192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
izzythepush
 
  7  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 03:32 am
Opinion piece on Trump's fallout with the families of dead soldiers.

Quote:
Five reasons Trump's widow story stings

Welcome to day three of the Donald Trump condolence-call story.
It started badly, with the president questioning the way his predecessors dealt with the families of war dead. It's only got worse, as the story has morphed into one of an allegedly callous presidential call to a grieving widow of a US soldier killed in Niger.
Here are five reasons why this snowballing story is so damaging to the president.
It cuts against a strength
Mr Trump campaigned on being a defender of the US military and, in particular, US veterans. Time and again he said those in the armed services weren't being treated well and railed against ongoing evidence of bureaucratic bungling in the veterans' health system.
As a candidate and as president, he has boasted of how much the military loves him and regularly surrounded himself with soldiers and martial symbolism - a way of burnishing his credentials as a strong commander-in-chief. He appointed ex-generals to his administration and lined his redecorated Oval Office with flags.
Now he has to deal with accusations that he is dishonouring the memory of service member who died on his watch. Questions are already swirling about why these soldiers were put in harm's way and whether enough was done to ensure their safety.
Reporters are digging into other contacts Mr Trump has had with the families of slain soldiers. The Washington Post reports that of 11 it reached, seven had been contacted by the president. One father said Mr Trump had promised him a personal check for $25,000 (£18,900) but hadn't delivered.
Four others had heard nothing and were angry. The next time the president surrounds himself with soldiers, the public might be reminded of this - and become angry, too.
It re-enforces a weakness
An important job of a modern US president is to serve as "consoler-in-chief"; a stable, reassuring voice in times of national distress or tragedy. This can take place on a large scale - when visiting the site of a natural disaster or high-profile accident - or small, in comforting a family member grieving over their loss.
It's a skill that successful politicians learn early on - the human touch - and anti-politician Trump is having a difficult time with it.
In the days after Puerto Rico was struck by a massive hurricane, he was tweeting about the territory's pre-existing financial mismanagement and escalating a feud with San Juan's mayor.
In the hours after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville led to violent clashes and the death of a counter-protester, Mr Trump gave a statement about how there was blame on both sides.
Mr Trump responded to the militant attack on London Bridge by criticising the city's mayor. He's responded to other attacks, foreign and domestic, by claiming they vindicated his policy proscriptions.
The president has also developed a reputation for getting embroiled in petty disputes. His counter-puncher mentality, while it has served him well against his presidential rivals, also has led him into spats with a former beauty queen, celebrities, sports stars, major companies, prominent journalists, members of his own party and the parents of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq.
That last one seems pretty relevant at this point.
It makes a bad story worse
It's worth remembering that this whole swirling story started because Mr Trump was asked why four US soldiers had died in Niger and why it took him so long to respond.
In fact, it had been 12 days and the president had issued no statement - tweet, comment or White House release - about the incident whatsoever.
Mr Trump defended himself by taking an (inaccurate) shot at his predecessors for not making similar calls. Although he later backed away from such a sweeping statement, the following day he told a reporter to ask his chief of staff, John Kelly if he had received a call from President Obama.
Mr Kelly's son had been killed in Iraq, and the ex-general has been reluctant to publicly discuss details of his grief. The White House said he hadn't been called, but it was later revealed that he attended an event for Gold Star families - parents of slain soldiers - hosted by the Obama administration.
The chief of staff was notably absent on Tuesday during Mr Trump's joint press appearance with the prime minister of Greece.
Then the president called Johnson's widow, and ... didn't help the situation.
Now he's in a war of words with a sharp-tongued Democratic congresswoman over a story that, however one slices it, does not paint the president in a good light.
Mr Trump once again has shown that he doesn't believe in the Law of Holes - that when you're in a hole, you stop digging. Instead he seems to think that if he keeps digging long enough, he'll come out on the other side.
It's evidence of a sloppy White House
This story could have been nipped in the bud early, with some sort of presidential statement of condolence shortly after the 4 October Niger incident.
In fact, according to Politico, a release had been drafted and circulated within the National Security Council on 5 October - but it never saw the light of day.
During Wednesday's White House press conference, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that there were administration protocols that had to be followed before the names of slain US servicemen could be released - but that wouldn't have applied to the draft statement responding to reports, which didn't mention the soldiers' names.
"Somebody screwed up here, OK?" Leon Panetta, who served as defence secretary and CIA chief in the Obama administration, told The Washington Post. "You don't let that amount of time pass when our men and women in uniform have been killed."
Compounding matters was that it appears Mr Trump went into the conversation with Johnson's widow without a clear script. It's not outside the realm of possibility that while Mr Trump's intentions were good, his preparation was poor - and he misspoke or made comments open to misinterpretation.
All of this could have been avoided with more careful planning.
It's (another) distraction
This is a big month for Mr Trump. If he wants to see Congress pass a tax cut before the end of the year, the coming weeks will be when it gets off the ground.
Democrats are pushing hard to paint the proposal as an unaffordable sop to the rich - and Republicans need to get their message out before public opinion is solidified.
The president also took a high-risk gamble in ending cost-sharing subsidies that help insurance companies provide affordable policies to less affluent Americans. Without congressional action, some premiums could skyrocket. If Mr Trump isn't vigorous in defending his decision, he'll be the one that takes the brunt of the blame.
The federal budget process is heating up as well. Although the day of fiscal reckoning was pushed back to the end of December thanks to a deal with the Democrats, that deadline is growing closer every day. If the president wants to see funds for his priorities, like the Mexican border wall, he'll need to be fully engaged in congressional negotiations.
Speaking of negotiations, talks with Mexico and Canada to modify the North America Trade Agreement are hanging by a thread. If they fall apart, the president may have to make the case to the public that pulling out of the deal won't do lasting harm to the US economy.
For the past three days, however, all the oxygen in Washington has been sucked up by the condolence-call story.
Although Mr Trump likes to tout his presidential accomplishments, his record so far is bereft of legislative victories. Recent events have done little to help his cause.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41674735
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 07:56 am
Quote:
Russian operatives used a fake Twitter account that claimed to speak for Tennessee Republicans to persuade American politicians, celebrities and journalists to share select content with their own massive lists of followers, two people familiar with the matter said.

The list of prominent people who tweeted out links from the account, @Ten_GOP, which Twitter shut down in August, includes political figures such as Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, celebrities such as Nicki Minaj and James Woods, and media personalities such as Ann Coulter and Chris Hayes.
WP

Revelations on Russian interference in the last US presidential election and US politics generally keep building. Any politicians who attempt to downplay this story or who try to suppress on-going investigations into it might as well put a Russian flag up in their offices.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 08:26 am
There’s a bit of a detour on the big Russia investigation.

It leads to the Obama White House and the Clintons. What a surprise.

Trump: a ridiculous embarrassment
Clinton: a known crook
Obama: an accomplice
Mueller: their mule

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration%3famp
Lash
 
  -1  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 08:33 am
Another view of the ACTUAL NEWS about Russian collusion.

(Spoiler: it was Hillary Clinton with help from Barack Obama.)
(In other news, it was NOT Trump)
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-scandal-is-real-involves-hillary-clinton/

Excerpt:

Clinton Scandals: For well over a year now, the progressive left in the Democratic Party have tried hard to sell the idea that, a) Russia meddled in our election, and, b) that it was to the detriment of Hillary Clinton. After nearly a year and a half of investigating, neither appears true. What is true, and now documented, is that Hillary Clinton and her family foundation both benefited handsomely from Russian corruption.

Citing federal officials and government documents, The Hill details the Russians' nuclear-industry corruption here in the U.S., citing extensive evidence that "Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business" in the U.S.

But that's just the beginning. Based on both an eyewitness account and documents, The Hill report goes on to say that federal agents found evidence "indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow."

Isn't that called bribery?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 08:43 am
@Lash,
Pretty amusing how quickly you're falling for the quite obvious distraction play here

This is part of the attack on Mueller's credibility, designed to undermine the probe against Trump. You understand that, right?

Cycloptichorn
Lash
 
  -3  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 08:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Fact: The DNC rigs an election. Personal emails prove this and many other serious crimes against democracy by the DNC on Clinton’s behalf. Gestures like DWS and Brazile stepping down don’t hack it with progressives, who refuse to vote for the cheaters. Trump is elected.
Cover-up distraction: “Russia leaked evidence of our crimes and handed the election to Trump.”



Fact: Obama colluded with Clinton for a treasonous deal with Russia for uranium.
Cover-up distraction: Useful idiots saying, “You realize this is a distraction from the cover-up distraction we cooked up when we were busted perverting democracy...”


Don’t be that guy.
blatham
 
  5  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 08:58 am
@Lash,
Well, that's rather more honest than the pro-Bernie bullshit you've been trying to pass off as sincere.

As to the author, John Solomon...
Quote:
As chief of Circa he wrote and published a number of political articles, often defending the Trump administration[13] and Michael Flynn. [14] He left in July 2017 to become executive vice president, digital video, for The Hill.[1]
Also a frequent speaker at CPAC.

You, like Solomon, are playing the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy game. No surprise in that.
Lash
 
  -3  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:06 am
@blatham,
You can’t refute the content, so you attack the messenger and the writer.

Weak.

The facts are in your face and you hide.
maporsche
 
  7  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:10 am
@Lash,
You're a teacher Lash. Don't you teach your students that before they cite a source, that they should consider the intent and slant of the author?
blatham
 
  8  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:16 am
@Lash,
You are a troll, Lash. Everyone with a history here knows you're a troll. You try to pass yourself off as a Sanders supporter and you use that pose to attack Dems, the DNC, the Clintons and Obama. What befuddles is that you apparently haven't grasped how obvious you are.
Cycloptichorn
 
  6  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:17 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Fact: The DNC rigs an election. Personal emails prove this


Totally untrue. The DNC had no need to rig the election, Clinton won the primary on Super Tuesday and everyone - including Bernie himself - knew it.

Quote:
Fact: Obama colluded with Clinton for a treasonous deal with Russia for uranium.


This isn't a fact, actually. At most, it's an allegation. And it's working on you exactly in the fashion intended, which is indeed amusing

You sure return to your roots pretty quickly when the opportunity arises, dontcha?

Cycloptichorn
blatham
 
  4  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:19 am
Quote:
Dark chocolate is now a health food. Here’s how that happened.
The Mars company has sponsored hundreds of scientific studies to show cocoa is good for you.
Vox

As Ezra Klein remarked, this is "the least surprising news ever".
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:26 am
@maporsche,
You only seem to see slant from one perspective. I see it from two. After watching the democrats’ primary contest, I know without a doubt that the MSM covers for the democrat establishment. They most often black out stories that hurt the Clintons and the party regulars.

I will never cite Fox - not because they’re conservative, but factually unreliable.
You people cite Hillary-ite MSM wackos constantly—as if they aren’t on the Clinton payroll or marching to orders.

This story is not getting MSM air or print, but it is fact-based and being covered by good sources.

I could have footage of the story, and you’d all be tripping over yourselves to find some unrelated scapegoat for your miserable party and it’s corrupt leadership.
Lash
 
  -3  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:27 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes. I look for the truth and adapt accordingly.
maporsche
 
  4  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:39 am
@Lash,
That made me literally laugh out loud.
Lash
 
  -1  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:46 am
@maporsche,
I have become completely aware of the dim view you folks have of honesty or personal integrity.

Here’s a lovely story about the ethics of your hero. You should really get a hoot out of this.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.


Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.


Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

maporsche
 
  3  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:53 am
@Lash,
I'm on to the Trump administration now. Have fun wallowing in what no longer matters.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:53 am
@Lash,
Quote:

I will never cite Fox - not because they’re conservative, but factually unreliable.


Won't cite Fox, because they are 'factually unreliable.' Happy though to cite Truthdig, DailyWire, and any number of sketchy right-wing sites. Because they are, in your estimation, 'factually reliable.'

Cycloptichorn
Lash
 
  -1  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:55 am
@blatham,
Exactly how Hedges characterized the last sad bastion of the corrupt democrat party.

You have no argument, so you’ve been reduced to nothing more than name-calling when you’re faced with inconvenient truths.

Russian, pretend progressive, Bernie bro, Nazi, troll.

—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�—�-
Hedges:

dominant class can long retain control when the credibility of the ideas that justify its existence evaporates. It is forced, at that point, to resort to crude forms of coercion, intimidation and censorship. This ideological collapse in the United States has transformed those of us who attack the corporate state into a potent threat, not because we reach large numbers of people, and certainly not because we spread Russian propaganda, but because the elites no longer have a plausible counterargument.

The elites face an unpleasant choice. They could impose harsh controls to protect the status quo or veer leftward toward socialism to ameliorate the mounting economic and political injustices endured by most of the population. But a move leftward, essentially reinstating and expanding the New Deal programs they have destroyed, would impede corporate power and corporate profits. So instead the elites, including the Democratic Party leadership, have decided to quash public debate. The tactic they are using is as old as the nation-state—smearing critics as traitors who are in the service of a hostile foreign power. Tens of thousands of people of conscience were blacklisted in this way during the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s. The current hyperbolic and relentless focus on Russia, embraced with gusto by “liberal” media outlets such as The New York Times and MSNBC, has unleashed what some have called a virulent “New McCarthyism.”

The corporate elites do not fear Russia. There is no publicly disclosed evidence that Russia swung the election to Donald Trump. Nor does Russia appear to be intent on a military confrontation with the United States. I am certain Russia tries to meddle in U.S. affairs to its advantage, as we do and did in Russia—including our clandestine bankrolling of Boris Yeltsin, whose successful 1996 campaign for re-election as president is estimated to have cost up to $2.5 billion, much of that money coming indirectly from the American government. In today’s media environment Russia is the foil. The corporate state is unnerved by the media outlets that give a voice to critics of corporate capitalism, the security and surveillance state and imperialism, including the network RT America.
Lash
 
  0  
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:57 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Truthdig is brilliant. When did you turncoat on progressive politics? I used to think you were such a lefty. You never were though, were you?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.56 seconds on 06/04/2024 at 05:34:01