monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership - [but] "America still wins praise for its people, culture and civil liberties"

Quote:

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

"Confidence?" Confidence in what? Let's be clear about what the issue/question is here, eh, Walt? Your source says:

Pew wrote:

According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs.

The "right thing?" What would that be, according to some foreign country?

What this really boils down to is: Do I think Trump would do what is in MY country's interest?

They are 100% correct if they believe that Trump is not out to serve the interests of foreign countries, like Obama was. Be it Russia, France, Turkey, China, Mexico, Germany, the "Islamic State," or anybody else.

Thank God.

America First, Baby!

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

What this really boils down to is: Do I think Trump would do what is in MY Country's interest?

Exhibit A: " Opposition is especially intense in Mexico, where more than nine-in-ten (94%) oppose the U.S. government erecting a wall."

Exhibit B: "Across the 37 nations polled, Trump gets higher marks than Obama in only two countries: Russia and Israel."

Exhibit C: "Similar levels of global opposition greet Trump’s policy stances on withdrawing from international trade agreements" (which Trump plans to alter in ways that are less beneficial to THEM).

Exhibit D: "Trump, Putin and Xi all unpopular; Merkel gets highest mark." Who among those four would be seen as the easiest patsy to convince to do what YOU want them to do?

Ambrose Bierce wrote:

CHRISTIAN, n: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbors.

3 Replies

@layman,

Zero-sum game thinking.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Zero-sum game thinking.

That's right!

Quote:

Zero-sum is a situation in game theory in which one person's gain is equivalent to another's loss, so the net change in wealth or benefit is zero. ... Poker and gambling are popular examples of zero-sum games since the sum of the amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of the others.

What Trump takes from you is what you're gunna lose, sho nuff.

Think NATO, eh? He aint payin it all no more. Of course the "right" thing for him to do, if you ask some Frog or Kraut, is to keep on shelling out and let them slide, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

The US of A, nowadays, is but a bunch of crooks headed by a con man. You bet people are checking they still got their wallet…

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You got that right! He is out to rip you off, Frog, to the maximum extent possible. And I do mean MAXIMUM.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Exhibit D: "Trump, Putin and Xi all unpopular; Merkel gets highest mark." Who among those four would be seen as the easiest patsy to convince to do what YOU want them to do?

Of course Obama, the known ass-kissing chump, who bows to muslim kings, calls the TPP the "gold standard of trade agreements," and gives Iran billions, would score even higher than Merkel on that scale, I bet.

Centuries ago Machavelli posed the question: "Is it better for a leader to be loved or feared?"

His answer was "feared" because those who "love" you will abandon, betray, or even kill you, as soon as you cease to serve their interests or when they see an opportunity for great personal profit at your expense. On the other hand, he said, they won't do that if the fear you (unless they fear something or someone else more).

Obama would rather be loved than feared. Trump would rather be feared than loved.

0 Replies

@layman,

The punk has easier targets at home: Americans and their money are easily parted.

0 Replies

@layman,

Exhibit D: "Trump, Putin and Xi all unpopular; Merkel gets highest mark."

Tells you the whole story, doesn't it. Hinkey has to be some sort of a total shill who belongs on everybody's ignore list....

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Who's Hinkey?

0 Replies

@layman,

Of course not all lesbians are men-haters and all men-haters are not lesbian, but I know a lesbian couple (who are wonderful people BTW and very conservative). One is very masculine and fits the stereotypical image of a "dyke" (I don't, otherwise, use the word but in some cases they seem to have embraced it the way that band embraced "Slant" or some African-Americans have embraced "n*gger" I get the idea of it, but never make the mistake of assuming that since they've taken the words back, that I as a white heterosexual male get to use them without giving offense) By appearance and mannerism, one would never assume her wife is a lesbian, which is often the case with a lot of gay women, but clearly she is attracted to masculinity, just not in a male package. I know that she was abused by a man as a child and I've often wondered if that has anything to do with her sexual orientation. She's not, by any means, a man-hater, but she might fear intimacy with one. Of course it may all do with how she was wired at birth, but people are pretty complex and while I think we're driven more by nature than nurture, the latter definitely often plays a big role in how we turn out.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the professor has a history of being abused by a man or men and if so I have a great deal of sympathy for her, and certainly a lot more than she has for Otto Warmbier. Nevertheless, whatever her past may be, it's doesn't excuse her horrible behavior as respects Warmbier, and I have no sympathy for her in regards to her losing her job.

She's yet another example of how hatred can consume a person and destroy them from within. I doubt she leads a very happy life and has no chance of doing so as long as she allows her hatred to drive her behavior.

2 Replies

Who knew?:

Quote:

Harvard-Harris Poll: Voters grow weary of Russia probes

Sixty-four percent of voters said the investigations into President Trump and Russia are hurting the country. Fifty-six percent of voters said it’s time for Congress and the media to move on to other issues.

73 percent say they’re concerned that the Russia probes have caused Congress to lose focus on the issues important to them. That figure encompasses 81 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents and 68 percent of Democrats.

The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,237 registered voters was conducted between June 19 and June 21. The partisan breakdown is 35 percent Democrat, 29 percent Republican, 30 percent independent and 6 percent other.

Sixty percent said Comey should have announced that Trump was not the target of an investigation.

62 percent of voters say there is currently no hard evidence to support the collusion claims. Sixty-two percent said they expect that the investigations will not end in impeachment.

In addition, 62 percent said there exists a campaign to delegitimize the president. This includes 87 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats.

“Most voters believe that the president's actions don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses even if some of them were inappropriate,” said Penn. “There does seem to be about 40 percent very dissatisfied with the president and looking to remove him from office if possible, but the majority of voters think that all of this is going nowhere.”

Caveat: I'm posting the results I want to emphasize in this post. You can read the entire summary here if you want:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339146-poll-voters-grow-weary-of-russia-probes

Normally I don't pay much attention to polls. But, with this topic, the whole cheese-eater strategy has been to persuade the public that this russian probe is the most important issue, with the anticipation that public pressure will force republicans to abandon Trump. It aint workin, Sukkaz.

This is a poll where democrats are most heavily represented, and it's not even democrats that they need to sway.

Other recent Harvard-Harris polls show that Trump's approval rating is higher than that of the entire Democratic Party. According to them, his approval rating is 48% while disapproval of the Dems is 60%.

Future political strategists can learn a lot about what NOT to do by studying what the Democrats have done during and after this election, I figure.

2 Replies

@layman,

I do believe that this is additional evidence that the Democrat's "resistance" strategy is both losing effect and hurting themselves far more than their intended targets. They're still locked in denial over the rejection of their anointed candidate by the electorate, and the lack of new leadership, or even the emergence of dissenting voices within the party, over the last decade.

Both Schumer and Pelosi are becoming slightly ridiculous figures in the public perception.

They are certainly able to create tumult in the supporting media and delay the Republican legislative program in the Congress, but so far it appears to be costing them much more than they're getting.

1 Reply

I don't care if they drop some of the stories about Russia in the news as long as those in congress and most specifically Mueller keeps on with his investigation. Both congress and Mueller are far too into, there is too much there to drop it all because people are tired of hearing about it. It was a big thing and it deserves all the investigation it is getting.

0 Replies

@layman,

However what is the chance of Democrats abandoning this strategy?

They are playing to their base and their donors who want to see Trump removed from office. I think it will backfire on them and a lot of them think so too, but they are more afraid of the backlash of the people they need to retain personal power, than they are of the ones who will ultimately take away what power their party has and thereby greatly diminish their own.

Typically, the people who rise to leadership of the parties are from "safe" districts. Nancy Pelosi can come out for jailing the rich and surrendering America to North Korea and she will be re-elected in her district. She won't be Speaker of the House and she might lose her position as Minority Leader, but she will still be a very privileged member of Congress with hopes and dreams of regaining her former glory. She's not going to risk that for the sake of the party, let alone the sake of the country.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I don't necessarily want to see Trump removed from office. Then we would just have Pence who is little better from a democrat point of view.

I just want the truth investigated and the truth out there and for congress to work towards preventing it from happening.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

I don't necessarily want to see Trump removed from office. Then we would just have Pence who little better from a democrat point of view.

I just want the truth invested and the truth out there and for congress to work towards preventing it from happening.

Then you are not part of the 40% cited in the article.

I don't know that there is anyone, of good faith, who doesn't want the "truth" to be discovered and presented to the American people. There are, however, a heck of a lot of Democrats of bad faith who want to see the "truth" shaped as something that removes Trump from office. They may approach this from a prejudicial position that assumes Trump must have colluded because he's such a scumbag to them, but it's not a good faith desire, and if any of them are acting to actually shape the truth for this purpose they are, in fact, the scumbags.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

However what is the chance of Democrats abandoning this strategy?

They are playing to their base and their donors who want to see Trump removed from office. let alone the sake of the country.

Well, I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that their donors would like to see Trump gone, but, I don't believe that's what's most important to them. Most important (to them) is to retain (or have) influence with those who "actually have" political power.

Some of their donors are strict ideologues, sure, but that's not where the BIG money comes from. They (the big donors) are not "contributing," they are (at least trying to) "buying" something. They have no diehard loyalty. If necessary they will just take their bribe money elsewhere (to the republicans).

The democrats will lose BOTH their donors and their voters if they don't starting winning some elections. To do that, they need an attractive message. "We HATE Trump, don't you!?" aint an attractive message (unless it actually works).

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I am not even sure about the poll, I have never heard of it, but in any case, I am speaking for myself as a democrat. I have never thought Trump colluded with Putin/Russia to influence the 2016 election. I have thought it is possible some associates of his has and after watching some hearings, I believe we have to reason to think they have, or at least had contacts during the same time as all that plotting was going on.

I do think Trump is a scumbag, I think he is con man and is profiting from being a president in a way no previous president ever has before. I also think he is selfish and out just for himself and people like himself and does not really care about the rest of the world. So what?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know