The Trump Presidency 14

[Fast Eddie B]

...uses a picture of a peaceful logger's protest and states....

So, that's where he's gone off to?

Glad he's peaceful, anyway!

 

[Stacyhs]

Ridiculous. I've already covered the subject of "up to the minute" intelligence. Perhaps you missed it.

I missed nothing. Your explanation of the 'up to the minute' intelligence excuse just doesn't wash.

Trump said he asked his generals, "I want to know something before you go. How many people would be killed, in this case Iranians?"

He 'wants to know something'? What? He didn't know before? Even the way Trump puts his question indicates that he had not asked that question before or had not been given a casualty estimate. If he had, he'd have put his question more along the lines of "I asked my generals for an update on the casualty estimate".

The president’s Friday tweets caused widespread confusion within Trumpworld, with some interpreting the tweets to mean that Trump wasn’t told, or didn’t ask, about a potential body count until minutes before the strikes would have taken place.

But that wasn’t the case, as The Washington Post first reported. Trump was initially briefed on Thursday for military options to retaliate against Iran for downing a U.S. surveillance drone. One of the things his advisers discussed with him was the potential for a high Iranian body count. With the possible death toll made clear, the president approved the preparations for striking Iran.
“Yes, he was briefed on it earlier in the day,” a senior administration official said.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-approved-iran-strikes-knowing-body-count-would-be-high

Casualty estimates are typically provided by military officials when presenting options to the President, and a White House official said Trump was given an estimated death toll long before he asked military officials for the count just a half-hour to spare before the strikes. It’s not clear whether Trump did not hear, internalize or understand the death toll when it was first relayed to him earlier in the day.

Another administration official said that while Trump had received the casualty assessment earlier that day, “he made the call when he internalized the severity of casualties.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/donald-trump-iran-decision-details/index.html

As has already been stated, even FOX can see past Trump on this one. I repeat: you are bending over backwards to excuse away the fact that Trump, once again, LIED.

Perhaps you're a bit upset that with Trump's recent actions more Democrats are bending over forwards.

Chris B.

LOL! Is that how you see it?

 

[Stacyhs]

Two problems: First, the 3 installations that were targeted are 24 hour facilities (if you need a citation it will take me some time because I heard it on a TV broadcast).

According to CNN:

The recommendation to the President: strike three Iranian military targets—a set of radars and missile batteries—in a pre-dawn coordinated attack, according to a US official with direct knowledge of the operation.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/donald-trump-iran-decision-details/index.html

 

[Bob001]

I'm referring to modern day politics. LBJ was way more of a crusader than any recent Democratic President. And the notion that Hilary would've made a great President is laughable. She is the epitome of an empty suit that floats to wherever the political wind blows.
....

Few Presidents are judged "great," during their lives or by historians. But Hillary Clinton would have been a competent President, committed to maintaining basic functions of government. She would not have offended our allies and played kissy-face with our enemies. She would have appointed responsible cabinet and sub-cabinet officials who would have performed their duties intelligently. She would not have appointed federal judges selected by a right-wing anti-government club. She would not have demeaned and disparaged federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. She would not have denied global warming and cut scientific research. She would not have locked up children in cages. She would not be threatening a new Mideast war. Etc., etc., etc.

To defend Trump by demeaning Clinton borders on insane.

 

[Stacyhs]

Few Presidents are judged "great," during their lives or by historians. But Hillary Clinton would have been a competent President, committed to maintaining basic functions of government. She would not have offended our allies and played kissy-face with our enemies. She would have appointed responsible cabinet and sub-cabinet officials who would have performed their duties intelligently. She would not have appointed federal judges selected by a right-wing anti-government club. She would not have demeaned and disparaged federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. She would not have denied global warming and cut scientific research. She would not have locked up children in cages. She would not be threatening a new Mideast war. Etc., etc., etc.

To defend Trump by demeaning Clinton borders on insane.

Well put.
And for the record, I said I thought she would have made an "excellent" president, not "great".

 

[Norman Alexander]

Does the Senate leader have that authority?

Not asking if you think they should, but if they statutorily do.

Section 3 on Convening, particularly the subsection on Attendance. The Senate President has the right to compel attendance.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/s...ts/79th Legislative Assembly Senate Rules.pdf

Filling a vacancy, Oregon. S. 171.051 -

https://ballotpedia.org/How_vacancies_are_filled_in_state_legislatures#Oregon

171.051 Filling vacancies in Legislative Assembly. (1) When any vacancy occurs in the Legislative Assembly due to death or recall or by reason of resignation filed in writing with the Secretary of State or a person is declared disqualified by the house to which the person was elected, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment...

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors171.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... As has already been stated, even FOX can see past Trump on this one. I repeat: you are bending over backwards to excuse away the fact that Trump, once again, LIED. ..

Well, maybe some at Fox but not all of them.

Trump's in 'bragging, look at me, I'm so great mode'. He's making up the scenario of how he called it off to Chuck Todd: perfect little clips for Trump TV to gag us with all day and all night until Trump resets the news cycle with the next outrage.

Todd was drooling over his interview with Trump to be aired today.

He's so excited, what a score, they covered so many topics, Todd can't wait and the newscaster interviewing Todd is so happy for him. The ecstasy is palpable.​

[gag gag vomit gag]

After reading Media Matters' report on this Meet the Press interview it dawned on me, Todd is hanging out on the dark side so King Trump will honor Todd with additional interviews.

From my Media Matters email:

Most -- but not all -- of Trump's Fox News advisers are pushing him towards a war in Iran. Even if Trump demurred on striking Iran for now, he's still getting pressure from Fox to not look weak -- and that's what he spends his time paying attention to.
Sean Hannity in particular went all-in pushing Trump towards war.
A Fox & Friends guest claimed that a full-blown war against Iran would be "pretty quick and easy."A Fox host downplayed a potential war with Iran as "just a video game."One lie we heard multiple times this week is that Iran has weapons grade uranium. That is not even close to true, and yet it's been pushed by both the opinion side and the news side of Fox.
After Trump's rally, Hannity offered Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) a chance to host his show.

This is dangerous stuff and just like the Iraq war the press sold to America, here we go again.

If you haven't seen Bill Moyers: Buying the War: How Big Media Failed Us, it's worth an hour of your time because we might just be seeing a repeat.


And on the immigrant mistreatment:

Meet the Press let Trump lie about his family separations policy -- and then spread it further

Todd not only let Trump’s demonstrably false claim go unchallenged while taping the interview, but he also didn’t provide any pushback while offering live commentary on June 23, days after the interview was recorded. Moreover, Meet the Press irresponsibly amplified and spread Trump’s lie by repeating it without context or pushback on Twitter while the show aired, an act of journalistic malpractice in which news outlets instead become “propaganda distribution systems.” ...

And it wasn’t the only lie the show helped Trump amplify this way. Meet the Press also tweeted out without any context Trump’s claim that impeachment would be “a very unfair thing because nothing I did was wrong,” failing to mention the number of reported impeachable acts Trump could be held accountable for.

During the interview itself, Todd failed to pushback effectively on a number of other lies, and he declined to add context for his audiences while commenting on the interview when it aired. As CNN’s Daniel Dale pointed out, Trump also lied about voter fraud in California, and about the real amount of U.S. military sales to Saudi Arabia, and he mischaracterized the way he invoked WikiLeaks while campaigning for the presidency in 2016:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Section 3 on Convening, particularly the subsection on Attendance. The Senate President has the right to compel attendance.

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/s...ts/79th Legislative Assembly Senate Rules.pdf

Filling a vacancy, Oregon. S. 171.051 -

https://ballotpedia.org/How_vacancies_are_filled_in_state_legislatures#Oregon


https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors171.html

They need to organize a recall vote. The legislators would have to explain themselves to defend against the recall.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, maybe some at Fox but not all of them.

#3727

It would take a miracle of 'parting the Dead Sea and walking on water' proportions for everyone at FOX to admit that Trump lied...or even lies.

Poor Sean Hannity; once Trump is out of office, he'll have to go back to being just another attention hungry, bellicose, right-wing talk show host.

Yea!

 

[Norman Alexander]

They need to organize a recall vote. The legislators would have to explain themselves to defend against the recall.

I think this subject is drifting off-topic for the thread. I will ask the mods to move the posts to the other subject-specific thread shortly.

AFAICS, the legislature can't organise any vote because the absence of the GOP senators means it has no quorum and thus cannot pass a recall vote. That's why they are doing it.

My point is that the senate president can declare their seats vacant and have them replaced. In Oregon, the local party would nominate replacements so the GOP would not "lose seats". But the cowboys could stay in the Idaho woods for as long as they liked writing anti-government manifestos and eating raw squirrel or whatever their type do for breakfast.

 

[Stacyhs]

duplicate deleted

 

[newyorkguy]

...Hillary Clinton would have been a competent President...

I agree. When Clinton ran in New York for the U.S. Senate in 2000 I voted for her reluctantly. Why? I'm a moderate, registered Democrat and, in retrospect, she'd taken a terrible trashing in the media and it worked on me. By 2000 I couldn't stand her and I really couldn't have told you why. Not in any substantive way, that is. I just didn't like her! Her performance as our Senator in New York converted me. She seemed to be on the common sense side of every issue. She was no grand-stander, not any kind of publicity hound. She was a solid and professional senator. I gained a huge amount of respect for her and I am convinced she would have made a solid president. I voted for her gladly in 2006 and again in 2016.

To put it in baseball terms -- -- sorry! -- she wouldn't have been the cleanup hitter, maybe second or fifth. With solid defense, average around .300, 20 home runs, eighty RBIs. And she'd do it every year. Just a really, really solid player.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree. When Clinton ran in New York for the U.S. Senate in 2000 I voted for her reluctantly. Why? I'm a moderate, registered Democrat and, in retrospect, she'd taken a terrible trashing in the media and it worked on me. By 2000 I couldn't stand her and I really couldn't have told you why. Not in any substantive way, that is. I just didn't like her! Her performance as our Senator in New York converted me. She seemed to be on the common sense side of every issue. She was no grand-stander, not any kind of publicity hound. She was a solid and professional senator. I gained a huge amount of respect for her and I am convinced she would have made a solid president. I voted for her gladly in 2006 and again in 2016.

To put it in baseball terms -- -- sorry! -- she wouldn't have been the cleanup hitter, maybe second or fifth. With solid defense, average around .300, 20 home runs, eighty RBIs. And she'd do it every year. Just a really, really solid player.

Agreed! Until you got to the baseball part. I didn't understand a single reference.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I agree. When Clinton ran in New York for the U.S. Senate in 2000 I voted for her reluctantly. Why? I'm a moderate, registered Democrat and, in retrospect, she'd taken a terrible trashing in the media and it worked on me. By 2000 I couldn't stand her and I really couldn't have told you why. Not in any substantive way, that is. I just didn't like her! Her performance as our Senator in New York converted me. She seemed to be on the common sense side of every issue. She was no grand-stander, not any kind of publicity hound. She was a solid and professional senator. I gained a huge amount of respect for her and I am convinced she would have made a solid president. I voted for her gladly in 2006 and again in 2016.

To put it in baseball terms -- -- sorry! -- she wouldn't have been the cleanup hitter, maybe second or fifth. With solid defense, average around .300, 20 home runs, eighty RBIs. And she'd do it every year. Just a really, really solid player.

The problem is we have an electorate who wants some kind of rock star AA pitcher to suddenly accelerate out of nowhere and somehow go 9 innings without a relief.

 

[Bob001]

I agree. When Clinton ran in New York for the U.S. Senate in 2000 I voted for her reluctantly. Why? I'm a moderate, registered Democrat and, in retrospect, she'd taken a terrible trashing in the media and it worked on me. By 2000 I couldn't stand her and I really couldn't have told you why. Not in any substantive way, that is. I just didn't like her! Her performance as our Senator in New York converted me. She seemed to be on the common sense side of every issue. She was no grand-stander, not any kind of publicity hound. She was a solid and professional senator. I gained a huge amount of respect for her and I am convinced she would have made a solid president. I voted for her gladly in 2006 and again in 2016.
.....

The paradox, if not the tragedy, is that if she had stayed in the Senate, she would have run for President in 2016 as a senior three-term senior senator without any of the baggage associated, fairly or otherwise, with her time as SecState. And for Obama, the face of hope and change, to make one of his first important appointments a controversial veteran of the old politics hurt him, too. Obama would have been better off with Clinton in the Senate, pushing the ACA and making deals where she could.

 

[Trebuchet]

Few Presidents are judged "great," during their lives or by historians. But Hillary Clinton would have been a competent President, committed to maintaining basic functions of government. She would not have offended our allies and played kissy-face with our enemies. She would have appointed responsible cabinet and sub-cabinet officials who would have performed their duties intelligently. She would not have appointed federal judges selected by a right-wing anti-government club. She would not have demeaned and disparaged federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. She would not have denied global warming and cut scientific research. She would not have locked up children in cages. She would not be threatening a new Mideast war. Etc., etc., etc.

To defend Trump by demeaning Clinton borders on insane.

Well put.
And for the record, I said I thought she would have made an "excellent" president, not "great".

Right now I'd settle for just a sane President.

 

[Tero]

Trump makes up more ****:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1142806204898582528
I don't get it. Where does he get this stuff? We've borrowed forever. Probably borrowed on day 1 of 1776.

 

[Tero]

Duplicate

 

[TragicMonkey]

Trump makes up more ****:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1142806204898582528
I don't get it. Where does he get this stuff? We've borrowed forever. Probably borrowed on day 1 of 1776.

The American Revolution was financed largely by French loans, which America refused to pay back because the French had their own revolution, and America said it owed money to the French monarch and not a bunch of dirty revolutionaries.

So we went full hypocrite well before Day 1. Perhaps that's why we're so darn good at it!

 

[Tero]

He must be talking to the base. But still. Anyone that gullible...would vote Trump.

Never mind!