monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Speaking of leaks ...
Anthony Scaramucci’s war on leaks is a total mess

Quote:

Anthony Scaramucci is trying to plug leaks. He is making a mess, instead.

In a bizarre sequence of events spanning Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, the new White House communications director appeared to accuse Chief of Staff Reince Priebus of leaking a financial disclosure form that is publicly available, asked a journalist to reveal the unnamed sources behind a different report, and called in to CNN to vent his frustration.

... ... ...

1 Reply

@blatham,

This is actually sophistry

If by "boner pills" Molloy means Viagra or something similar, the $84 million, in the main, is spent on veterans, not active duty personnel. Is Molloy suggesting our vets don't deserve "boners" and this is a frivolous expense?

Besides, I thought the whole transgender thing was about the personal identity and essence of a individual and not how they get off sexually. The comparison is an indication of how Molloy and the Washington Post views transgenders...in, primarily, sexual (not gender) terms.

Only a liberal will scoff at saving as much as $8 million dollars. If the Pentagon is spending $800 million dollars on unnecessary things it means they need to to cut $808 million not fling open the doors for more unnecessary spending.

The $ savings is, in any case, a secondary consideration.

The military manual that addresses such things now contains a warning to female members of the military that they need to be cognizant that they may find naked women who look exactly like naked men in their shower rooms and they will just have to accept it. So much for their rights.

What would happen, I wonder, if one of these particular naked women in the shower room sprouted an erection? Would she argue something like "Really, I'm a woman, but this pesky appendage that I don't want has a mind of its own!" And before anyone goes wild there have been plenty of instances where men have claimed to be transgender women so as to get in a Ladies Room - it's why Target had to reverse it's policy on it's Restrooms.

The number of true transgenders in the population has been wildly exaggerated, but I have no problem believing that some of them want to serve their country in the military.

I think the Pentagon's policy should be:

Transgenders can enlist if

1) They have undergone the sex change surgery
2) They agree to undergo the sex change surgery (on the Pentagon's dime) within 6 months of enlisting. If they do not for any reason other than a military doctor's order, they must leave. (I have a feeling a goodly number of them enlist so the military will cover these costs for them and that's fine. Plenty of people enlist so the military will cover the costs of their education etc)

The military is not the place for someone to work out their gender identity issues, slipping back and forth between male and female or some manufactured gender in between that likes frilly dresses but is too fond of her penis to say goodbye to it. Transgenders committed to becoming (fully) the sex with which they identify should pose no problem.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Finn made the wry observation that some on the left of the aisle have hypocritically come out in support of Jeff Sessions. I can only speak for myself - I think Sessions is a despicable creature who has done detestable things politically, but I see no hypocrisy in feeling and saying that Sessions is right in this scenario - he is justified to stand up to Trump’s bullying.

But Finn is not alone in seeing bitter irony and hypocrisy being displayed by the pols expressing themselves about this Trump/Sessions flap.

The Republicans saw their candidate make seamy comments about women (“blood coming out of her wherever”), and accepted it.

They saw him brag on recorded video about sexually assaulting women, and accepted it. They saw him demean an American Vietnam Era POW who was a respected sitting Senator, and accepted it.

They saw him insult and dishonor American Gold Star parents, and they accepted it.

They’ve seen him lie again and again before and during being President – from lies about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering the fall of the twin towers, to lies about researchers’ findings about Obama’s origins, to lies in the very first days of his presidency about media falsifying crowd size, to lies about phone taps, to so many lies that the truth has had to take on a pseudo name – “alternate truth”. And they have accepted all of that.

They’ve played it off as his “style”, or they say that the people don’t care, or they make ridiculous false equivalencies to try to mitigate the impact of the lack of character evident in this president.

What do they finally get their dander up about? What offense moves them out of their rationalizations and makes them openly question his judgement?
Trump publicly castigates a rightwing Senator/ AG.

Republicans. I tell you they’ve really got their priorities don’t they?

Well, your use of "wry" to describe one of my comments is a step up from your usual choice of adjectives so that indicates progress. Good for you.

There isn't anything hypocritical about anyone in the Resistance stating that Sessions is correct to stand up to Trump (assuming that is even happening), what is hypocritical is to now cast Sessions in the sympathetic role of a decent and loyal fellow who is suffering the attacks of Bully Trump because he will not compromise his integrity. You clearly aren't doing this, but some members of the MSM are.

As for your litany of offenses tolerated by Trump Supporters, someone who actually cares to spend the time could put together lists of offenses the supporters of other presidents tolerated, beginning with Clinton's lies and sexual harassment of women. It's what supporters do whether they are supporting a Republican or a Democrat.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

First of all, how do you know the Pentagon didn't know it was coming? More unnamed sources familiar with the matter? Having said this, it wouldn't be surprising if it was the case. That's how Trump operates. It's often unfortunate and foolish but it was his call and I seriously doubt Mattis wasn't aware that Trump was inclined to take this route.

I've heard and read quite a few military analysts (including those who have served) make the case for why this policy, at the very least, doesn't enhance the readiness of the armed services and (according to most) is detrimental. No one has to agree with these folks and I'm sure there are analysts who disagree with them, but it's not as if this decision is akin to a ban on enlistment by anyone with red hair. Eventually there will be a poll taken on this matter and it will, at least, be interesting to see how Americans feel about it. It will not reflect the same results as if the ban had been on gingers.

If you question the timing, one answer might be, if not now when? Despite the turmoil with the Mueller investigation and Sessions, the president has a job to do. Part of the hope of the Resistance is that this turmoil will hamstring him and prevent him from doing his job as he sees fit. This could be a signal to them that this part of their plan isn't working, or it could be as you suggest, a bone thrown to his supporters, or to provide Mattis, who is generally well regarded by the MSM, with cover. It could also be that he just came to the decision and announced it.

The timing is interesting, but the decision was coming. Mattis suspended the process in order to allow for deliberation, ostensibly to review procedures, but obviously to include the possibility of eliminating it. I also find it very hard to believe that Mattis was in favor of the policy and now regrets Trump canned it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

There's a lot what many don't "know" - regardless of the quoted sources - if they haven't been there, heard it, saw it, were eye-witnesses.

From a WP report

Quote:

Trump wrote that he had consulted with “my generals and military experts,” but he did not mention Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, the retired Marine general who less than one month ago told the military service chiefs to spend another six months weighing the costs and benefits of allowing transgender individuals to enlist. At the time, Mattis said this “does not presuppose the outcome of the review,” but Trump’s tweets appeared to have done just that.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

There's a lot what many don't "know" - regardless of the quoted sources - if they haven't been there, heard it, saw it, were eye-witnesses.

Absolutely agree with you Walter (for once )

From a WP report

Quote:
Trump wrote that he had consulted with “my generals and military experts,” but he did not mention Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, the retired Marine general who less than one month ago told the military service chiefs to spend another six months weighing the costs and benefits of allowing transgender individuals to enlist. At the time, Mattis said this “does not presuppose the outcome of the review,” but Trump’s tweets appeared to have done just that.

The Washington Post always wants to have it both ways when it comes to Trump. On the one hand they depict his tweets as the chaotic vomit of his id, and on the other (as in this case) they believe them to be so carefully crafted that the failure to specifically name "Mattis" is somehow of significance. Their view depends on the narrative they want to spin and that is just plain and simple lousy journalism.

Trump's tweet doesn't mean the outcome of the review was predetermined and how WaPo reached that conclusion is beyond me.

The fact that a decision was made before the six months was up doesn't mean that it pre-existed the comment of Mattis. Sometime a review "planned" for six months can take less time. Now maybe it did and if so, what's the big deal? Even if there was never any possibility than the review was capable of changing the decision, this sort of "framing" goes on all the time in politics and government. It is hardly the worst of transgressions.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Related: Top U.S. general says no changes yet to transgender policy

Quote:

JULY 27, 2017 / 5:05 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said in a written message on Thursday to military leaders that there has been no change yet to the military's policy on transgender personnel, despite plans for a ban announced by President Donald Trump.

"There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance," Dunford, said in the written message to service chiefs, commanders and senior enlisted leaders, first reported by Reuters.

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect. As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions."

... ... ...

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

The notion that there are 3 branches of government is an unnatural state of affairs for Trump. It doesn't fit his fantasy of what a President 'is', he mistakenly believes he has unlimited powers.....

He has 100% of the power that the Constitution provides to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Sessions has been loyal to Trump.

Not by my reckoning. But I do agree that Trump should either fire the guy outright or stop picking on him.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

the only way Trump can fire Mueller is to get Sessions gone first.

That is incorrect. Trump can directly abolish the entire Office of the Special Council, and that will be the end of the investigation.

I think pardons are the answer though. Getting rid of Mueller will just inspire attempts to reinstate him. Pardons will end the witch hunt outright.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

blatham wrote:
the only way Trump can fire Mueller is to get Sessions gone first.

#45 still has to get past Rod Rosenstein

This is incorrect. Trump is able to directly abolish the entire Office of the Special Council.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

If the Russian investigation by Mueller was completed, I wouldn't care two hoots if Trump fires Sessions or not. But right now, without Sessions involved, there is a much better chance of all the truth, wherever it leads, will be discovered and put down for history and to learn how to avoid further interference.

Oh nonsense. The truth about the election hacking will largely remain buried, and the reason it will remain buried is because you and your compatriots hijacked the investigation and transformed it into a witch hunt that has no interest in finding the truth.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I lost any respect I had for Sessions, not a fan to start with as he is part of the old school GOP establishment, when he talked about stepped up enforcement on marijuana against states who have legalized it, as well as his continued and stepped up support for civil asset forfeiture and his claim "It's a good tool to fight the war on drugs."
I haven't commented much on what has been going on inside the govt, but I'm ready for Sessions to go and it has nothing to do with the Russia nothing-burger.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.
[...]
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

They saw him brag on recorded video about sexually assaulting women, and accepted it.

Locker room boasting. Shame on you for maliciously taking it out of context.

snood wrote:

They saw him demean an American Vietnam Era POW who was a respected sitting Senator, and accepted it.

Coward McCain deserves to be demeaned. Who is he going to surrender to next?

snood wrote:

They saw him insult and dishonor American Gold Star parents, and they accepted it.

He did no such thing.

snood wrote:

They’ve seen him lie again and again before and during being President

Actually we're hearing you lie about Trump, and we know better than to believe your lies.

snood wrote:

from lies about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering the fall of the twin towers,

Hardly a lie. The entire world saw how the Palestinians celebrated the attacks -- and just after we had done so much to try to secure an independent state for them.

snood wrote:

to lies in the very first days of his presidency about media falsifying crowd size,

No lies there. The media was making it look like his crowds were smaller than they were.

snood wrote:

to lies about phone taps,

There was highly questionable unmasking. There should be prosecutions.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

A single F35 plane costs 94.6 million dollars and the military has plans to purchase a total of 2,700 of them.

Maybe buy 1 less plane and take care of more of our soldiers, including these transgender ones.

What do the Democrats always want to disarm our troops so the bad guys can conquer us?

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

Parker Molloy‏Verified account @ParkerMolloy 20h20 hours ago
Cost of trans medical care in military: $2.4-8.4 million est.
Cost the military already spends on boner pills: $84.2 million

How do boner pills relate to transgenders?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.
[...]
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

And after Trump issues an executive order that abolishes that rule (along with all the other rules allowing for an independent council)?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I have already made a post addressed to this. "Regulations" are not congressional legislation. They are rules established by the executive branch, which can be rescinded solely by the executive branch.

Put another way, Trump is authorized, through his agencies, to revise the rules for removing Special Counsel, who is himself an employee of the President.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Well, your use of "wry" to describe one of my comments is a step up from your usual choice of adjectives so that indicates progress. Good for you.

Since you're so bright, no doubt you can figure out which orifice in which to stick your writing suggestions, so I won't suggest one.

Quote:

There isn't anything hypocritical about anyone in the Resistance stating that Sessions is correct to stand up to Trump (assuming that is even happening), what is hypocritical is to now cast Sessions in the sympathetic role of a decent and loyal fellow who is suffering the attacks of Bully Trump because he will not compromise his integrity. You clearly aren't doing this, but some members of the MSM are.

I've seen pols who didn't vote for Sessions say that he's been loyal to Trump's agenda, and I've seen "MSM" talking heads saying that Sessions is getting a raw deal, but if anyone is suddenly switching their narrative to say that he's "decent" - I haven't seen that. He has been very determined to bring about the right wing vision of voter suppression, Muslim discrimination, oppressive and unrealistic drug enforcement and weakening police oversight, and that's all I mean when I say he's been loyal.

Quote:

As for your litany of offenses tolerated by Trump Supporters, someone who actually cares to spend the time could put together lists of offenses the supporters of other presidents tolerated, beginning with Clinton's lies and sexual harassment of women.

False equivalence. Any list to compare with Trump's garbage would be dwarfed. But you have to mention Clinton in any discussion taking Trump to task, because for some reason you just cannot acknowledge what this man clearly is. Trump is already internationally known as the most corrupt, incompetent disgrace of a man to occupy the white house.

Quote:

It's what supporters do whether they are supporting a Republican or a Democrat.

False equivalence. The denial Trump supporters are practicing is unlike anything we've seen before.
No offense but your opinion in any discussion about the shortcomings of Trump is pretty worthless. You simply refuse to see the dangerous recklessness and ethical wretchedness of the man. If they are successful in bringing him or any of his crew to justice, you will then promptly set about minimizing the offenses and denying that justice has been done.

3 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know