AuthorTopic: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread  (Read 114307 times)

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 7191
    • View Profile
Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #1530 on: September 20, 2018, 08:39:17 AM »
Here's the link to the Mueller Emails if anyone is interested....


https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nu7SZvGCr5kZSG1MGj307Sj2uvHxwYHd
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34835
    • View Profile
🤡 Trump Tells Starving Hurricane Survivors to Enjoy Themselves
« Reply #1531 on: September 21, 2018, 03:39:31 AM »
Party On Dudes!  ::)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rph_1DODXDU" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/rph_1DODXDU</a>

RE

Trump Tells Starving Hurricane Survivors to Enjoy Themselves
“Have a good time!”
by Bess Levin

September 20, 2018 11:36 am


Donald Trump speaks during a briefing at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in Havelock, North Carolina.
You don’t even want to know.
By Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images

When Donald Trump finally traveled to Puerto Rico last year to visit survivors of Hurricane Maria, his behavior alternated between “socially awkward monster” and “carnival barker.” At a press conference, he blamed Puerto Rico for screwing up the U.S. budget and insisted that its storm wasn’t “a real catastrophe like Katrina.” At a relief center, he tossed rolls of paper towels into the crowd like it was Friday night at Madison Square Garden, and he was working the T-shirt cannon. One year later, has his humanitarian-crisis bedside manner improved at all? Not exactly!

Visiting the Carolinas yesterday for the first time since Hurricane Florence made landfall, killing at least 37 people, the president kicked things off by inquiring about the important stuff, i.e. his Trump National Golf Club in the region. “How is Lake Norman doing?” he asked an official. When he found out it was fine, he responded “I love that area. I can’t tell you why, but I love that area.”

Later, high on the news that his money-maker had made it out in one piece, he excitedly chatted with an older man whose house had been damaged in New Bern. “Is this your boat?” Trump asked the guy, gesturing toward a yacht that had crashed into the backyard of his home. When the man said no, Trump responded, “At least you got a nice boat out of the deal,” suggesting that the law pertaining to such things operates on a finders-keepers basis.
Watch Now: Jon Hamm Tells The Best Jokes

And, of course, it wouldn’t be a Trump appearance without at least one deeply awkward interaction involving him telling people who just lost everything to get out there and enjoy themselves:

    Later, Trump helped distribute box lunches consisting of hot dogs, chips, and fruit, to people who had waited over an hour to collect the meal. “Got it? Have a good time,” Trump said as he handed one man a meal, prompting an MSNBC reporter to exclaim off-camera, “I think he just said, ‘Have a good time!’”

Amazingly, it isn’t the first time the president has fallen back on this particular verbal tic in the wake of a natural disaster. He similarly urged Maria victims to “have a good time” after his paper towel-pelting routine, and he used the same line about a month earlier, while visiting Houstonians affected by Harvey.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14541
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #1532 on: September 21, 2018, 04:39:16 AM »
A sensational headline, but based only on "one source says".

What?

Quote
According to sources, several factors are at play. White House advisers are worried that more damaging information about Kavanaugh could come out. Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously. People worry, without apparent evidence, of another Ronan Farrow bomb dropping. One source says Ivanka Trump has told her father to “cut bait” and drop Kavanaugh.
Watch Now: Why Reporting on Trump is So Difficult

Source soup, but who cares?  Ten sources could all lie and a singe source could tell the truth.  Unless you have the logic of a flatworm the count should not matter.

Who was it that queried "the source? a horse of course" hmmm?. I suppose it doesn't matter how many horses inside the white house leak to Vanity Fair of all possible publications for politics. It makes a nice change from "sources inside the palace" for stuff that never turns out to be true. Even better are "sources close to" whichever movie star. With friends like that, who would need enemies.

Quote
"Vanity Fair of all possible publications for politics"

You might want to spin up to speed on political journalism in the US before opining like this. Vanity Fair regularly publishes some of the most connected and effective political journalism on the country. Gabriel Sherman, T.A. Frank, Tina Nguyen, Emily Jane Fox et al do killer work that is well respected by colleagues and often break cutting edge stories.

Not a peep about movie stars.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Agent Graves

  • Rookie
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #1533 on: September 22, 2018, 12:36:25 AM »
A sensational headline, but based only on "one source says".

What?

Quote
According to sources, several factors are at play. White House advisers are worried that more damaging information about Kavanaugh could come out. Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously. People worry, without apparent evidence, of another Ronan Farrow bomb dropping. One source says Ivanka Trump has told her father to “cut bait” and drop Kavanaugh.
Watch Now: Why Reporting on Trump is So Difficult

Source soup, but who cares?  Ten sources could all lie and a singe source could tell the truth.  Unless you have the logic of a flatworm the count should not matter.

Who was it that queried "the source? a horse of course" hmmm?. I suppose it doesn't matter how many horses inside the white house leak to Vanity Fair of all possible publications for politics. It makes a nice change from "sources inside the palace" for stuff that never turns out to be true. Even better are "sources close to" whichever movie star. With friends like that, who would need enemies.

Quote
"Vanity Fair of all possible publications for politics"

You might want to spin up to speed on political journalism in the US before opining like this. Vanity Fair regularly publishes some of the most connected and effective political journalism on the country. Gabriel Sherman, T.A. Frank, Tina Nguyen, Emily Jane Fox et al do killer work that is well respected by colleagues and often break cutting edge stories.

Not a peep about movie stars.

Then they should not engage in that type of, tabloid "interviewing". If Mike Willessee or Walter Kronkite used even one anon source, they would have been at pains to point out how they vetted it, that their own reputation was on the line and then a high chance the White House actually did cut Kavanaugh loose.
Junior  Operative, FBI Counter-Doomsdaycult Taskforce

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34835
    • View Profile
🤡 Is Trump Bringing Fascism Or Removing the Liberal Facade from it?
« Reply #1534 on: September 23, 2018, 12:20:34 AM »


Is Trump Bringing Fascism Or Removing the Liberal Facade from it?
September 21, 2018 branford perry


HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Curiously, as many things connected with Trump, this man, Janusian to this core, may be bringing the world to a catastrophe in short order, or he may be performing an unwitting service by unmasking the liberal fascist system in operation long before he came to the White House.—Ed.
An Oped by Jonathan Nack

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power…. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936
The power of gigantic corporations has been steadily growing in the 82 years since FDR said this.  It is likely, based on this quote, that FDR would not recognize the United States of today as deserving of the term democracy (former President Jimmy Carter doesn’t), and instead FDR would see it as more deserving of being called fascist.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-63262/

The coming to power of President Donald Trump has many people talking about, and worrying over, the rise of fascism, or neo-fascism.  There’s good reason for that.  Trump’s constant hate speech makes use of classic fascist rhetorical devices.  His nationalist appeals to “make America great again;” demonization of immigrants; attacks on corporate media outlets which oppose him; huge increases in spending on the military and the police; and his contempt for even the extremely limited protections provided by bourgeois democratic government institutions; are straight out of the fascist playbook.
Though still very much a capitalist, in fact many credit him with saving capitalism, FDR had a far more democratic vision for the world than current Western leaders.

Trump’s fascistic discourse has also given comfort to hardcore fascist forces. These forces, openly racist, some proudly declaring their allegiance to fascism, have existed in the U.S. for a very long time.  They are now emerging from the shadows to try and claim legitimacy and space in public.  Just days ago, there was the effort by fascist forces, under the relatively innocent sounding “Unite the Right” slogan, to occupy public space in the nation’s capitol.

There have been many examples of this recently, including fascist rallies in Portland and Berkeley, with the deadly rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, being the most outstanding. https://patch.com/us/across-america/white-supremacists-plan-more-rallies-antifa-fights-back-post-charlottesville.

There has also been a rash of reports of attacks on, and murders of, people of color, especially Black people.  Is this phenomenon really something new, or is it something that has been going on for a very long time and is only now getting reported more?  Is it mainly the result of the rise of overtly fascist forces, or the result of a much deeper systemic and institutional racist problem?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/being-black-in-america-can-be-hazardous-to-your-health/561740/

Is Trump bringing fascism to the United States?  That is a very legitimate question.  However, there is another legitimate question.  Is Trump merely taking the facade off, and making more overt, a system that was already fundamentally fascistic and deeply racist?

Let’s go back to FDR’s quote, “…the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power…”.
Even in some of his gesturing, Trump reminds us of Mussolini. But the corporate fascist qualities that define the US government, and especially its empire, applied equally to his predecessors, and it will likely define the rule of those who follow him.

The U.S. has been ruled for many decades by a system of control by gigantic multinational corporations.  I call it Corporate Capitalist Fascism.  You may prefer to call it something else, like Corporatism, or Corporate Democracy.  What you call it is much less important than recognizing its characteristics.  Here is an outline of those characteristics.

* A system in which corporations, particularly multinational corporations, and their super rich benefactors (the 1 percent), dominate all aspects of life.

This is very different from the 20th Century iterations of fascism in Europe.  Rather than the state controlling everything, or seeking to control everything, there is corporate control of everything, including the state.

* The candidates backed by corporations in both major parties win just about every election of consequence.  The higher the office, the more this is true.  Money dominates elections.  Where does this money come from?  Corporations and the shareholders and private owners who reap the profits from them.

Corporate lobbyists set the political agenda. The state is used to lavish welfare onto corporations and to pursue policies, foreign and domestic, in the interests of corporations.  This system operates on a global scale, mainly riding on the back of U.S. economic and cultural imperialism, and the U.S. military.

* Corporations control the mass media.  A mass media that is at least a hundred fold more powerful than what existed during 20th Century iterations of fascism. This is, I believe, a key feature.  This enables them to control how most people think.  When the ruling classes control how people think, there is less need for heavy handed repression.  Individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom to organize are tolerated as long as they don’t really threaten corporate dominance of the mass media. Noam Chomsky’s writings have done much of the heavy lifting regarding the manufacturing of consent.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

* Racism, sexism, and every divisive “ism” there is are systematically used to keep the people divided and distracted.  Above all else, the masses must be preventing from seeing that their common struggle should be against their corporate masters.

* Despite all the manufacturing of consent, there is still extensive physical repression as evidenced by the huge population in prison and on parole.  The welfare of much of the population is completely ignored, or ignored as much as possible.  Thus they must be controlled by police repression and incarceration, including brutality and murder. The prison system is dominated, ever increasing so, by a prison industrial complex, for the benefit of for profit corporations.

* Increasing militarism is another feature.  This is driven both by the international interests of multinational corporations, but also by a for profit military industrial complex run by and for corporations.  It’s no coincidence that the most profitable corporations are in the armaments industry.

* The legal system has been completely warped by corporate power.  Corporations, entities not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, have far more legal rights, and far less responsibilities than people do.

* Finally, and obviously, corporations dominate the capitalist economy. There is no free market, if there ever was.

With the advent of Trump, we are living in a a much harsher form of what I call Corporate Capitalist Fascism.  The rhetoric is more overtly racist, xenophobic, sexist, nationalist, and aggressive.  Substantive civil political discourse is replaced by personal attacks.  A new level of meanness and selfishness is sweeping the country due to the example set by the first President in our history with a public persona of a smug self-centered arrogant asshole.

Grassroots fascist organizations, always present in the U.S., are taking as much advantage of this situation as they can.  Trump appears to wink and nod at them, except when he’s absolutely forced to distance himself from them – well sort of denounce them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-14/trump-condemns-white-supremacists-for-charlottesville-violence

20th Century Fascism historically rose when the ruling classes felt the need to smash a growing threat from the left.  We are seeing something of that today, but Corporate Capitalist Fascism is also different.  It rose to dominate all political points of view: left, right, and center.

There is a portion of the ruling classes, perhaps about half, probably less, which is opposed to this harsher form of corporate domination.  It may offend their sensibilities, but this is not the real reason they oppose it.  They believe this harsher brand of rule not only threatens their wealth and power, but that it could bring down the entire system of corporate control.  They would much rather hide behind a facade of democracy.  This is why some gigantic multi-national corporations, such as those that own NBC, CBS, and CNN, are engaged in a propaganda war with Trump and the Republicans.  Never in my lifetime have I witnessed such mass media giants attack virtually every utterance and action of a sitting President.

Before I send everyone rushing to jump out of a window with this dystopian view of reality, let me conclude by saying that I believe that there are possible alternatives to the harder and softer brands of corporate control.

There is a growing fight back.  While I can not say that I’m optimistic about the trajectory of the U.S., I still believe that a better world is possible. A world not dominated by multi-national corporations.  A world with there is heart and solidarity.  A world of much less inequality.  A world of real and deep democracy.  I think it was was Antonio Gramsci who said, “pessimism of the mind, optimism of the spirit.”

A better world is possible, but we’re going to have to fight like hell to give birth to it.  We’re going to have to fight like our lives, and the lives of our children, and their children, depend on it.  We’re going to have to be creative and fight in new ways.  This fight, the struggle of our times, will never be won through elections alone.  It’s an uphill struggle against long odds to be sure, but it isn’t over.  We can still win it.  We have to.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jonathan Nack is an activist and journalist based in Oakland, California.  He has more than forty years of experience both in, and covering, social movements.  Developments on the U.S. left; contemporary social struggles; U.S. imperialism, particularly regarding Latin America; electoral politics; as well as local struggles as mass protests are among the topics he has covered.  Nack has been published by Indybay.org, OpEdNews.org, SFBayview.com, AxisofLogic.com, IndyMedia.org, among other on line publications.  Nack was previously an irregular correspondent for many years for The Guardian newspaper, an independent radical news weekly that was out of New York City.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline K-Dog

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 2714
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: 🤡 Is Trump Bringing Fascism Or Removing the Liberal Facade from it?
« Reply #1535 on: September 23, 2018, 02:34:23 AM »


Is Trump Bringing Fascism Or Removing the Liberal Facade from it?
September 21, 2018 branford perry


*******************************************************************************************************************************************************

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jonathan Nack is an activist and journalist based in Oakland, California.  He has more than forty years of experience both in, and covering, social movements.  Developments on the U.S. left; contemporary social struggles; U.S. imperialism, particularly regarding Latin America; electoral politics; as well as local struggles as mass protests are among the topics he has covered.  Nack has been published by Indybay.org, OpEdNews.org, SFBayview.com, AxisofLogic.com, IndyMedia.org, among other on line publications.  Nack was previously an irregular correspondent for many years for The Guardian newspaper, an independent radical news weekly that was out of New York City.


Quotes of long articles need to be improved.  You read a thousand words or so and want to comment and the article is only a short scroll up.  No need to repeat.

Could we all please evolve?



Fascism smashism.  Shall we write a tyranny 101 textbook?  What does fascism look like?

Is it bunnies hopping through green meadows where giggling little girls gather flowers in reed baskets?

Or is fascism the simple exploitation of man by other men where the fruits of the labor of some are stolen by others.  Where fairness and long term consequences are minor considerations in a social ideology of greed and tribalistic short term xenophobic goals pursued with religious fervor.

Quote
There is a growing fight back.  While I can not say that I’m optimistic about the trajectory of the U.S., I still believe that a better world is possible. A world not dominated by multi-national corporations.  A world with there is heart and solidarity.  A world of much less inequality.  A world of real and deep democracy.  I think it was was Antonio Gramsci who said, “pessimism of the mind, optimism of the spirit.”
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/1VM2eLhvsSM?ecver=2" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/1VM2eLhvsSM?ecver=2</a>

Oh Yeah!





Can you taste it!?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 02:53:31 AM by K-Dog »
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34835
    • View Profile
Re: 🤡 Is Trump Bringing Fascism Or Removing the Liberal Facade from it?
« Reply #1536 on: September 23, 2018, 03:04:15 AM »
What does fascism look like?




RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 7191
    • View Profile
45 Lights Torch on F/B GOOG Witch Hunt
« Reply #1537 on: September 23, 2018, 01:14:59 PM »

(Bloomberg) -- The White House is considering a draft executive order for President Donald Trump that would instruct federal antitrust and law enforcement agencies to open probes into the practices of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook Inc., and other social media companies.

Bloomberg News obtained a draft of the order, which a White House official said was in its early stages and hasn’t been run past other government agencies. Separately, Lindsey Walters, deputy White House press secretary, said in an emailed statement that the document isn’t the result of an official White House policy making process.


https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/09/22/draft-order-for-trump-would-crack-down-on-google-facebook#gs.zva=xSU
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 7191
    • View Profile
Giuliani Lights Torch on Iran Gov't Witch Hunt
« Reply #1538 on: September 24, 2018, 12:02:03 PM »

Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Saturday said that U.S. sanctions on Iran are leading to economic pain that could lead to a “successful revolution,” contrasting with administration comments that government change in Tehran is not U.S. policy.
Rudolph Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City, delivers a speech during the 2018 Iran Uprising Summit in Manhattan, New York, U.S., September 22, 2018. REUTERS/Amr Alfiky

“I don’t know when we’re going to overthrow them,” said Giuliani, who spoke in his own capacity though he is a Trump ally, at an Iran Uprising Summit held by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, which opposes Tehran’s government.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-opposition/trump-lawyer-giuliani-says-irans-government-will-be-overthrown-idUSKCN1M3005
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14541
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
This One Piece of Paper Threatens Trump at His Very Core
« Reply #1539 on: September 24, 2018, 01:50:43 PM »
This One Piece of Paper Threatens Trump at His Very Core — And Explains Why He Needs Rosenstein Out Now
Trump’s “genius” for selling New York and Florida real estate at ridiculous markups actually disguises systematic money-laundering.

By Mark Sumner / Daily Kos


  Monday’s sudden Rod Rosenstein “resignation” crisis didn’t come out of nowhere—it came out of planted stories designed to make the deputy attorney general look like an intolerable loose cannon. But the timing does seem curious. Donald Trump had already secured an agreement with Republican senators to pitch Attorney General Jefferson Sessions immediately after the midterm elections. That would allow Trump to sideline Rosenstein, with his new AG positioned to take care of the Russia investigation on demand. So why now? Because Trump couldn’t wait.

The Washington Post report on the morning’s confusion shows what happens when everything is about protecting the autocrat. White House sources are claiming that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein is not only planning to resign, but has already resigned. Meanwhile reports from the Department of Justice insist that Rosenstein hasn’t resigned, and won’t resign, but expects to be fired. A resignation would obviously play better for Donald Trump. Not only would it provide more possibilities for how Trump fills the vacancy, but it allows Trump to paint the situation in terms of Rosenstein acknowledging that he had done something wrong.

Trump really, really wants that. Because he really, really needs to put someone like the Clinton-hating, FBI-skeptic, unitary executive-loving, Brett Kavanaugh friend Noel Francisco in charge. Then the Russia investigation can wind down gradually, whittled away to nothing, or otherwise silenced. Trump not only wants Rosenstein out—he wants to make Rosenstein part of his Deep State/Drain the Swamp/They’re all out to get me narrative. He wants it immediately. Because this thing is slipping away from him by the hour, and he knows it.

The last month has seen the conviction of Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, the guilty plea from Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen, the news that Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg was testifying under immunity from federal prosecutors, word that Cohen was looking to cooperate, and then the blasting surprise that Manafort had agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. Finally, there was an extra dash of news that Cohen was in the midst of spilling to the special counsel, in advance of any cooperation agreement.

Cohen, Manafort, and Weisselberg’s testimony threatens Trump at his very core. It threatens to reveal the layers of Russia-connected money laundering, tax evasion, and decades of conspiracy that turned Trump from a bankrupt also-ran into an oligarch-powered “success.” It’s a threat to not just Trump’s office, but to his money, his company, his image, and to everything he owns. 

A series of “deep reports” by the Financial Times in 2016 showed how Trump, bankrupted by his epic failure in Atlantic City, unable to secure more loans to support his lavish lifestyle, and hovering on the brink of being booted from his own “tower,” made critical connections that pulled him back into the sun. With the help of intermediaries like Felix Sater and Sergei Millian, Trump turned his organization from a bankrupt real estate firm that was unable to fund the building of a pup tent, into a powerhouse money-laundering firm that saw hundreds of millions pouring in from Russia and former Soviet territory.

That transition was directly connected with one of the people talking to Robert Mueller right now.

Mr Millian claimed Mr Trump then introduced him to Michael Cohen, the Trump Organisation’s chief legal counsel, who granted him rights to market Trump Organisation properties in Russia and the former Soviet Union. “You could say I was their exclusive broker,” he told Ria. “Then, in 2007-2008, dozens of Russians bought apartments in Trump properties in the US.” He later told ABC television that the Trump Organisation had received “hundreds of millions of dollars” through deals with Russian businessmen.

Trump’s “genius” for selling New York and Florida real estate at ridiculous markups actually disguises systematic money-laundering in which the lax regulations around real estate allowed him to bring in illegal funds from Russia filtered through LLCs and banks in Cyprus. While Trump’s personal wealth is in doubt, there seems little doubt that the money involved in these transactions was eventually in the billions.

The details of this money-laundering operation were explicitly spelled out in Mueller’s indictment and conviction of long-time Trump associate and campaign chair Paul Manafort. The eventual agreement reached with Manafort isn’t just shocking in his level of agreed-on cooperation, and the detailed way in which Mueller has limited Trump’s ability to pardon Manafort’s crimes, but in the explicitness with which it describes how Mueller’s money-laundering for Oleg Deripaska worked. By most accounts, replacing Manafort’s name with Trump’s and Deripaska’s with any number of Russian billionaires could describe the majority of Trump’s income, at least over the critical period of his recovery from bankruptcy.

Manafort’s agreement to flip was a shock to Trump. Both he and Rudy Giuliani were still praising Manafort just hours before word emerged that a deal was in the works. Even when Manafort walked into the courthouse, few people realized that he was not only signing a deal to cooperate in full, on any topic, but was ready to deliver under-oath testimony to a closed courtroom. And Manafort’s deal included massive, personal losses—agreements to hand over most of his real estate, cash, and other assets.

The seizures that Manafort faced scared Donald Trump sh#tless.

Manafort’s cooperation agreement came on Sept. 14. It took exactly one week before the New York Times ran with a planted story turning a joke made by Rosenstein into a scheme to overthrow the government. And two days after that, before the White House picked up the phone to announce that Rosenstein was resigning. Or had resigned. Will resign. Was definitely resigning.

The scariest thing about Rod Rosenstein isn’t that he protected the continued existence of Robert Mueller’s investigation: it’s that he signed an order expanding the scope of that investigation to include the money-laundering scheme on which Paul Manafort was convicted. Most of the document that contained that expansion was redacted. It’s not hard to guess what was under all that black ink: authority to investigate Trump’s business dealings. 

Trump wants that authority ended now. And based on what he’s seen from Mueller in the agreement with Manafort, he cannot afford to wait. This is a part of the authority that Rosenstein extended to Mueller.

That’s the document that Trump needs to kill—but quick. Those two paragraphs that are visible covered all the money-laundering, tax evasion, bank fraud, and conspiracy on which Manafort has been convicted.

What’s behind the rest of that ink … is everything.

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34835
    • View Profile
🤡 Here’s Why World Leaders Are Laughing at Trump
« Reply #1540 on: September 26, 2018, 12:06:33 AM »
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/25/donald-trump-un-speech-laughing-unga-iran-220620

 Here’s Why World Leaders Are Laughing at Trump

His hapless Iran strategy is just one example of a deeply confused foreign policy.

By JARRETT BLANC

September 25, 2018


President Donald Trump’s visit to the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week has been … confused. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo advertised that Trump would like to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and then Trump claimed (implausibly) to have turned down Rouhani’s request for a meeting, while also (peculiarly) calling him “an absolutely lovely man.” He lauded sovereignty, promising “the United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship” while threatening to sanction countries that choose to work with Iran.

It is tempting to laugh—world leaders certainly did—but Trump is setting diplomatic targets that cannot be met. As a result, his offers of dialogue are empty, and the world knows it. Worse, Trump—or at least the hard-line advisers who have latched on to him—is trying to change how we assess the legitimacy of diplomacy and other national security tools in our domestic politics. If their efforts are not countered, they will make agreements less likely and conflict more likely even after his presidency is long over.

For example, Brian Hook, the State Department’s senior official on Iran, said in a speech on September 19 that the Trump administration is looking to negotiate a formal treaty with Iran, explaining that “it will not be a personal agreement between two governments like the last one,” referring to the Iran deal negotiated by President Barack Obama. Hook was echoing Pompeo, who has called for agreements with both Iran and North Korea to be ratified as treaties.

At first blush, this seems like an admirable commitment—deference to the Senate’s constitutional role in national security issues, and perhaps even a subtle acknowledgment that future U.S. agreements will need to find ways to overcome credibility deficits Trump has created.

In reality, though, by inflating treaties and disparaging other forms of international agreements, the Trump administration is trying to undermine diplomacy, not to strengthen it.

Demanding that future agreements be concluded as treaties sets an impossibly high bar. To ratify a treaty, two-thirds of the Senate must vote in favor. Our politics just does not allow for that kind of consensus. Perhaps the saddest example of this dysfunction came in 2012, when the Senate could not even ratify a treaty that simply translated the Americans with Disabilities Act into an international commitment. The treaty was negotiated and signed by Republican President George W. Bush, but even with former Republican presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole returning to the Senate floor in his wheelchair to lend support, it garnered only 61 votes. Not bad for our hyperpartisan times, but six short of success. Only eight Republicans voted for it, and of them, only three are still in the Senate.

No reasonable observer can believe that two-thirds Senate majorities are possible on difficult and contentious issues. They are not even possible on easy ones, like celebrating U.S. leadership on disability rights and extending our best practices to the rest of the world.

Even if a treaty could pass the Senate, Hook’s argument that future presidents would be unable to break treaty commitments is false as a matter of law. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to pass a treaty, but it is silent on how the U.S. can withdraw from one. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter withdrew the U.S. from our Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan in order to clear the path for diplomatic normalization with Beijing. In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Neither president referred to Congress in making these decisions, and the courts refused to intervene. The president cannot “withdraw” from a law; he must enforce it until the Congress repeals it. But, ironically, the president can withdraw from a treaty despite the two-thirds requirement for passage through the Senate.

There are politically workable and legally available alternatives to treaties that have been used regularly by presidents of both parties. In fact, Hook misrepresents the status of the JCPOA. It was not “a personal agreement between two governments”—whatever that might mean—but a deal between seven countries and the European Union enshrined in a binding United Nations Security Council Resolution. The Trump administration’s dismissive treatment of the deal undermines our moral authority in holding other countries, not least Iran, accountable to Security Council decisions.

So why is the administration fixated on treaties? I fear they are trying to do two things. Both, frankly, nefarious.

First, they are trying to mask their contempt for congressional oversight. The Iran deal was not submitted to the Senate as a treaty, but Congress passed and Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which gave Congress a strong formal oversight role. Congress had the ability to block the deal from coming into force, members received highly detailed regular reports, and they could have forced U.S. withdrawal from the deal if the administration could not certify Iran’s compliance. Outside of these formal requirements, Obama administration officials testified in committee hearings and conducted regular briefings for members and staff. (I know—I was on the receiving end of hard questions in many of these meetings.)

The Trump administration has done much less to keep Congress informed and consulted. Pompeo made a farcically dishonest claim to Congress that our allies are working “to reduce the risk of harm to civilians” in Yemen despite warnings from his own lawyers. There were no hearings or briefings prior to the administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal. There were no classified briefings before the Singapore summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un or the Helsinki summit with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Even if Trump wanted to keep Congress informed, which he does not, he is not staffed for the task. Key roles at the State Department are unfilled, meaning there are no senior officials around to brief Congress. Trump is unpredictable, and even his own key staff are in the dark about the content of the one-on-one meetings he takes with foreign adversaries. It is not hard to hear Pompeo’s own frustrations (as well as his disrespect) when Senator Ed Markey asks him very reasonable if probing questions about North Korea and he smirks, “fear not.” Rather than fix these problems and include Congress in foreign policy strategy, the administration makes vague and distant promises to submit future agreements as treaties.

Second, and more dangerously, saying that no deal is legitimate if it cannot get two-thirds of the Senate is the practical equivalent of saying, “no deal.” The president reserves this impossible standard for diplomatic efforts alone. He imposes sanctions using executive authority. He authorizes military strikes in Syria using very dubious executive authority. National security adviser John Bolton announces that “we’re not going to leave [Syria] as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders” with no real legal authority. So coercion and escalation are available options, but negotiation and compromise are effectively ruled out.

This is of a piece with the administration’s overall rhetorical approach to diplomacy. They say they want a deal with Iran, but only one that addresses every point of contention between us—on other words, they want to meet on the Battleship Missouri without first winning a war. Again, nondiplomatic tools are not held to the same standard of perfection or nothing.

Hawks around the president are trying to change the terms of debate for future administrations, making negotiations more difficult and conflicts more likely. They mask belligerence with diplomatic efforts that are doomed from the start by impossible expectations. They make a meaningless nod toward constitutional legitimacy despite the reality of deeply divisive partisanship. Partisanship that they stoke on a daily basis.

I would like to see our politics function better. The U.S. will not—should not—long maintain its role in the world with the rot of partisan dishonesty that now governs in Washington. In the meantime, the world does not stop. We continue to face real national security challenges. We should always seek diplomatic solutions to those challenges.

It is perverse and dangerous to insist, as the Trump administration implicitly does, that international agreements must require a higher degree of domestic consensus than acts of war.


Jarrett Blanc (@JarrettBlanc) is senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and was a senior State Department official under President Obama.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34835
    • View Profile
🤡 Twitter Users Taunt Donald Trump After World Leaders Openly Laugh At Him
« Reply #1541 on: September 26, 2018, 06:34:36 AM »
Blowback from being a Twitshit Addict.  :icon_sunny:

Go to the link to read all the Tweets.

RE

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-obama-laughing-stock-tweet_us_5baaf18ee4b0f143d10e615d

 POLITICS 09/26/2018 12:16 am ET Updated 8 hours ago
Twitter Users Taunt Donald Trump After World Leaders Openly Laugh At His UN Speech
The president used to complain the United States was a laughingstock to the world. Then the world laughed at him.


World leaders openly laughed at President Donald Trump as he boasted of his accomplishments during his United Nations speech on Tuesday.

And Twitter users are joining in with jeers of their own.

Many pointed to an old slam Trump directed at President Barack Obama that isn’t aging well:

Trump later claimed he meant to make his fellow leaders laugh.

However, it’s not the only time Trump made such a comment, as Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” pointed out:

The irony of the world laughing at Trump after years of those kinds of remarks wasn’t lost on Twitter users:
Subscribe to the Politics email.
How will Trump's administration impact you?

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34835
    • View Profile
🤡 Trump Is the Laughingstock of the World—Literally
« Reply #1542 on: September 27, 2018, 01:21:35 AM »
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trump-is-the-laughingstock-of-the-world-literally/

Sep 26, 2018
TD originals
Trump Is the Laughingstock of the World—Literally


President Donald Trump pauses to laugh as he addresses the General Assembly of the United Nations on Tuesday. (YouTube)

The laughter spoke volumes.

“One year ago, I stood before you for the first time in this grand hall,” Donald Trump, the 45th and current president of the United States, said, addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations. The auditorium was filled with senior diplomats and heads of state from around the planet, gathered for the world body’s annual general debate, a celebration of multilateralism where the will of the global collective had an opportunity to be heard over the cacophony of the five superpowers who occupy the permanent seats of the Security Council.

As the leader of the host nation, the American president followed the speeches given by the presidents of the General Assembly and Brazil. Trump’s was the first major address, and the world’s diplomats eagerly awaited his words.

“[Last year] I addressed the threats facing our world,” Trump said, “and I presented a vision to achieve a brighter future for all of humanity. Today, I stand before the United Nations General Assembly to share the extraordinary progress we’ve made.”

Just a few days earlier, Trump had delivered one of his trademark rants at a rally in Las Vegas, vowing to “Keep America Great.” He has grown accustomed to crowds of loyal supporters cheering on his ludicrous claims regarding the accomplishments of his presidential tenure to date.

“In less than two years,” Trump told the General Assembly, setting up a go-to line used frequently among his political base, “my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

Then, something remarkable happened. There was no applause, but rather laughter, as the world’s diplomats acknowledged the uncomfortable reality that America’s leader—ostensibly the most powerful and influential person in the world—had transformed himself into a sad joke.

“America’s …” Trump tried to continue, before being compelled to smile at the laughter breaking out before him. “So true,” he said, to even more laughter. “Didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK.” The gathered diplomats laughed some more, before politely applauding to make an awkward moment less so.

An American president had just become—literally—the laughingstock of the world.

This moment was a long time coming. Donald Trump was elected in part because he had promised to challenge the established way of doing business. A businessman with a penchant for showmanship, Trump had packaged his worldview into oversimplified sound bites that mirrored the ignorance and fears of much of the American electorate who supported his views about the world in which they lived.

Everything was reduced to transactional terms—not what was fair, balanced or good for the benefit of all, but rather what was good for America. In many ways, this kind of economic exceptionalism did not differ from those administrations that had preceded Trump—America had long enjoyed an advantageous relationship with the rest of the world. But Trump had eliminated the niceties and diplomatic veneer that had previously been used to disguise American greed. For Trump and his supporters, “America First” meant “America Only.”

Campaign rhetoric has a tendency to soften in the face of reality once a candidate becomes an incumbent, and there was a hope among many Americans—those who voted for Trump and those who didn’t—that the New York real estate mogul would surround himself with people who, when confronted with the reality of the world, would translate the president-elect’s reality television approach into something that more or less resembled actual policy. This did not come to pass. Rex Tillerson, the chairman of ExxonMobil who had taken over the reins at the State Department, was never able to win the confidence of Trump, who viewed himself as America’s senior diplomat. Following the self-destruction of Michael Flynn, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster took over as the national security adviser in what would be a futile effort to bring a semblance of control to a national security apparatus that had devolved into chaos.

Only James Mattis, the former Marine Corps general known as “Mad Dog,” was able to stave off Trump’s predilection for interference, keeping the Department of Defense a talking point for the president without ceding control. (“We have secured record funding for our military,” Trump bragged to the U.N. General Assembly, “$700 billion this year, and $716 billion next year. Our military will soon be more powerful than it has ever been before!”)

Twice Trump had ordered Mattis to carry out military strikes against Syria, ostensibly in response to alleged chemical weapons attacks perpetrated by the Syrian government of Bashar Assad; twice Mattis had his military planners scale back the scope of the strikes to avoid potential escalation with Russian forces operating inside Syria.

Trump had a vision of America’s relationship with the world that did not comport with the status quo. But “rip it up,” however pleasing to the ear of the average fan of “Make America Great Again,” does not automatically translate to sound policy. Trump wanted to change the world but had no plan for what he would do once the changes took place.

Like Mattis at Defense, Tillerson and McMaster did their best to constrain the president’s ambition to drastically rewrite America’s global playbook, cautioning against withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015, moderating the president’s bellicose words toward North Korea, and putting the brakes on Trump’s budding friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Frustrated, Trump took a page from his time as the star of the reality television show “The Apprentice” and fired both Tillerson and McMaster.

In their stead, Trump moved the Kansas Republican-lawmaker-turned-director-of -the-CIA, Mike Pompeo, to the State Department, and brought in John Bolton as his national security adviser. Almost immediately, Trump went out of control, precipitously withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement, convening and attending a summit with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, engaging in a full-scale trade war with China and Europe, and trash-talking NATO before attending a summit with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, where the American president looked small while on stage with the diminutive Russian leader.

The decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal has isolated the United States from the rest of the world—not a single other signatory to the agreement has followed Trump in leaving the agreement, with which Iran is universally acknowledged as complying. Instead, Trump finds himself diplomatically isolated, reduced to using the threat of secondary sanctions to bully other nations into severing economic ties to Iran by complying with America’s unilateral sanctions. In the face of these threats, many nations are working diligently to find workarounds, further diminishing U.S. influence.

While demonstrating that the word of the United States has no value through his actions vis-à-vis the Iran nuclear agreement, Trump has sought the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula without the benefit of the kind of detailed preparatory work that past efforts at arms control (including the Iran nuclear agreement) entailed. The result has been grandiose rhetoric backed up with little of substance. North Korea has shunned Pompeo, referring to his style of diplomacy as “gangster-like,” stroking Trump’s ego with kind words while they turn to others—China and South Korea in particular—to negotiate an actual agreement.

Trump has exaggerated the impact of trade imbalances with both China and Europe (and Canada and Mexico, for that matter) to denigrate not only existing trade agreements, but also disparage and undermine the efficacy of the World Trade Organization, a global body created to resolve trade disputes between members. As a result, the United States is now engaged in an escalating economic conflict with two of its most important trading partners—China and Europe—involving the imposition of crippling tariffs in the face of unilateral American demands regarding how things should be. (The European trade war has been put on temporary hold while negotiations between the U.S. and the EU take place; China, on the other hand, has told its citizens to prepare for a full-scale trade war with the United States that will last decades.)

One of Donald Trump’s signature stances during his campaign was to question the efficacy and viability of the NATO alliance, couching it—rightly so—as a Cold War relic, largely underwritten by the American taxpayer. It is one thing to question the utility of a decades-old treaty created for containing the now-defunct Soviet Union; it is another to advocate for the demise of this organization void of any semblance of a plan on what would replace it. NATO has always been an American-led show; without the U.S., there simply would be no NATO. Trump’s effort to shift the burden of sustaining the alliance onto Europe without similarly transferring the mantle of leadership is a prime example of his America First philosophy’s fundamental disconnect with the world as it is.

While the sycophantic governments of the Baltic states and Poland court an increase in NATO (read American) military presence on their soil as a deterrence against possible Russian aggression, the rest of Europe deals in a reality more shaped by North African and Middle Eastern immigration. Trump has advocated for an arbitrary increase in NATO defense spending without undertaking a realistic look at the mission it would fund. The bottom line is that Europe exists in the real world, where Russian gas is a needed commodity, and the peaceful coexistence of Russia and Europe a realistic probability. When the United States allows Poland and the Baltics to define the NATO military mission, and attacks Germany for entering an economically sound gas pipeline construction deal with Russia, he undermines the very foundation of the organization he claims he is trying to reform, accomplishing little more than pushing Europe toward a common policy position with Moscow.

American relations with Russia have taken a tragicomic turn, with the Trump administration facing political paralysis in the face of ongoing investigations into allegations that his presidential campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. The work of special counsel Robert Mueller has resulted in numerous indictments, arrests and convictions, including those of former national security adviser Mike Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and others. Trump himself has turned up the political heat on this matter, threatening to shut down the work of Mueller’s team, while weighing whether to fire Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, who, in the face of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from all matters Russia, is responsible for overseeing the work of the Mueller probe.

While this passion play unfolds, the real world—one populated by a resurgent, nuclear-armed Russia flexing its muscles in the Baltics, Ukraine and Syria—carries on. Trump has played a dangerous double game with Russia, simultaneously singing the praises of its leader while declaring himself to be Putin’s harshest foe, imposing a wave of economic sanctions designed to punish the country and deter malign activity. Meanwhile, he has reversed course in Syria, where he had promised to withdraw American troops in recognition of Russia’s success in helping the Assad government defeat rebel forces—including those trained and equipped by the United States—in favor of a more malignant strategy: one in which American troops remain, uninvited and in perpetuity, as a means of baiting Moscow into another Afghanistan-like quagmire.

Trump is only deluding himself. The recent downing of a Russian surveillance aircraft over Syria during the course of an Israeli airstrike, along with the death of 15 crewmen, has prompted a radical reshaping of Russian policy, with the transfer of control over advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile batteries to Syrian forces, the integration of these missile units into an advanced air defense management system never before deployed outside of Russia, and the establishment of no-fly zones around Russian bases in Syria.

The new Russian air defense configuration places the air forces of Israel, the United States and others at extreme risk should any effort be undertaken to strike targets that fall under its umbrella of protection, greatly increasing the possibility of a military confrontation with Russia that could escalate dangerously.

Any potential U.S.-Russian confrontation must take into consideration the reality of the considerable nuclear arsenals possessed by both powers. Trump’s aggressive rhetoric toward Russia has been matched by the Russian deployment of several advanced nuclear weapons systems, all of which are designed to defeat American missile defenses. These new weapons are somewhat constrained by existing arms control agreements. However, the poisonous state of U.S.-Russian relations under President Trump has resulted in zero progress in negotiating new arms control agreements, a dangerous oversight given that the existing New START treaty, negotiated by the Obama administration, expires in 2021.

Trump’s hawkish new coterie of advisers—Pompeo, Bolton and Nikki Haley, the South Carolina governor-turned-U.N.-ambassador—appears oblivious to the risk of war with Russia, believing that American unilateralism is a right that all nations must respect, regardless of circumstance or consideration. This notion of exceptionalism has extended to American relations with Iran, where, beyond the fallout surrounding Trump’s precipitous decision to withdraw from the nuclear agreement, the United States has singled out what it terms malignant activity in the Middle East as justification for a new policy of confrontation designed to contain and roll back Iranian influence in the region. Both Bolton and Pompeo have openly advocated for regime change in Tehran, including increased American support for opposition groups founded in Iran’s ethnic Arab minority—something that, in the aftermath of the recent terror attack in Ahvaz, aligns the United States with other state sponsors of terror.

The withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, the transfer of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the severance of diplomatic relations with the Palestinians, the withdrawal from the Human Rights Conference, the denigration of the International Criminal Court—these and more examples of Trump Amerocentric vision world have transformed the United States from world leader to global bully. America’s allies remain loyal because of a shared history and hope for a better future post-Trump, and not because of any ideology pushed by the president and his advisers. The United States has never been more isolated from the rest of the world than it was on Tuesday morning, when its president stepped up to the dais at the U.N. General Assembly.

Trump bragged about his diplomatic success with North Korea, noting how his threats issued from the same platform the previous year had prompted Pyongyang to reach out to the United States—or more precisely, Trump himself—to negotiate its denuclearization and the terms of peace on the Korean peninsula. “We have engaged with North Korea,” Trump told the General Assembly, “to replace the specter of conflict with a bold and new push for peace. The missiles and rockets are no longer flying in every direction. Nuclear testing has stopped. Some military facilities are already being dismantled. Our hostages have been released. And as promised, the remains of our fallen heroes are being returned home to lay at rest in American soil.”

Left unsaid was the reality that diplomacy with North Korea—while a commendable achievement representing a break from the failed policies of the past—had accomplished little in terms of measurable, lasting results.

Negotiations with North Korea were very much on Donald Trump’s mind as he identified a new international target—”the corrupt dictatorship in Iran.”

In the morning hours of Tuesday, prior to his speech at the General Assembly, Trump tweeted: “Despite requests, I have no plans to meet Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Maybe someday in the future. I am sure he is an absolutely lovely man!”

The Iranian president was quick to observe that not only had Iran not made any such requests, it had in fact turned down repeated requests for such a meeting by the Trump administration.

Trump’s tenuous relationship with fact-based reality was put on full display as he lashed out at Rouhani before the General Assembly. “Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death and destruction. They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.”

Unmentioned was the fact that Iran was in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government, while the United States had deployed its troops into Syria unilaterally, without the consent of Damascus and violating international law in the process. Also left unsaid was the role that America’s illegal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 played in shaping the events in the Levant that led to the Syrian conflict and the subsequent rise of Islamic State. The U.S. has spread more mayhem across the Middle East than Iran could ever hope to.

“Iran’s neighbors have paid a heavy toll for the [regime’s] agenda of aggression and expansion,” Trump declared. “That is why so many countries in the Middle East strongly supported my decision to withdraw the United States from the horrible 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal and reimpose nuclear sanctions.” While Trump’s decision may have been supported by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states, it has been widely condemned elsewhere as inherently destabilizing.

Trump went on to state, “We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America,’ and that threatens Israel with annihilation, to possess the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to any city on earth. Just can’t do it.” Yet the fact remains that Iran poses no such threat and continues to operate in full compliance with a nuclear agreement designed to prevent the very scenario the president has outlined.

“We ask all nations to isolate Iran’s regime as long as its aggression continues,” Trump said, wrapping up his attack on Iran. “And we ask all nations to support Iran’s people as they struggle to reclaim their religious and righteous destiny.” The ugly irony of those words in the face of the Ahvaz terror attack seemed lost on the American president.

“America is governed by Americans,” Trump announced to the General Assembly. “We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”

What the “doctrine of patriotism” meant was subsequently made clear when Trump announced that “[w]e are grateful for all the work the United Nations does around the world to help people build better lives for themselves and their families.” But, Trump observed, “few give anything to us. That is why we are taking a hard look at U.S. foreign assistance … we will examine what is working, what is not working, and whether the countries who receive our dollars and our protection also have our interests at heart. Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends.”

The New York City real estate executive has transformed the crudeness of President George W. Bush’s post-9/11 rallying cry of “You’re either with us or against us” into terms a businessman could grasp—America will pay only for that which benefits American interests.

And the hell with the rest of the world.

This was the message the international community took away from Trump’s speech—America, and only America, matters.

The world listened, grimaced, and, as was the case of the German delegation after being singled out by Trump for its government’s gas deal with Russia, was left to laugh in frustration at a man who had clearly lost touch with reality.

But the ultimate irony of Trump’s embarrassing speech before the General Assembly was that it was Iran, the target of his angst and ire, that put the American president’s words into perspective. President Rouhani, responding to Trump’s attack on global institutions, observed that “[c]onfronting multilateralism is not a sign of strength. Rather it is a symptom of the weakness of intellect—it betrays an inability in understanding a complex and interconnected world.”

No truer words could have been spoken.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 7191
    • View Profile
Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #1543 on: October 01, 2018, 04:27:13 PM »

BREAKING: Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Judge Kavanaugh in NEW REPORT!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-sex-crimes-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-completely-exonerates-judge-kavanaugh-in-new-report/


https://yournewswire.com/prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-exonerates-judge-kavanaugh/
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16317
    • View Profile
Re: Trumpty-Dumpty POTUS Thread
« Reply #1544 on: October 01, 2018, 04:56:02 PM »

BREAKING: Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Judge Kavanaugh in NEW REPORT!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-sex-crimes-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-completely-exonerates-judge-kavanaugh-in-new-report/


https://yournewswire.com/prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-exonerates-judge-kavanaugh/

I read it. I think "exonerate" is not the word to describe what she said, which was that she didn't think Ford's statements would have been enough for a criminal indictment, or would have met the "preponderance of the evidence" standard that is what is required to sue someone successfully in civil court.

So, far we're right where we were. No proof, but lots of opinions. Republicans want to ignore the allegations, Democrats want to burn him at the stake.

Today's there is some evidence that points to some heavy drinking. He caused a bar fight in '85, and Kavanaugh's former NBA player buddy (who said he was a responsible drinker) broke a beer glass on a guys head in the fight. Doesn't exactly lend credence to his assertions about Kavanaugh..

Looks like the Rethuglicans are going to try to get a vote this week, They must think they have what it takes. Not sure what happens if the FBI comes up with something after the fact. Maybe BK can pardon Trump and Trump can pardon him.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 04:58:05 PM by Eddie »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
950 Views
Last post January 13, 2017, 04:34:48 PM
by RE
1 Replies
1212 Views
Last post January 18, 2017, 12:55:29 AM
by RE
3 Replies
708 Views
Last post June 02, 2018, 09:43:37 AM
by agelbert