President Trump Thread...

[NoDak]

This congresswoman has made some pretty outlandish claims in the past, that's why I said "If this is true..."

'She's weighs maybe 110 pounds...'

Sounds like somebody just making shit up and adding stupidity in to try and garner sympathy/hatred. If she weighed 140 would it have made it better?

If you're not sure if it's true or not, why spread it around?

 

[Irving Cowboy]

If you're not sure if it's true or not, why spread it around?

To be fair, that could be said about just about anything in this thread.

 

[BipolarFuk]

Donald Trump's totally unpresidential fight over the death of an American soldier

Donald Trump's totally unpresidential fight over the death of an American soldier

President Donald Trump's phone call Tuesday to the widow of a Green Beret killed in action in Niger has, somehow, turned into a she said/he said situation.

The "she" is Florida Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson who said she was present when Trump called the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson and allegedly told her of her late husband "he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt."

The "he" is Trump, who tweeted this morning that "Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!"

What we now have is this: The President of the United States in a war of words with a Democratic congresswoman -- and, by extension, the widow of a fallen soldier -- over what he said when he called her to offer his condolences after the death of her husband. And both Trump and Wilson are alleging they have "proof" that the other is lying.

This is not the normal course of affairs in a White House -- or, frankly, any level of politics. It speaks -- yet again -- to how Trump has fundamentally altered the way in which a president acts in public or in private.

Doubt it? Ask yourself whether you can imagine either Barack Obama or George W. Bush (or any president) openly feuding about whether he told a grieving widow of an American soldier killed in action that "he knew what he signed up for." It is, quite literally, unimaginable.

For those who are taking Trump's side in all of this -- alleging that Wilson is simply trying to score political points against a president the Democratic base hates -- it's important to remember a few things we know about Trump.

1. In the summer of 2016, he engaged in an extended back and forth with Khizr Khan, the father of an American soldier killed in Iraq, following Khan's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Responding to Khan, who suggested Trump didn't know the meaning of real sacrifice, Trump said: "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it? I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard."

2. Trump has not told the truth about lots of things. LOTS of things. The count maintained by the Washington Post's Fact Checker blog was more than 1,300 lies or mistruths from Trump in his first 263 days as president. In a press conference with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday, Trump said at least 9 things that were either debatable or simply false.

3. Trump has claimed he has "proof" many times. He has shown that "proof" almost never. As documented by Politico's Edward-Isaac Dovere, here are other things Trump has said he had "proof" about: President Obama wiretapping Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, that the women accusing him of sexually inappropriate behavior were lying, Obama being born in a foreign country, Obama's college transcript, alleged crimes by UN Ambassador Susan Rice and that former FBI Director James Comey was lying about their personal conversations. [Narrator voice: He didn't have proof of any of this.]

All of that context has to be considered as we attempt to figure out who is telling the truth -- and who isn't -- in this he said/she said situation.

It's also worth asking why Wilson would totally fabricate what Trump said on the call. What would her motive be?

"I have no reason to lie [to] the President of the United States with a dead soldier in my community," Wilson told Alisyn Camerota on "New Day" on Wednesday. "I have no time, I have no motive."

Republicans might suggest that Wilson's motive is purely partisan. That as a Democrat, she will do whatever it takes to embarrass the president. Possible, I suppose. But would Wilson really choose the death of an American soldier as the place to go after Trump -- particularly given the target-rich environment he presents?

Short of Wilson totally lying about the nature of the conversation, the best possible explanation for Trump is that what he said was misinterpreted. Calling a recently widowed woman of a soldier killed in action is an incredibly difficult thing to do. That's especially true for Trump who, as a businessman prior to running for office in 2016, never had to do anything remotely like this.

Given that inexperience, it's absolutely plausible that Trump expressed a real sorrow somewhat inarticulately, leaving Johnson's widow and Wilson upset. And that Trump did so entirely unintentionally.

But, Trump can never admit something like that. He always has to ramp up controversy and drama rather than play it down. Hence his tweet this morning insisting Wilson is lying and he has proof of that fact.

That burden of proof now very much lies with Trump -- although, if past is prologue, he isn't likely to ever produce any actual proof.

Regardless! This moment should be about the four Green Berets who gave their lives in service to the country. Instead it's a he said/she said fight with the President of the United States right smack dab in the middle of it.

"Modern-day presidential" indeed.

 

[BipolarFuk]

 

[Cowboysrock55]

'She's weighs maybe 110 pounds...'

Sounds like somebody just making shit up and adding stupidity in to try and garner sympathy/hatred. If she weighed 140 would it have made it better?

If you're not sure if it's true or not, why spread it around?

How do crazies like this even get elected? I mean seriously look at the way this lady dresses. She always has some ridiculous Cowboy hat on.

 

[BipolarFuk]

How do crazies like this even get elected? I mean seriously look at the way this lady dresses. She always has some ridiculous Cowboy hat on.

So does 75% of Texas.

 

[jsmith6919]

So does 75% of Texas.

You've obviously never been to Texas

 

[skidadl]

This lady seems like a bigger idiot than Trump.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

So does 75% of Texas.

She doesn't live in Texas...

 

[Cotton]

You've obviously never been to Texas

No shit. I have never even owned a cowboy hat, nor cowboy boots. Only boots I own are work boots.

 

[BipolarFuk]

 

[Irving Cowboy]

“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” - Donald Trump on John McCain, July 18 2015

I can't imagine what he thinks of the people who gave their life for their country.

 

[L.T. Fan]

“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” - Donald Trump on John McCain, July 18 2015

I can't imagine what he thinks of the people who gave their life for their country.

I don’t condone what he said but as a technical matter being a prisoner doesn’t in and of itself make anyone a hero. It clearly is a sacrifice however.

That said Trump should have just left it alone.

 

[BipolarFuk]

Donald Trump just suggested the FBI, Democrats and Russia might all be co-conspirators

Donald Trump just suggested the FBI, Democrats and Russia might all be co-conspirators

President Donald Trump sent this tweet on Thursday morning: "Workers of firm involved with the discredited and Fake Dossier take the 5th. Who paid for it, Russia, the FBI or the Dems (or all)?"

This is, of course, somewhat common fare by this point in the arc of Trump's presidency. Faced this week with storylines he doesn't like -- questions about the Niger attack, controversy over a phone call he placed to the widow of one of the soldiers lost in that attack, Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Capitol Hill facing questions about Russian meddling in the election -- he aims to change the subject via his Twitter feed. And he often does so by lobbing out a conspiracy theory with only the loosest ties to the factual world.

But even by Trump standards, this morning's tweet is somewhat remarkable. He is suggesting that a dossier prepared by a former member of British intelligence has not only been totally discredited (it hasn't -- more on that in a minute) but that it might have been funded by some combination of Russia, the Democratic Party and, wait for it, the FBI!

Let's start with the facts.

At issue is a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, which details explosive allegations about potential ties between Trump's campaign and Russia. The dossier's more salacious elements regarding Trump have drawn most of the attention -- and remain totally unproven. But it appears as though US intelligence officials do take some chunk of what Steele found quite seriously.

"Its broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community. CNN also reported earlier this year that US investigators have corroborated some aspects of the dossier, specifically that some of the communications among foreign nationals mentioned in the memos did actually take place."

Investigators tied to special counsel Bob Mueller's investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election have also sat down with Steele to discuss the dossier and his findings, according to CNN reporting. The firm hired to produce the dossier -- Fusion GPS -- is refusing to testify before Congress about its involvement. (Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson spent 10 hours meeting with Senate Judiciary Committee staff back in August.)

Trump has the fact of that refusal basically right. But his assertions that the dossier is fake news, "totally made-up stuff" or, as was the case in Thursday's tweet, "discredited" are not born out by the facts as we know them. "Not corroborated" is not the same thing as "not true." Some (many?) of the allegations in the Steele dossier may be untrue. But we simply don't have enough information to conclude that they are at the moment.

So Trump is wrong about the dossier being "discredited and Fake." (He is also wrong about capitalizing "fake" in that sentence. But, I digress.)

The bigger issue -- at least to me -- is that Trump is suggesting that the dossier itself was funded by some combination of a foreign power, the opposition political party and a federal law enforcement agency.

It's easy to roll your eyes at the very suggestion and dismiss that idea as just Trump being Trump. "You guys always take him literally," Trump's supporters will say. "You shouldn't!"

OK. But here's the thing: President Trump is, um, the President. Which means he is held to the same standard every past president is held to. And by that standard, this tweet is crazy.

Port yourself six years back in time. It's 2011. President Barack Obama takes to Twitter to say that the stories over his place of birth are the result of a joint China-Republicans-CIA operation designed to discredit him.
How do you think that one would sit with the average American?

The point here is that it is deeply irresponsible for a president of the United States to even flirt with this sort of conspiracy talk. You can love Donald Trump and still believe that the idea that the Russians, the Democrats and the FBI co-funded a dossier designed to discredit Trump's 2016 campaign is totally bonkers.

Unfortunately, lots and lots of Trump backers will believe this stuff solely by dint of the fact that Trump tweeted it. And that, of course, is Trump's goal. Muddy the waters and discredit the ongoing investigations into what Russia did in the 2016 election. Make the whole thing into a partisan witch hunt.

But, there is no plausible scenario by which what Trump suggested this morning -- a wide-scale conspiracy involving three separate actors across federal agencies and continents -- actually happened. That we can't (won't?) agree on that seemingly obvious fact is troubling.

 

[BipolarFuk]

Democrats aren't doing themselves or the country any favors by demonizing the wealthy

Democrats aren't doing themselves or the country any favors by demonizing the wealthy

I watched parts of a junior squash tournament on the Dartmouth campus over the weekend. My children do not play; I was purely an observer. This is what the 0.1 percent do on the weekends. As I looked around at the wealthy, well-dressed, athletic families, I felt a hint of disapproval. But then the rational part of my brain took over: Disapproval of what?

The problem with America right now is not that we have too many highly educated, two-parent families investing heavily in the future of their children. It's the opposite. I had an epiphany in the squash gallery: I was making the same mistake the Democrats routinely make.

I was on the brink of demonizing wealth and success for no obvious reason. In that spirit, here is my challenge for the Democratic leadership: Go to a junior squash tournament (or some other elite gathering) and take note of all the good things. When you look past the fancy cars with Connecticut license plates, and even the occasional private plane, here are some things you'll see:

People who are more highly educated than the population at large.

A higher proportion of two-parent families than the national average.

Families who are investing huge amounts of time and money in the future well-being of their children.

Adults who are less likely to smoke, less likely to be obese, more likely to vote, and more likely to be in the labor market than their fellow Americans.

People who pay a huge amount in taxes. We can quibble over whether the wealthy are "paying their fair share;" in any event, rich people are sending very large checks to the IRS.

In the particular case of squash, you will see adolescents who are working really hard at a tough sport – the kind of perseverance that predicts future life success.

Sure, you might meet the occasional Biff or Chip who inherited millions from grandma; maybe there is an investment banker in the crowd who designed the toxic assets that nearly brought down the global financial system. Those are the exceptions. Mostly what you'll see are the attributes of success: education, grit, stable families and sensible life decisions. Is that really so bad?

As I sat there (with the pounding of squash balls all around me), I recognized the Democrats' Achilles' heel: They are making enemies out of those who should be their most important allies. Trump's base consists of America's losers, literally. The Democrats ought therefore to be the home of the winners. So stop beating up on them.

Donald Trump mocks science; he is withdrawing from the global economy; he has little respect for the media; he is threatening to drown the country in more debt; he has antagonized our international allies and provoked our enemies. The Republicans are unable or unwilling to confront a man who may become the worst president in American history.

Rational, educated people should be flocking to the Democratic Party. But they're not. Why? Because the Democrats too often project an image of taking from people who are working hard and following the rules and giving to people who are doing neither.

Compassion is not the same thing as punishing success. Making the system fairer is not the same as demonizing those who succeed in the system we have.

Do many CEOs make an obscene amount of money? Yes – but that is not why unskilled men are dropping out of the workforce in unprecedented numbers.

Is it fair that our school funding system lavishes the most money on the students who begin with the most privilege? Definitely not.

There are scores of policy changes necessary to broaden access to opportunity in this country. Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institute has written a book called "Dream Hoarders" that describes policies designed by successful Americans that effectively pull up the ladder for those still trying to climb it: zoning laws that exclude affordable housing; college admissions preferences for children of alumni; unpaid internships (which provide great experience, but only for those who can afford not to be paid); and so on.

We should fix those things. But to make society fairer in a lasting way, we need the acquiescence of the successful, not their resentment. Try this script out: Thank you for working hard, creating wealth and preparing your children to succeed. Now please help us offer that opportunity to the many Americans who are struggling. Or, as John F. Kennedy said, "To whom much is given, much is expected."

That is a long way from a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren speech, which always seem to intimate that if Wall Street were poorer, Main Street would be richer. It doesn't work that way. Wealth is not the problem in America. It's the solution.

Here is my challenge for the Democrats: Go to a squash tournament, or someplace like it, and figure out how to win over those voters. Because if you cannot appreciate America's most productive and highly educated citizens, and if they do not eagerly embrace the Democratic vision for a fairer society, you will never achieve anything approximating that vision.

 

[L.T. Fan]

How could you possibly bring yourself to post this. It is such an opposing position from your drill. This is something that guys like me believe namely that the wealthy is the answer to a great deal of the problems. Have you gone soft?

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[midswat]

Trump to authorize the release of long classified JFK assassination files.

 

[jsmith6919]

Trump to authorize the release of long classified JFK assassination files.

Ted Cruz's father is frantically searching non-extradition countries as we speak

 

[BipolarFuk]

And still redacted a ton of stuff because of national security and stuff.