monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@roger,

roger wrote:

I think Don Corleone's counselor happened to be a lawyer, too.

Yes...but Don Corleone isnt president of a country, as yet.

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

Only that it isn't just the media that can be intimidated. Yeah, congress may be willing and able to stand up to the guy, but only if they've got a rock solid foundation. If they don't have that kind of basis, they will be accused of crying wolf too often to be credible.

Gotcha. The relationship between Trump and the two houses, presently under GOP control, is already rather weird. The ideological goals they are about to achieve will corral them in his corner until something really damaging comes about. Or until Trump moves to thwart such goals but I don't see that happening.

But more broadly, a bully of his sort will act to bully them as well as everyone else just to continue demonstrating his dominance. so in that sense you're probably quite right.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote dlowan:

Quote:
So counselor means LAWYER? No need to accuse people of ignorance...we don't call lawyers counsellors where I live.

Apparently it is often used as a term of address between members of the legal field. There was a very popular TV show called Hill Street Blues where the nice guy police chief and the public defender have an affair and then got married. When they showed the bedroom scenes, the police chief would call his wife "counsellor" as a form of endearment.

I think that's a US thing though. We would say that someone is counsel for the defence or the prosecution, for instance, but wouldn't call them a counsellor. I doubt the Brits would either. The term is confusing for furriners. We are used to hear the |US shows say it, but I doubt many of us know that it would be used in that sense in this case. Anyway, that's the least important bit I think. The nomenclature I mean.

0 Replies

@layman,

Whether she is an EFFECTIVE bully remains to be seen, however I think it is clear that her INTENT is to bully. I think that is concerning in a person in her position.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote dlowan:

Quote:
So...this woman is, according to glujohn, supposed to be leading actual legislation formation? As a lawyer?

Then what is she doing as a propagandist?

She might have a legal degree, but to my knowledge either hasn't practiced for decades or perhaps never practiced. In the USA, many graduates of law schools get hired by companies and end up never seeing a courtroom.

She became known a couple of decades ago at least as a pollster for Republican candidates. From there, she went on TV shows first as a pollster, then later as a political advocate while keeping her polling business going. Although she was good and effective on TV, it was quite a stretch for her to be appointed as Trump's campaign manager since she never had that position before even for lesser offices. She was always the pollster and an advocate for the candidate, never the person who pulled the strings on a campaign.

Yep...none of that surprises me. But, glujohn claimed she has an important role in the administration as a person involved in drafting legislation, or at least advising on it. Does anyone know if that is true?

My point is not to be surprised that a shill can have been a lawyer, but to question whether she has an actual legal role in the administration.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Well, you don't sound like you're very familiar with her at all. From what I've seen, she generally very composed, very restrained, very ladylike and courteous. She relies on persuasion, not threats. And she's very good at that.

She's not a bully, but, that said, no one can bully her. She aint soft.

1 Reply

@layman,

Nobody ever said that opportunistic, narcissistic, rich wackos cannot change their allegedly espoused spots, only that leopards cannot.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

That is my concern.
She was, in the ABC interview, clearly making threats about less access for media also.
This is extremely concerning. As well as the usual failure to answer questions and putting out a cloud of counter accusations and refusing to listen.

Yes, it's very concerning. This goes well past Bush's spokesman making warnings that people had to be careful with what they say to/about a war president. And given that it happened on day one and day two of Trump's presidency (with prior examples as well) then we're dealing with something far worse even than Nixon - here I'm speaking of the threats, the bald-faced lying has no precedent at all for a White House.

But the major press and political media entities are cognizant of what's going on and they are openly discussing how abnormal this man and his administration are and they are being far more challenging than I've ever seen before.

2 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

Re: dlowan (Post 6348974)
Only sometimes. A counselor can be anyone relied upon for advice. It may, or may not be a lawyer.

Roger has this right. She's not acting as his lawyer.

0 Replies

@blatham,

To what degree, legally speaking CAN he bully them, do you think? Don't they pretty much all despise him, but didn't have the guts to say so?

Also, in your system, how much non legal power does he have over them? eg how much will they feel they need to appear to support him?

Our Prime Ministers have a lot of bully power, for instance, politically but not legally speaking.....UNTIL they begin to look as though they are not going to help their back and front benchers to stay in their seats at the next election. The members can get rid of a sitting PM if they have the numbers. They have done so numerous times.

Conversely, our Prime Ministers can have very little bully power if they are beholden for their position to a particular faction. Both Gillard and Turnbull were in power due to their respective parties' right wings, neither of which were representative of most of their beliefs. This helped destroy Gillard and is destroying Turnbull, because he is perceived as just a weak puppet.

The crucial thing I suppose is that you guys can't get rid of a bad president, realistically speaking.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

She is a smart, tough and compassionate woman who blatham and Blickers would be praising to the high heavens if she were a progressive...which she most definitely is not.

Exactly, Finn.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Well, you don't sound like you're very familiar with her at all. From what I've seen, she generally very composed, very restrained, very ladylike and courteous. She relies on persuasion, not threats. And she's very good at that.

She's not a bully, but, that said, no one can bully her. She aint soft.

We may simply have different definitions of a bully. If your definition only includes overtly aggressive behaviour and physical threats then I agree...she won't be doing that.

However, in the ABC interview I saw, she was clearly implying that media that were insistent on holding the administration to account (she was refusing to answer a question...it was a loaded question but does anyone seriously doubt that Trump's inauguration crowds were much smaller than Obama's? ) would be limited in their access.

For a media organisation it seems to me that this is a serious threat and it is well in line with Trump's behaviour towards reporters.

If you don't think those sorts of threats are bullying then come up with a word for it.

If you seriously think the press secretary didn't come out at the first press conference with an obvious lie, then we will likely never agree on anything so debate probably is a bit pointless.

1 Reply

@blatham,

So, you think the more responsible media won't be cowed?

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Realistically speaking, you're right. It's possible to impeach and convict a president of high crimes and misdemeanors, but it's a long, rough row to hoe, and the process is hardly apolitical.

The press? Well, their credentials to WH press conferences can be pulled and they won't be in attendance. I'm betting it will happen before long, probably in response to a few tough questions from a few correspondents. Whether the others will fall into line is anyone's guess. I would say there is at least an even chance they will stick together. Pure speculation, of course.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

If you think Conway is a bully, you're far more of a snowflake than I thought.

Using the same epithets to describe, without discrimination, all of Trump's advisers is intellectually lazy, not to mention childish.

"Snowflake"? How urban-dictionary-cool you are. But as I used to do some backcountry skiing, I got myself educated on avalanches and snow crystal formation. For example, under certain conditions, crystals can form as plates (imagine a six-sided stop sign). I've only seen this once (your eyes have to be very close to the snow surface). Quite beautiful.

As to the rest of your post, I didn't describe "all" of his advisers that way. I have described Trump with that word, and Conway, probably Spicer, and now Preibus is trying to play the big mean bully as well. None of this is debatable.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

Yep...none of that surprises me. But, glujohn claimed she has an important role in the administration as a person involved in drafting legislation, or at least advising on it. Does anyone know if that is true?

I've seen no credible reporting or statements from the Trump people that she has any significant role in drafting legislation. She's a media liaison.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I like her expression "alternative facts".

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

That's a good one, alright.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

Also, in your system, how much non legal power does he have over them? eg how much will they feel they need to appear to support him?

I'm Canadian, of course, so my situation here is like yours.

In the US, the president is brought down only via election or by impeachment by congress for crimes (none ever have been convicted though two were tried and Nixon resigned before it could happen).

Trump has near endless power to bully anyone including congress. But as congress (both houses) are now in GOP hands, their interests will be mainly aligned. If Trump moves to bully them it will almost certainly be just a matter of his personal pathologies (and they are significant). Serious conflict between him and the rest of the party will likely happen in the manner it does in Australia or Canada - when lower politicos perceive likely electoral damage to them up the road. That is a distinct possibility in this case because Trump is such an abnormal individual as president and because his favorability ratings are unprecedentedly low and getting lower.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote Finn:

Quote:

She is a smart, tough and compassionate woman who blatham and Blickers would be praising to the high heavens if she were a progressive...which she most definitely is not.

Not that I'm a fan of Kellyanne Conway, but exactly what in my post to dlowan describing Conway do you take to be a negative statement? She came to prominence as a pollster for Republicans, moved into TV advocacy, and when she was named Trump's campaign manager everyone was surprised because although she had worked on many campaigns, she never directed the campaign before.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know