monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

US president misses key meeting as summit agrees €20m fund to fight wildfires


Donald Trump did not attend Monday’s crucial discussion on climate and biodiversity at the G7 meeting of international leaders in Biarritz, missing talks on how to deal with the Amazon rainforest fires as well as new ways to cut carbon emissions.

Reporters noticed at the start of the session that the US president’s chair was empty.

Trump was later asked by reporters covering a meeting with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, whether he had attended the climate session. He replied: “We’re having it in a little while.” He did not appear to hear when a reporter told him it had just taken place.

I have refrained, until now, from commenting on what has become a spectacle on cable news, and more generally, of former Trump acolytes and attack dogs, namely Anthony Scaramucci and Joe Walsh, now turning on the president in harsh rhetoric that calls into question not only his fitness for office, but his general fitness of mind and morality.

The response from the press and the public has been what is to be expected. Both of these men make for good television, if by good television you mean bold statements uttered without irony. They can fill news cycles with no shortage of provocative source material and consequently hours of pundit pontificating. Meanwhile, many remember these men for the outrages they peddled over the years and thus react with understandable revulsion at what can easily be dismissed as naked self-interest.

I do not know what lies in these men's hearts. And I don't really care to judge their motives. The more important consideration is what do their roles in the drama of our times say about the larger political landscape. Are they just bit players to be ignored? After all what they are saying has already been said by many. Or is there any reason to pay heed?

I would argue that what these men are saying is significant. And it doesn't matter what drives them. If they are merely political opportunists, it only enhances the importance of their message. Because what their voices mean is that Donald Trump is losing the battle for the soul of this nation. That doesn't mean he can't win reelection. But it does mean that many who are reading the currents of history sense he occupies a place of weakness.

In a world where Donald Trump was winning, where his power was fearsome, where the future was bending to his will, I don't think men like Walsh and Scaramucci would be betting their futures on calling him out. Look at how authoritarians throughout history have consolidated power and squelched dissent. President Trump is doing the opposite.

And in a world where criticism of Donald Trump was difficult to focus, amorphous, and without a strong foundation of truth, the lines of attack from these men would not land with such force and precision. They are further reinforcing many of the denunciations of President Trump that are are defining his public image for tens of millions of Americans: his immorality, recklessness, corruption, narcissism, incompetence, and so on.

What newly minted antagonists like Scaramucci and Walsh are saying is that Donald Trump is deeply flawed and it's not hard to point to countless reasons why.

Now these men should not be allowed to crowd out other voices. They must answer for their previous statements. Their actions in the past and in the future should not be graded on a curve. But those who see themselves as the resistance, who are dismayed by what President Trump has done and fear deeply the damage yet to come, should be heartened by voices like Scaramucci and Walsh. They represent cracks in the foundational belief that this president will hold on to his base no matter what and that he is not bound by the realities of political physics. Perhaps these men have really had a change of heart and have, as they both have said, seen the damage of their past selves. But even if they are more like weathervanes spinning around their own axises of personal aggrandizement it still means the winds of fate for Donald Trump are shifting. And that is important.

BIARRITZ, France — President Trump suggested on Monday that he plans to host next year’s Group of 7 summit meeting for world leaders at his Doral luxury golf resort near Miami, once again raising ethical issues about the mixing of his businesses and presidency.

If he follows through, the spectacle of the annual gathering of heads of state at a Trump-owned property would be the highest-profile example of the president’s willingness to flout the boundaries that have historically constrained such presidential activities.

The president said on Monday that hosting the summit at Doral made perfect sense, calling the sprawling golf resort “a great place” and bragging that “it’s got tremendous acreage, many hundreds of acres, so we can handle whatever happens. It’s really — people are really liking it and plus it has buildings that have 50 to 70 units. And so each delegation can have its own building.”

Critics take a far different view. They argue that the Group of 7 summit — which attracts global attention and brings with it thousands of government officials and the international news media — would be a gold mine for Mr. Trump’s for-profit property, providing an immediate increase in revenue and raising its profile around the world.

President Trump has suggested to senior advisers at least twice that the U.S. should drop a nuclear bomb into the eye of a hurricane to keep it from hitting the U.S., Axios reported.

According to a sources who heard him make the remarks and spoke to Axios, Trump first raised the bombastic idea during a hurricane briefing at the White House.

“I got it. I got it. Why don’t we nuke them?” Trump said according to a source who was there. “They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they’re moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) continued Monday to press the case for a U.S. acquisition of Greenland, decrying the “historical ignorance” of those who criticized President Trump for his interest in buying the island from Denmark.

“After news leaked last week that President Trump had expressed interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark, his critics predictably derided him as crazy,” Cotton wrote in a an op-ed published by the New York Times. “But once again, the president is crazy like a fox.”

Trump announced last week that he was canceling a planned two-day state visit to Denmark next month after Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed the idea of a U.S. purchase of Greenland as “absurd.” Trump subsequently called her comments “nasty” and affront to the United States.

The flap prompted Cotton to disclose last week that he had discussed the idea of buying Greenland — a self-governing country that is part of the kingdom of Denmark — in a previous conversation with Trump and called it “obviously the right decision for the United States.”

Cotton elaborated on his views in the Times op-ed, arguing that a U.S. purchase “would secure vital strategic interests for the United States, economically benefit both us and Greenlanders, and would be in keeping with American — and Danish — diplomatic traditions.”

In his piece, Cotton cited several previous land purchases by the United States.

“Despite the historical ignorance of the president’s critics, the negotiated acquisition of sovereignty is a long-standing and perfectly legitimate tool of statecraft, particularly in the American tradition,” he wrote. “More than one-third of America’s territory was purchased from Spain (Florida), France (the Louisiana Purchase), Mexico (the Gadsden Purchase) and Russia (Alaska).”

Cotton also noted that the during the tenure of President Woodrow Wilson, the United States paid $25 million to purchase the Danish West Indies, which are now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Trump isn’t the only one to recognize the country’s strategic importance. Beijing does, too.

By Tom Cotton
Mr. Cotton, a Republican, is a United States senator from Arkansas.

After news leaked last week that President Trump had expressed interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark, his critics predictably derided him as crazy. But once again, the president is crazy like a fox. The acquisition of Greenland would secure vital strategic interests for the United States, economically benefit both us and Greenlanders, and would be in keeping with American — and Danish — diplomatic traditions.

Strategically positioned in the Arctic Circle, Greenland has long attracted the attention of American policymakers. As far back as 1867, Secretary of State William Seward explored the acquisition of Greenland around the time that he negotiated the purchase of Alaska from the Russians. I myself raised the prospect of acquiring Greenland with the Danish ambassador just last year.

In 1946, the Truman administration offered $100 million to Denmark to acquire Greenland, arguing that the island was “indispensable to the safety of the United States” in confronting the growing Soviet threat, just as it had been in World War II when American forces used bases in Greenland to deter Nazi aggression. While the deal didn’t go through, we kept troops on the island throughout the Cold War. Today, the Air Force’s 21st Space Wing is stationed at Thule Air Base in western Greenland to support our ballistic-missile defenses and space missions.

America is not the only nation to recognize Greenland’s strategic significance. Intent on securing a foothold in the Arctic and North America, China attempted in 2016 to purchase an old American naval base in Greenland, a move the Danish government prevented. Two years later, China was back at it, attempting to build three airports on the island, which failed only after intense lobbying of the Danes by the Trump administration.

Beijing understands not only Greenland’s geographic importance but also its economic potential. Greenland is rich in a wide array of mineral deposits, including rare-earth minerals — resources critical to our high-tech and defense industries. China currently dominates the market in these minerals and has threatened to withhold them from us to gain leverage in trade negotiations. Greenland also possesses untold reserves of oil and natural gas.

An agreement to transfer Greenland’s sovereignty must also serve the interests of our good friends, the Danes, and the 56,000 Greenlanders as well. Their considerations ought to include the fact that despite Greenland’s long-term potential, a lack of infrastructure and financing still hamstring the island’s economy today. Greenland’s economy is less than one-tenth of Vermont’s, America’s smallest state economy. Every year, Denmark transfers $670 million in subsidies to support the island.

As the world’s largest economy, the United States could more easily assume support for Greenland’s communities while investing substantially in its future. The transfer of Greenland’s sovereignty would alleviate a significant financial burden on the Danish people while expanding opportunities for Greenlanders. Just look at what American sovereignty has meant to Alaskans compared with conditions in Siberia under Russian control.

Despite the historical ignorance of the president’s critics, the negotiated acquisition of sovereignty is a longstanding and perfectly legitimate tool of statecraft, particularly in the American tradition. More than one-third of America’s territory was purchased from Spain (Florida), France (the Louisiana Purchase), Mexico (the Gadsden Purchase) and Russia (Alaska).

Indeed, Washington and Copenhagen have engaged in exactly this kind of transaction. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson — the great champion of self-determination — paid $25 million to purchase the Danish West Indies, which have ever since been known as the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Who today believes the acquisition of Alaska was “Seward’s folly”? On the contrary, it has been a great blessing to Alaskans and all Americans. Our nation has much to gain, as do the Danes and Greenlanders. While there are short-term obstacles, the same benefits could apply for Greenland today — and the manifest logic of this idea means that its consideration is here to stay.

Tom Cotton (@sentomcotton) is a Republican senator from Arkansas.

Sen. Tom Cotton decries the 'historical ignorance' of those who criticized Trump's interest in buying Greenland

Then we should sell Puerto Riico to the Chinese?

I think it’s hard to be misleading about the look of obvious relish and anticipation on Melania’s face.

100% real, but a bit misleading without the context that she was doing one of those things where foreigners greet each other by kissing the sides of their cheeks.

Then we should sell Puerto Riico to the Chinese?

Just because Truman's idea was forwarded to Denmark doesnt mean that it was a good one(the prime minister at the time was very kind in his rebuff).

Trump's incapable of doing anything intelligent as president..

Hes a petulant little fat weenie

I think it falls under Section 3 of the Rules page

Quote:

3) Self Promotion

4) No recruiting
Don't post submissions asking readers to make a donation, sign a petition, spread the word about a crowdfunding campaign, join a website, or take part in a survey.

sign a petition