The Trump administration 2

I think some read too much into this statement of Trump's. One thing we know for sure about hiim is that he is not introspective. The other thing we know is that he says more or less what pops into his mind at the moment. He often contradicts his prior statements very shortly thereafter.

So far as I know, the USA is still killing people with drones, still doing all those things that 'killers' do. It may just be that Trump doesn't see the necessity of being polite about the killing. After all, it's not as if the ICC is going to grab the president of the USA and hold for trial...

re: Trump's "killers" comment...

As I said on the previous thread, Trump gave the Iraq War as his example of what America's killers do. Given that he claims to have always been against that war, he probably did want his audience to think that that was an example of something he would not do.

That is, to the extent that he was thinking tactically at all. Most likely, it was just a convenient bit of "whatabouterry" that popped into his head. It's one of the most common fallbacks used in debate, so it's not surprising that Trump, speaking off the top of his head, would latch onto it.

I wouldn't go as far as Paladin in framing this as some sort of important milestone in US political discourse, but it is interesting(dare I say refreshing) to see a POTUS so casually toss out a blunt truth like that, even if put forth for self-serving purposes. I still rememeber Michelle Obama being raked over the coal by conservatives for saying that her husband's election was "the first time in my life that I'm proud to be an American". Can you imagine how they would have reacted if she had said "What's so bad about Putin? We've got a few killers over here!"

I know we're not supposed to bring this up — but it is staring us brutally in the face. I keep asking myself this simple question: If you came across someone in your everyday life who repeatedly said fantastically and demonstrably untrue things, what would you think of him? If you showed up at a neighbor's, say, and your host showed you his newly painted living room, which was a deep blue, and then insisted repeatedly — manically — that it was a lovely shade of scarlet, what would your reaction be? If he then dragged out a member of his family and insisted she repeat this obvious untruth in front of you, how would you respond? If the next time you dropped by, he was still raving about his gorgeous new red walls, what would you think? Here's what I'd think: This man is off his rocker. He's deranged; he's bizarrely living in an alternative universe; he's delusional. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/andrew-sullivan-the-madness-of-king-donald.html

Rev Pesky wrote:

 

The story is a bit disingenuous in that while it's true that China sees Taiwan as part of China proper, it's also true that Taiwan saw itself as part of mainland China right up until the moment they realized that they were never going to overthrow the mainland government. That was sometime in the 1990's.

I do not agree with this. While I do not have the latest polls and I realize that time is running out for unification, Taiwan was for many years split roughly between about 1/3 wanting indpendence declared, 1/3 wanting to join China soon or now, 1/3 wanting to join China later with conditions (presumably after things get better from their perspective. This split means that the needle for joining or not moves with that 1/3's definition of how likely their conditions can/will be met, their optimism, and timeline.

I would not exaggerate any desire there for a full break with China as I don't think there is a consensus for that. Here often this is presumed to be becuase of a threat from the PRC but it is much more complicated and quite emotional an issue.

We have to recognize that Taiwan is made up of a local Tawanese population along with people whose grandparents left China and want those ties. Those grandparents have siblings in China mainland, Hong Kong, and abroad. (I know more than one family exactly like that.) We should not allow prejudice against the PRC to underestimate the desire for reunification among a significant portion of the population -- all be it on terms and conditions that vary by person.

The migration to Taiman in 1949 changed a dynamic in which you can see Taiwan as being mostly independent historically from China (the place failed regimes would go to as well as being controlled by outsiders).

As well the Nationalists when they went to Taiwan left representing China and took with them national treasures that belong to all China. It woudl be impossible to have civil discussion about a break from China without that coming up. However, there is little desire on both sides (from the population) I think to have such a conversation adn the government alternates between those closer to or further from mainland.

For many the view of Taiwan is over-simplified (as is Tibet).

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's certainly very little, and it's not high on my list of things Trump might want to do a one-eighty on, but it's interesting to see him walk it back, for the first time ever.  One only wonders what led to Bann-  er, Trump, having such an about-face.

The mean man yelled at him on the phone

Quote:

The mean man yelled at him on the phone

Sad.

But Trump will build a wall that makes his look like a kerb.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

...I do not agree with this. While I do not have the latest polls and I realize that time is running out for unification, Taiwan was for many years split roughly between about 1/3 wanting indpendence declared, 1/3 wanting to join China soon or now, 1/3 wanting to join China later with conditions (presumably after things get better from their perspective. This split means that the needle for joining or not moves with that 1/3's definition of how likely their conditions can/will be met, their optimism, and timeline...

I was speaking of the Taiwanese government's position.

Does not make sense -- they have had multiple changes of government since the 1990s so the Taiwanese government has had no position going back that time.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

...Does not make sense -- they have had multiple changes of government since the 1990s so the Taiwanese government has had no position going back that time.

Could you rephrase this to make it understandable.

To make my position clear (I thought it was, but...) the government of Taiwan, up until the 1990's took the position that they were part of mainland China,and that they, the Taiwanese government, were the legitimate government of all of China.

The abandoned that position when they realized there was no chance they would ever actually rule over mainland China.

Taiwan has not had the same government through that time and so it has not had a consistent opinion. Some governments of Taiway have been much more open towards eventual reunion than others.

The governmetn have reflected the opinion of the people which wavers on this. They also ahve had scandals in government that have also affected the politics and when China has been to bellicose the more independent minded party is more likely to win.

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/11/danger-in-my-belly-i-know-where-donald-t...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/fake-news-is-killing-people-s-mind...

did the president of the USA say Pocahontas is now the face of the democratic party? yup

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/video/trump-on-warren-pocahontas-is-now-th...

NorthReport wrote:

America has a huge media problem which led to Trump getting elected. CNN and the other cable networks in the name of ratings and profits gave Trump the free platform he needed to mount his campaign, and the sooner the mainstream media is put out of its misery the better http://www.salon.com/2017/02/11/trumps-attacks-on-the-press-and-how-the-...

There is nothing mainstream about the media anyway and it has not been that way in some time.

Those who attack the mainstream media are whipping a dead horse.

The media has long split into multiple self-customizable streams of infomration such that each person has their own media universe of their own creation.

One of the seide effects of this is massive confimation bias abd where there were low standards there are now none at all.

It is time we stop nfighting the old battle against mainstream midea and face the present information war as it really is.

I'll start: The main stream media had some independence from most govenrments before it disintegrated. What it is being replaced with is a battle where many of its replacements support one or other party more directly than the kind of bias we used to see. Where we saw bias we now have outright fabrication that used to be more rare. There is no longer a nationalistic bias but now one specifically for one party and against another. The direct conflicts are now so legion that people don't even remark on them anymore.

Back in the day, the main stream media was arrogant, biased but still fairly independent. More recently it was allowed to be part of larger interests that did more than media and developped more stark conflicts (like in Canada when Bell was able to buy enough media that it could largely reduce and shape stories it did not like about itself). Eventually things got tot he point where the mdeia became more an more aligned with political parties such that they are effectively merging. This is a very key component of Facism.

So complaining about the old single large main stream media was a thing but it is largely unhelpful especially as we celebrate its demise while spending little attention to what has already been moving to replace it -- a Fascistic relationship between politics and a new media devoid of any shame or standards that has no independence whatsoever -- not even the arms-length relationships that existed previously.

People really need to look at the other side of the coin soon before it is too late.

In other news Trump is threatening to crack down on anti-Trump humour.

While Bannon loves him some Italian fascists, another assistance to Il Douche loves him some Hungarian fascism

http://lobelog.com/why-is-trump-adviser-wearing-medal-of-nazi-collaborat...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

...What it is being replaced with is a battle where many of its replacements support one or other party more directly than the kind of bias we used to see....

Growing up in BC, I remember there were two dailys, the Vancouver Sun, and the Vancouver Province. If you voted Liberal, you took the Sun, and if you voted Conservative, you took the province. There was no paper for the CCF/NDP.

So yes, the newsprint media was clearly divided politically. That's a tradition that goes back a long way. Check out the political cartoons from the late 1800's and early 1900's. Some pretty close to slander and libel material.

It was still nothing like what we are seeing today though -- as bad as it was.

That is a matter of opinion and I think our history of partisan media is both as old as newspapers and has always been extremely bad.

In the US the first thing the Patriots did when they began the "revolution" was to have mobs burn down all the Loyalist presses.  That is what is meant by a country founded on free speech. Of course don't tell our American friends that free speech was an English common law right in the colonies. As well the Hearst style of journalism is alive and well in our modern era.

bekayne wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Growing up in BC, I remember there were two dailys, the Vancouver Sun, and the Vancouver Province. If you voted Liberal, you took the Sun, and if you voted Conservative, you took the province. 

Funny thing was, they both had the same owner

i don't believe Rev's comment completely.

my grandparents life long NDPers wouldn't read the Sun even if free to read like someone left it behind on the ferry. they would read the Province free.

there was no BC Liberal Party when i was a kid though.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Do you think Trump's point was:

a)  "... so let's not go accusing people of stuff"

b)  "... so we should be equally critical of Putin and also our own administration"

c)  "... so we should be equally critical of Putin and also the previous administration"

You have to admit, if his rebuttal was, as you suggest, practically a confession, it should be interesting to see how he follows that up, yes?

It's hard to say why. Maybe he was caught off guard and put on the spot and it slipped out or maybe he sees the US for what it has become.  Unlike Clinton he hasn't built his empire pulling a Tony Stark so there's a real change he could change the war-business system.

A Socialist Strategy to Defeat Trump    - by Kshama Sawant

http://counterpunch.org/2017/02/10/a-socialist-strategy-to-defeat-trump

"Escalate the resistance towards shutdowns on March 8 and May 1."

Decoding Trump   -  by Radhika Desai

http://counterpunch.org/2017/02/10/decoding-trump

"Let's begin with the basics..."

"As we begin to take further actions," Miller said, it will be shown in the end "that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned." 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/trump-administration-considering-narrower-travel-ban

Gen Michael Flynn RESIGNS As National Security Advisor Over Contacts With Russia (and vid)

https://www.rt.com/usa/377267-michael-flynn-resigns-national-security-ad...

The Elites Won't Save Us  -  by Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_elites_wont_save_us_20170212

"A sustained, nationwide popular uprising of nonviolent obstruction and non-cooperation is the only weapon left to save the republic. The elites will respond once they become afraid. If we do not make them afraid we will fail."

Yes, Flynn is gone, and the consequences of screwing with the intelligence community are becoming more clear.

Flynn quits

Quote:

The US national security advisor, Michael Flynn, resigned late on Monday night amid a flow of intelligence leaks that he had secretly discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to Washington and then tried to cover up the conversations.

...It was far from clear whether Flynn’s departure would steady an inexperienced and feuding White House, or resolve the lingering suspicions about the Trump team’s pre-election contacts with the Kremlin. 

...On Monday afternoon, the White House appeared to struggle with how to handle the accusations. A White House statement that the president was “evaluating the situation” conflicted with White House counselor Kellyanne Conway telling reporters that Trump had “full confidence” in Flynn.

...the repeated and detailed leaks by a disgruntled and alarmed US intelligence community suggested that Flynn’s contacts with Kisilyak dated back to before the election, raising more questions about whether the Trump campaign had any knowledge of the Russian effort to skew the elections.

...Ignored at best, berated at worst, the NSC career staff began leaking copiously about Trump’s erratic phone calls with other world leaders and other missteps, infuriating the president, who ordered leak investigations, further deepening the discontent and dysfunction inside the White House.

Get out the popcorn, folks, the show is about to begin. Well, I guess it already has begun, but Trump spent a lot of time trying to piss off the career intelligence crowd, and I doubt they liked that.

Can hardly wait for the real leaking to begin. Trump has enough baggage to fill a train, much of which wouldn't look that good to the public.

Let's see, in the last week, Trump pissed all over the judiciary. Those chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will. In the meantime the bureuacrats will be cutting hiim down to size.

Trump is about to find out the bureaucracy is a lot bigger than he is, and if full of people who are experts at hanging politicians out to dry.

Wow kellyanne did a bad job on her mascara it's all over the place.

he is using up his daughter. used up Ms Conway.

who knows about Melania but she has definitely lost her sparkle from 10 years ago.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Yes, Flynn is gone, and the consequences of screwing with the intelligence community are becoming more clear.

Is this the same INT community that gave us those pictures of WMDs in Iraq which we used to justify an invasion? You remember, the grainy satelitte photos with red circles over random blurry things that had all the generals vigourously nodding their heads.

As Trump stumbles, Hill Republicans find it harder to defend him

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/as-trump-stumbles-hill-republic...

Mike Flynn might be done – but Trump's nightmare has just begun

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/14/mike-flynn-resigna...