Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

[The Don]

Millions of Americans have been candidates for president.

They have ?

 

[calebprime]

They're huge meetings, conference calls. The phone rings, you feel honored.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Looking on the bright side, his death will be protracted and highly entertaining from the viewer's perspective.

I see where this is coming from : how could The Greatest Story Ever Told not have Trump at its centre?

Well, to his cult, Trump is the Second Coming of Republican Jesus, as foretold in the Gospel According to Atwater.

 

[The Don]

They're huge meetings, conference calls. The phone rings, you feel honored.

How on Earth do they manage to discuss confidential and secret matters with such a large audience or does the fact that the President releases them immediately make them declassified ?

 

[jnelso99]

I wonder if he's conflating "candidates" with "eligible candidates". I don't remember seeing thousands of choices for president on any of the ballots I've seen. Which would have had to have happened to get "millions of...candidates for president".

 

[Stacko]

They have ?

Not credibly but technically yes. That was just this year and didn't include primary candidates for the major parties.

 

[varwoche]

I wonder if he's conflating "candidates" with "eligible candidates". I don't remember seeing thousands of choices for president on any of the ballots I've seen. Which would have had to have happened to get "millions of...candidates for president".

Whereas I wonder if he's conflating a discussion forum with a game of community rorshalk where participants blurt out whatever pops into their mind, no matter how fantastically inane the thought may be.

 

[calebprime]

That seemed harsh.

 

[The Don]

Not credibly but technically yes. That was just this year and didn't include primary candidates for the major parties.

Only a few hundred there, there have been less than a hundred Presidential elections, I don't see evidence for "millions". Many will be repeat candidates too. I really would like to see evidence to back the claim that millions of Americans have been Presidential candidates.

But I'm allowing a BobTheCoward derail to draw focus - shame on me.

George Papadopolous was known to the President, took an active part in his campaign and was even complimented by name by the President when he was a candidate.

 

[phiwum]

I wouldn't expect to, being neither a security expert nor a US citizen, but I do find it surprising that the majority of US citizens have.

Is this a recent thing, mass consulting on national security ? Are you compelled to attend ?

I can also understand why Daddy Don (ex-USN/USNR but resident in the UK for 50+ years) and Mrs Don (US citizen but UK resident for 25 years) haven't attended but AFAIK, none of her extended family back home have - or are you all sworn to secrecy.

Even assuming only adults attend, and a majority is just over 50%, that's still over 100 million people being consulted. The logistics along must be considerable. Perhaps this is why President Trump is said to be playing golf so much, thousands upon thousands of national security meetings with tens of millions of Americans.

Oh, yeah, you can usually get out of jury duty, but when a candidate requests your advice on matters of foreign policy, you have to respond. Usually, what happens is that you're seated at a table with other officials in his campaign and he calls you out by name as a real asset to his presidential run and you smile and sit quietly. Your mother probably snips a photo for her scrapbook, but no one else (aside from the Russians) takes notice.

A decent employer gives you paid leave for that day, but sometimes it's unpaid.

Is that not how it works in Wales?

 

[NoahFence]

I wonder if he's conflating "candidates" with "eligible candidates". I don't remember seeing thousands of choices for president on any of the ballots I've seen. Which would have had to have happened to get "millions of...candidates for president".

Of course he is. How else to hijack (aka "bob" a thread) with pathetic, transparent and childish pedantic crap?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Whereas I wonder if he's conflating a discussion forum with a game of community rorshalk where participants blurt out whatever pops into their mind, no matter how fantastically inane the thought may be.

I don't see a difference. The fact someone appears on a ballot or has a chance to win doesn't seem like a meaningful or interesting distinction to me.

 

[phiwum]

Can I just say that Trump is brilliant?

Papadopoulos pleads guilty to lying to the FBI when he said that he wasn't engaged with the Russian professor, or something.

Trump's response is *********** brilliant. "Are you going to believe him [when he says he's lied]? He's an admitted liar."

Honestly, Joseph Heller got nothing on him.

 

[Belz...]

Can I just say that Trump is brilliant?

Papadopoulos pleads guilty to lying to the FBI when he said that he wasn't engaged with the Russian professor, or something.

Trump's response is *********** brilliant. "Are you going to believe him [when he says he's lied]? He's an admitted liar."

Honestly, Joseph Heller got nothing on him.

And yet Trump lies continuously and people make excuses for his lies. Ugh.

 

[TofuFighter]

The suggestion was that the gravity of the meeting would lead to all the parties being aware of eachother. Calling him the president extends more serious to the meeting. In march 2016 it was far less serious.

At least, some serious not identical to the president seriousness.

I would suggest that, although less than the gravity of a meeting with the actual president, the meeting would retain a high enough level of gravity for everyone in that particular meeting to be familiar with the others. There weren't that many of them there.

If you disagree with that, then we can remain in disagreement about yet another thing. If you don't disagree, then i would ask what your reason was for mentioning it at all.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would suggest that, although less than the gravity of a meeting with the actual president, the meeting would retain a high enough level of gravity for everyone in that particular meeting to be familiar with the others. There weren't that many of them there.

If you disagree with that, then we can remain in disagreement about yet another thing. If you don't disagree, then i would ask what your reason was for mentioning it at all.

Because the statement wasn't entirely accurate. It is the people we don't disagree with that need the greatest challenge to ideas.

 

[The Don]

Oh, yeah, you can usually get out of jury duty, but when a candidate requests your advice on matters of foreign policy, you have to respond. Usually, what happens is that you're seated at a table with other officials in his campaign and he calls you out by name as a real asset to his presidential run and you smile and sit quietly. Your mother probably snips a photo for her scrapbook, but no one else (aside from the Russians) takes notice.

A decent employer gives you paid leave for that day, but sometimes it's unpaid.

Is that not how it works in Wales?

No, it sounds fantastically wasteful to have to confer with so many people with so little relevant experience

In any case, due to the fact that I was active in (left wing) student politics, I cannot get anything more than the basic security clearance. Any positive vetting comes back negative

 

[TofuFighter]

Because the statement wasn't entirely accurate. It is the people we don't disagree with that need the greatest challenge to ideas.

Then i will accept that you agree Trump would have been familiar with Papadopoulos and the entire accuracy of the comment becomes moot.

 

[phiwum]

And yet Trump lies continuously and people make excuses for his lies. Ugh.

Whatever. The argument that "You can't believe him when he says he lied, because he's an admitted liar," is frigging brilliant.

And since Trump never admits a lie, it doesn't apply to him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A link for my suggestion? Surely you jest. My link is ... wait for it ... ME!

It was a suggestion?

I thought you were saying it was a fact. I reread it and see I misread that 'require' was an imperative. Sorry.