Senate The US Politics discussion

The Trump distraction and obfuscation matrix is something to behold.

Putin meeting goes awry > blame dishonest media
Trade war goes awry, Michigan farmer Trump voters blame Trump for plummeting soybean prices > go after Federal Reserve Chair for raising interest rates
Bad news on Mueller front > rant about Iran
save Twitter space for ALL CAP rage tweets about "rigged witch hunt" and projecting Putin's blackmailing with the pee tape onto Merkel, accuse Germany of being in Putin's pocket.

 

The bigger the lies, the easier the sale

 

Did I say we should excuse him?

No.

I said we should treat him like the child he is having the tantrum that he is. In other words, call out his behavior, make it clear that it needs to stop, and use the powers at our disposal--namely, Congress reigning him--to force him to change. That hasn't happened yet, as the Republican majority has chosen to do nothing other than hold symbolic votes supporting NATO and what-not, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't take those actions. In reality, nothing will change unless and until the Democrats retake one or both chambers of Congress. And that's an indictment of the American political system right there.

What I won't do, however, is respond to his Tweet with nothing more than outrage. Outrage in this situation is justified, but it also assumes that displaying said outrage will be incentive enough for him to change his behavior. It won't. It hasn't worked before, and it won't work now. Please don't take my refusal to go "whole-hog" in criticizing his Tweet as condoning his behavior, or calling for a lack of response, because it is neither. Rather, this should be used as a catalyst for action--just like all the other times Trump has done something outrageous, or threatened nuclear war against another country. The usual enticements won't work with Trump--only action will. Look at what just happened with the Putin meeting. Both parties came together and roundly condemned him, and he tried to walk it back. It was a pathetic, laughable attempt at damage control, but it was also pretty much the only time he even attempted to do so. That provides a blueprint for how to handle utterly inappropriate and dangerous behavior like his Tweet against Iran.

In other words, Congress needs to, with one voice, a) forcefully condemn his Tweet, b) make it clear that ANY military action taken against Iran must be authorized by Congress first (preferably with a declaration of war, and finally c) make it clear that foreign policy can no longer be conducted via Twitter. That one is trickier, but threatening to reign in his authority on things like the power to enact tariffs might make him sit up and pay attention.

So yes, we shouldn't ignore it. But we also shouldn't reflexively throw up our hands and shout "Oh, the horror!" and expect things to change. Only action will do that. He's just provided another opening for his opponents to seize and capitalize on. Let's see if they do it.

EDIT: This pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say. Take it seriously, but do so in a way that effects policy, not just knee-jerk reacts his outrageous Tweets.

 

But you were saying that he'd have beaten any other Dem as well . Thing is there's many variables at play in why people vote the way they do , just sticking on the race angle isn't good enough .

it's cos the text sits on the bottom of the frame so I hit return a coupla times so I can see whats where .

 

Trump likes to threaten to rain nuclear fire down on people's heads right before he gets down on his knees to **** their ****s (e.g. Kim). Although he's clearly too racist ever to actually **** the **** of a Muslim, not even that of a Muslim dictator. Ok, maybe he'd make an exception for Erdogan. I honestly don't think Trump has a very itchy trigger finger. In his head it's some kind of brilliant negotiating ploy. Carrots and sticks or something like that.

 

Iran have been *insert number* years away from a nuclear bomb since 1990's. Now I really can't take such claim seriously, especially from the ompa lump in chef, any US official or Israel's Benny nutty Yahoo.
It's a case of the Presidents that cried nuke.

 

Welp! If nothing else Trump has revealed what it would've been like if the internet was around when Nixon was in office. We'd have people online talking about how the Watergate break-in is a distraction and how Democrats are just sore losers that can't get over that they lost the election.

 

You could, however, take it seriously from IAEA reports.

 

I would imagine there were Nixon supporters claiming just that in newspapers and op-ed pieces .
And Nixon was very up-to-date with the technology , had his own tape recording facility I believe ...

.

 

Oh know doubt. Nixon's approval rating was 62% after the Watergate break-in. Clearly a ton of Republicans thought it was bogus or didn't care and likely said so all the time.

 

IIRC @KnightWriter was recently reading a book about Watergate, so he may have some further specific insight into how public opinion unfolded during that period.

 

I've always felt that Reagan and BushW got away with a lot more than Nixon , but they just bluffed it out . Nixon was never really 'in' with the establishment plus he acted shifty .

 

A little of both, but seriously, who would stop him?

 

He also had the attitude of "everyone does it!" which they did.

I listened to a short podcast series about it recently, which I recommend. I listened knowing very little about Watergate, so found it pretty fascinating.

It's called Slow Burn, and is from Slate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/slate_plus/watergate.html

 

I interrupt the Iran tweet for this one

Ok so, Trump said he accepts what our intel said about Russia, but here he says Obama knew about it and did nothing but it's all a hoax..

So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election. Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign? Because it is all a big hoax, that’s why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!

 

Um, this is a REALLY big deal.

Criticize Trump, lose your security clearance? How is this is not retaliation against so-called ‘political enemies’? Why isn’t everyone talking about this?

 

What's the point of them retaining clearance anyway? I didn't know they still had any.

 

Maybe it's not so much that they would retain it, but trying to take away their ability to regain it in the future.

 

I know you understand my point. The mere act of him threatening this is unacceptable. It’s well beyind a step too far.

Is arresting journalists next? Is that too hyperbolic to think about?

 

So Sanders complains that they're supposedly politicizing and monetizing their security clearance. Even though several of them don't even have security clearance at all anymore (Comey and McCabe lost theirs when they were fired), and things like Clapper's remarks seem to be based off public news rather than any secret reports he might still have access to.

Well, its only bad when someone else does it, if Trump profits and politicize things, that's good then. What else is new, meh. (I'm outraged, of course, but well, it'd be easier to list the non-outrageous things the Trump administration has done than list every immoral action they've taken.) Though apparently Trump probably has the authority to revoke their clearance at any time anyway (I think none of them are active and most are retired?), but mainly just another way of him being petty and vindictive.

Not like Trump's denials are ever consistent, such as blaming Obama for something that he claims never happened (or isn't a crime), and trying to pin him down on details won't get anywhere. He's still going back and forth on whether he trusts US intelligence over Russia (right now, no).

 

1. What I don't understand is why people who no longer work for the government retain security clearance. Yes, Trump Bad, but what is the point? They might be hired again and it is just bureaucratic laziness? Apparently even Michael Flynn retained clearance after Obama fired him, which sounds absurd.

2. The U.S. government already does arrest and prosecute journalists, mostly for refusing to reveal sources.