Discussion > President Trump
From ancient times, laughing has provided a scour through veneers. The US press has gone preciously propagandistic, and made themselves ridiculous enough to laugh at. Those barrels of ink; those barrels of laughs, the perfect parade and pretended pomades. To think we paraded on Mulberry Street.
===============
kim
Stewgreen. Ahah, you mean those "alternative facts" eminating from Trump Central? Just how do you determine whose "truth" is true?
Supertroll
I'll leave you to answer your questions yourself.
but I will quickly respond to " Most of the crowd in the Mall presumably watched on large plasma screens. "
I don't know but those who "WITNESSED it in person" were on the Mall and had line of sight so if you were 1km away you didn't" witness it in person"
stewgreen
Supertroll & stewgreen, how many people witnessed the assassination of JFK, yet no one is entirely sure who did what, let alone why.
Meanwhile, Trump has authorised a pipeline to extract naturally occurring pollutants and environmental contamination for safe disposal in the US.
Viewpoints can be critical in PR.
golf charlie
Stewgreen. I just love the way you ignore evidence that does not support your case, namely your own statement quoting Spicer
"The key point Spicer makes is ” This was the largest audience to ever *witness* an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”"
Just how do people around the globe witness the inauguration, except by TV coverage? Your definition of witness now requires them to be in "line of sight", but clearly Spicer was including whoever saw the inauguration, whether line of sight or not.
There is simply no possible way Trump could boast, as he did, that more people were in Washington Mall so soon after the event. It was pure childishness. Perhaps a yes-man told him so, to keep him happy.
Supertroll
Supertroll & stewgreen,
I think Trump has more hair than Obama, but Obama has more active hair follicles.
How does Top Trumps work exactly?
I don't think this nonstory bodes well for the White House Press Secretary AND the White House Press Lobby having an enduring relationship based on trust and honesty.
golf charlie
Most people take it that 2 different records were broken
"WITNESSED it in person" - 1 group
"and around the globe" - that's on TV ..2nd group
stewgreen
The EPA's website states
EPA's Acting Administrator
Catherine McCabe
https://www.epa.gov/
I did not find, in a quick look, reference to Gina McCarthy.
Just guessing: Gina has been told "You're fired!"
Martin A
Martin A, read this?!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/25/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-epa/
golf charlie
Here is the New Charles Moore article Where he points out
The BBC fanatically challenges Trump assertions
But just runs activist assertions without challenging
It's premium content
stewgreen
Another interesting example...
Misogyny pure and simple. Melania is a women, henchmen, victim. Xenophobe even. How about she is just a person? With individual life choices? No... she must confirm to whatever "box of the left" is de rigueur.
I have met people like Obama. He is like the Senior Partner of Global Accounting or Consulting firm. And I have met their wives. Often Americans.
All polish but no substance. No depth. Intellect? Probably an impediment. People with intellect do the work, Partners just take the credit.
But these type of people are a team, the husband and wife, in their climb up the firm. And rest assured these Senior Partners are having dinner parties with senior establishment. President included. They are part of it.
But... you have no idea what they are like behind closed doors. Like any couple. Except their public performance is always a performance. They learned how to control the message. They learnt that the wife is an important asset in progression.
You think Obama and Michelle are not like any couple behind closed doors? Who wears the trousers? Who has the intellect? Who has the political aggression to change horses or distance someone who was close and is no longer needed? Who is ruthless? Obama? Michelle?
Saint Obama and Michelle! Do people understand what it takes to get to the top?
And that is why Trump is different. Consensus again. Their marriage does not confirm to the consensus. We have no idea how she thinks. How about that she loves her husband and was sitting there thinking there was every chance someone was going to assassinate him? Probably untrue but as equally valid as that excuse for a piece linked above.
His wife, his kids. All attacked by the "Love Trumps Hate" brigade. Don't they have any self-awareness? At all?
Media Hoar
Media Hoar. Don't you think you might be just a teeny bit partisan with your criticism? Obama has been similarly savaged for years now, even questioning his citizenship. Those you now legitimately attack deserve all your scorn (and mine). However, don't fall into the twin traps of believing all opposition for what Trump represents is similarly beyond the pale, or that only Democrates engage in this type of abuse.
Supertroll
BBC News website (yes, I know!) this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38753000
"President Donald Trump says he believes waterboarding works".
Watching the interview, for once, the BBC headline sounds like a reasonable summary of what was said. I'm very concerned about this. Firstly, torture has no place in a civilised state. Secondly, the assertion that it works must be dubious. I think I'd probably say anything to stop the torture. It doesn't mean that what I say in my desperation is either true or useful to those torturing me.
Mark Hodgson
`Mark Hodgson, couldn't agree more, I hear today that Trump is going to consult with he security services and armed forces before enacting the introduction of "special methods". Maybe sense will prevail.
geronimo
Just heard Clive Stafford-Smith being interviewed on Radio 2 about this, along with a Trump supporter. It was a polite and respectful interview by the 3 involved.
Clive Stafford-Smith linked all the CIA claims about WMD and hence Blair's dodgy dossier to info/Intel produced by water-boarding.
golf charlie
Oh, bah. Saddam bluffed about WMD because he was otherwise helpless against the Persians. Even his own military thought that Iraq had more WMD than it had. Duelfer and Rossett have shown that Saddam had the will(always did) and the way(Oil for Food) to WMD.
Not actionable? Ask the Americans saved by the use of such intelligence.
'must be dubious'? Check out the diving reflex, and the smart bomb to the Central Nervous System that it is.
Waterboarding should be 'safe, legal, and rare'.
=================
kim
Supertroll on Jan 26, 2017 at 7:12 AM
"... even questioning his citizenship."
His early life is still a mystery, to the public, anyway.
Why the sealed college records? Why the inconsistencies in his birth records? It could be just a coincidence, but the contempt shown at the time to anyone questioning whether the legal requirement had been satisfied was memorable. I have heard a report that the current official explanation is a cover for his father being a spy (against the USA) :) , but whether that is true is of little consequence now. However, given that his documented ancestry is still uncertain, that much of his early life is undocumented, and that he was running to become POTUS, I can't see how anyone can be surprised, let alone offended, without being a Safe Space inhabiter.
Robert Christopher
golf charlie on Jan 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM
There was a report that a US reporter filed a report to a US paper (a well known one, but I forget which) that he had seen secret storage facilities, hidden under a river, with what was assumed to be WMD. That the report 'disappeared': completely disappeared, so no follow up, which is strange, given the circumstances. This topic was discussed thoroughly at the time.
Also, from an IDF source, I heard that there were WMDs in the area, but that they were removed just before the invasion, presumably to another country: why lose your real estate to the enemy? You could ask why weren't they observed by the US satellites, but then, the operatives may have had been using an adaption of Nelson's telescope.
This means that:
1) the WMD did exist
2) at the time of the invasion, there weren't any WMDs to find
3) we don't know that the equipment, if it existed, could do what was threatened (so protecting a guilty party)
4) its declared existence did help to remove an obnoxious Prime Minister, just not one seated in the ME!
Robert Christopher
Robert Christopher. Why can't you just leave the matter alone? He's gone from politics now. Michelle is adamant that she will never run. So the Obamas are past history? Why not stop going over old ground and concentrate on reburnishing your pro-Trump credentials? Conspiracy theorists are usually considered weird.
Supertroll
Supertroll... partisan? Hmmmm...
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
"So you are one of those climate deniers?"
"So are you a Trump supporter or not?"
Just because someone frames a question to get a desired result, doesn't mean there is an obligation in answering in the way expected.
But as far I can tell, currently (and it may change) the word "Trump" is not pejorative. Partisan? Not sure I have commented on any of Trumps policies.
I have tried to say this a few times, but now with different words. "Politician discovered to be a Sociopath!!! Read all about it!!!" isn't a headline to sell many papers.
I know... maybe it is just that I want equal rights for sociopaths. My concern is just democracy survives the sociopaths we put at the top, and the establishment hangers-on who milk the system. For that I am partisan. More Tony Benn than Enoch Powell.
Media Hoar
Supertroll on Jan 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM
" Why can't you just leave the matter alone?"
I had, until this afternoon :)
"So the Obamas are past history?"
He has purchased a house not far from the WH, in Kalorama, D.C. and must have been the most active 'post inauguration of the next president' President:
NYPost: Obama rushes to fill dozens of federal jobs before leaving office
Even CNN has an article:
CNN: Obama pushes through controversial moves before Trump takes over
Among the many actions, he has sent an additional $500,000,000 to the UN to fight Climate Change, made a supposedly irreversible environmental agreement with Canada about offshore oil drilling, ending a decades-long immigration policy that allowed Cuban migrants to gain legal residency if they made it safely onto US soil, and a last minute donation of $221,000,000 aid package to Palestinian Authority' (which Trump has frozen).
And then there is deliberate obstruction:
Breitbart: ‘Nothing Short of Stunning’: Judge Slams Obama DOJ’s ‘Unethical Conduct’ in Amnesty Case
Breitbart: Seven Ways Obama Is Trying to Sabotage the Trump Administration
I did see a suggestion that he could contest the 2020 election! He is such a modest fellow:
Breitbart: Obama: I Could Have Won if I Had Run for President Again
And you are mistaken, I am not "reburnishing your pro-Trump credentials", I realise that he is the President and hope he makes the world a better place, especially the US and the UK.
Even John Pilger has a similar take on the situation. Here is a 28 minute clip. What is interesting is that he says what he says, even though he is NO Trump supporter:
John Pilger: ‘The truth is… there was no one to vote for’ (Going Underground US election special)
Robert Christopher
@Mark Hodgson @geronimo Re waterboarding
Extraordinary claims always need checking to see if there is any extra context
I tend on BBC matters to post on BiasedBBC first so earlier I checked the transcript and posted this :
We don’t have to take BBC spinning trick ..Like hyping up the extreme end of what someone might say or do without mentioning contexts.
You can check Trumps 11min interview and Transcript and he does supply caveats about waterboarding :
Key part : “I will rely on Pompeo and Mattis and my group. And if they don’t wanna do, that’s fine. If they do wanna do, then I will work for that end.”
I posted the entire paragraph
It’s not a soft interview ..he gets drilled about a number of other things.
BTW I note in part 2 the transcript is not complete.
In another part he talks about illegals ..and shows he is not minded to send everyone out of the US.
stewgreen
stewgreen
I think I've said before that my take on Trump is not to adopt the MSM hysterical hissy fit, but to wait to see what he does, and then applaud or criticise him on that, as appropriate.
Even with your useful caveats, I don't think it can be denied that Trump is not ruling out waterboarding. In my opinion he should - I simply believe that there are some lines that should not be crossed in a civilised society.
If he talks about it, but then doesn't do it, then fine - maybe. But I think if asked about it, he should definitively rule it out. End of.
I'm still trying to work out what exactly I think of today's developments regarding Mexico! Trump is certainly busy, and is keeping the rest of the world busy talking about him. But then I suppose he knows he has just 2 years to achieve what he wants, as after the mid-term elections (unless he is remarkably successful, and manages to persuade the US citizenry to stick with the Republicans) he might find he can't get stuff through Congress. There's only so much that can be done by Executive Order, after all.
Mark Hodgson
There's quite lot that can be done that way ..Someone posted the law ..in explaining the EPA changes.
Ultimately the president control all gov depts.
A strong argument before was that you don't torture, cos otherwise your own soldiers will get tortured by the other side.
But Isis Alkaida don't care they torture anyway. And evrything goes ith the Russians
Bottomline is there anything to be gained by Shouting "we will never torture ?" (even that is your policy)
For me it's not a moral choice, but an operational choice .. I don't have the practical experience of intelligence matters, so I'd leave the decision to those who have.
In biz it's very often good to be unpredictable so even if you have a 100% anti-torture policy maybe it's best not to say ..so that if someone gets brought in he might fess up early thinking there will be a torture stage.
I think the police should say they never torture but Intelligence services are different.
There is also a problem as what defines as torture, cos the line can be drawn pretty low these days.
Personally if the Bad guy who is sure to kill at least 10 people in future is standing next to me and 9 little kids, I think the Intelligence services would be justified in killing us all.. And say they have ultimately saved lives overall.
stewgreen
"So there are conflicting images, ...Obviously taken at different times and we have no way of determining when. Do I care, NO"
Fair enough, it's your opinion
But I do care if the media constructs false narratives and runs them as reality.
That is what we are about on this blog , undoing all those false narratives.