other embassies? or ordered cuts to the agency?)

C) That embassy probably employed a lot of local Russian residents who have now lost jobs, and the US may have lost valuable contacts and prestige in the area.

D) He seems to think that if these diplomats are suddenly off the US payroll it will be a significant financial victory for the taxpayer, a few hundred diplomatic staff aren't going to make much of a difference compared to say a 2000 mile long wall across the border with Mexico, or frequent visits to his own Golf courses which are paid by the taxpayer yet end up paying into his own companies...

E) He's crapped on his countries own diplomats and congratulated a foreign power for embarrassing many in his own country and raising political tensions between the two countries.

This wall isn't hard enough. I need the Hoover dam or something.

sturm and drang all over the place.

{{My response to Trump thinking it is either smart or a good idea to see who can be the nuttiest sounding leader on earth in a competition with N. Korea}}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tony-schwartz-trump-resign_us_59952d91e4b06ef724d64fd6

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-carl-bernstein-watergate-journalist-republicans-unfit-office-us-president-media-paul-a7897631.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-john-kelly-trump-discipline-20170816-story.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-40-percent-now-support-trump-impeachment-n793251

I haven't seen a video of Trump's speech on Afghanistan, but from what I've read he's finally acting presidential. Laying out a strategy that focusses on eliminating Taliban rather than nation building, leaving fine-tuning to generals on the ground, etc, etc. Even if you don't agree with it, at least it sounds reasoned for once, and his admission that things look different once you're in the oval office (he's increasing troops rather than decreasing as he promised in his campaign) is the opposite of his usual chest thumping idiocy. I'm hoping his new chief of staff has him under control and we'll see more coherence from now on.

{{Well it at least didn't sound completely insane, yes- some questionable bits though.
I dont agree with the basic underlying assertion upon which the tactics are based so that's an issue (that the mistake made in Iraq was withdrawing the troops- no that wasn't the mistake it was going to war in Iraq in the first place was the mistake, just as invading Afghanistan, Libya and destabilizing Syria was not a good idea).
Giving your Generals freehand to make all the calls is also not always a good idea either- there is reason we have a political class and one of those reasons is so the military dont take major policy designs off their own backs relating to wars. History repeatedly shows Generals given too much autonomy and power tend to be hard to reign back in when you want to.
There was also a, seemingly innocuous, line he said which sent all the alarms off in my head when he talked about giving troops new rules for engagement- given his past statements on the use of torture and contravening the Geneva Convention that worries me.
Its also of course all the complete opposite of what he told his base to get elected he derided Obama for leaving troops there.
Plus if its not nation building what you are sacrificing your troops for? To be the Afghani police forever? Whats the end game if there is no nation building?  Trump says he wants to leave them to run their country as they see fit? So what if they vote in a hard line Muslim group to power? The Taliban or a variant of the Brotherhood for example? What if any future Afghan govt doesn't want US troops there just as the Iraq Govt did not want troops there? I dont see where this strategy is supposed to be going.
There is a danger its just a lethal quagmire without ending.
Plus there was the stuff he said about Pakistan which I am not sure was helpful, particualry not how he portrayed the relationship between India and Pakistan which sounded like a children's book version in its simplifications and did not give me confidence he has any real handle on those countries or their complex relationship.

In response Pakistans leader Khan has so far responded-

'“This should teach Pakistan once and for all a valuable lesson: never to fight others wars for the lure of dollars. We fought 2 wars in Afghanistan at the US behest paying heavy human and economic costs both times. We sacrificed 70000 Pak lives in US WOT. Our economy suffered over $100 billion in losses. In addition, there were intangible costs on our society. Time for Pak to say: Never again." So not only sounds like the loss of a useful ally in the region but also this, indicating Trump speech stirred up rivalries and allocations of neighbourly regional blame best lift unstirred-

'“We must also reject being made scapegoats for the policy failures of the US and India.”
}}}

I think you summed up my feelings in the first line: at least he didn't sound completely insane. Though I also have misgivings, I'd prefer a clear policy I can disagree with to a complete lack of logic I hardly know what to do with.