Trump 23: The Death Eaters Have Taken the Fucking Country

[GrumpyGran]

2 minutes ago, apple1 said:

And meanwhile what happens if WW III (and nuclear WW III at that) happens?

Yeah, there is that, @apple1. As much as I want to be optimistic, that is a very close possibility. I don't think that was in Hillary's playbook but Dumpy sees it as just another example of how 'tremendous' he is. "It was a beautiful war, the best war, people are saying, you know that the world has never seen a war that big before. Tremendous, very, very big."

[sawasdee]

1 hour ago, apple1 said:

ETA- Not to mention the already-happened coarsening of public discourse and behaviors and the seeming Okay-ing of hateful/ zenophobic/ racist/ insert adjective of your choice public verbiage.

I hear you.

But at least people are having to confront their racism. What sort of country do they want? I think there are a lot of instinctively racist people - scared of 'the other' - who nonetheless are good citizens, that realise  racism is not the future. They do not want to see themselves as latter day KKK.

This is where emphasising the neo Nazi connection helps enormously. People with an instinctive racism very often also have an instinctive reaction to the word 'Nazi', and they do not want to be associated with it. Perhaps the Orange Menace's refusal to call them out will be the turning point for some to see where the country could be headed under his 'leadership'.

The coarsening of public behaviour is another matter. I really do not want to see a political future dominated by demeaning, and often misleading, epithets. (Lying Hillary, anyone? Coined by the biggest liar ever documented in US politics?) With Faux News and talk radio on the scene, I really don't know how that is dialled back - unless candidates decide to behave with some decorum and politesse.

They may well do so. The Mandarin Monster is a one off, an aberration, politically - anywhere in the world. If you think, no one answered him in kind - and that was perhaps where he won. But no one else was willing to go as low as he.

Please Rufus, when he's gone, things will get back to some kind of normality.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why Trump’s golf ball retweet wasn’t just a joke"

Spoiler

Another weekend, another tweetstorm from @RealDonaldTrump. This one had all the usual elements — stock market-centric self-congratulation, bizarre nicknames (Rocket Man? Really?) and the signature Meme Retweeted From an Anti-Semitic Feed.

It was the last one that made even social media-jaded eyes widen. Captioned “Donald Trump’s amazing golf swing #crookedhillary,” a fake GIF showed the president hitting a golf ball at former Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, with the ball knocking her down as she boarded a plane.

Condoning or even inciting violence isn’t new to Trump — one can easily think back to his comment that he’d like to “punch [a protester] in the face” at one of his rallies, or his musing aloud about how “Second Amendment people” might be able to take care of Clinton. But most of those comments occurred before he was installed as president. It’s one thing (and, to be clear, not a good one) for a rowdy carnival barker of a candidate to make offhand comments about his opponents. It’s another for the sitting president to approvingly share depictions of himself inflicting physical harm.

At the bare minimum, it’s uncouth. (Yes, I know, surprise, surprise). The election has been over for months. Hillary Clinton lost, we get it. So it’s unclear why Trump himself can’t move on. Surely the president of the United States has better things to do. Why not spend some time on tax reform, health care or even that mythical wall?

Worse, it’s clearly misogynistic, with undertones — or, let’s be honest here, overtones — of violence against women. Yes, Trump is generally insulting to everyone with whom he disagrees, but this level of specific, degrading ire is notably reserved for those of the female sex who cross his path. The man who brought us “grab her by the p–––y,” “blood coming out from her wherever,” and “low I.Q. Crazy Mika” has a thing for denigrating women, and it’s ugly.

Even so, he has his defenders. So what, many Trump supporters will say. It’s a silly joke! A meme! Have you seen the Internet lately? But actually, that’s the most troubling thing about it. A joke is a joke until it’s not. And what better way to turn something from jest to seriousness than to have the actual, sitting president not only condone it but also distribute it himself?

The Trump camp worked itself into a lather about “dangerous” images when Kathy Griffin portrayed herself holding the president’s severed head, despite the fact that she’s an actual comedian whose literal job is to not be taken seriously. Yet apparently the president should not be held to the same standard, despite having far more power and reach and a proven contingent of unhinged, ready-to-act supporters. (Of course, Trump just calls them “passionate.”)

“Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli was jailed last Wednesday after he offered his Facebook followers $5,000 to grab a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair during her book tour. The U.S. district judge called it “a solicitation of assault” not protected by the First Amendment and revoked his bail. Tellingly, Shkreli’s lawyers defended him by comparing his words to Trump’s.

It's insane that he can just keep doing this crap.

[onekidanddone]

3 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

I wonder how much of what has 'leaked' came from this very type of setting. I can see these WH people being the kind who like to appear in expensive restaurants and be recognized. Then they sit down and start running their mouths, expecting everyone around them to be impressed that they are very important White House folk. Never a thought that the people around them may not be their friends.

It looked like a complete set up to me. I mean they can't be that stupid can they?

[sawasdee]

He's demeaned politics to a degree I would have thought unimaginable five years ago. He repeatedly demeans women, and his cabinet reflects that. He insults allies and opponents indiscriminately.

But I can only cling on to the fact that none of his political opponents, Repug or Dem, have descended to his level. Once he's gone, I think norms will kick in. This is not a norm, and both sides seem to recognise that.

It is only WH spokespeople who descend to his level. No one else does - not one member of the Congress has stooped to Mandarin Monster level of insults. Politics does not need the language of the schoolyard.

3 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I mean they can't be that stupid can they?

Yes.

[onekidanddone]

34 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

But I can only cling on to the fact that none of his political opponents, Repug or Dem, have descended to his level. Once he's gone, I think norms will kick in. This is not a norm, and both sides seem to recognise that.

He never really will go away will he?  Even out of office he won't shut the fuck up on social media and would still make everything all about him.  If he doesn't his sons will. Of course I'm not a very hopeful person.  I think I'm hard wired to look at things in he worst way. Kinda goes along with the clinical depression and social anxiety issues.

[sawasdee]

@onekidanddone They don't allow social media in prison....

[onekidanddone]

20 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

@onekidanddone They don't allow social media in prison....

Okay this made me giggle.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

It looked like a complete set up to me. I mean they can't be that stupid can they?

Um, they work for the orange menace. That calls into question, not just their ethics, but their intelligence.

 

26 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

@onekidanddone They don't allow social media in prison....

From your lips to Rufus' ears.

[onekidanddone]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Um, they work for the orange menace. That calls into question, not just their ethics, but their intelligence.

From your lips to Rufus' ears.

Ah I thought of a reason. Setting up for a mistrial because of incompetent representation? 

[GreyhoundFan]

Good grief:  "Trump says he wants a massive military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on July 4"

Spoiler

President Trump's trip to France for the country's Bastille Day parade in July left a big impression. So big, in fact, that he wants to replicate the experience back home.

As Trump met Monday with French President Emmanuel Macron, the commander in chief gushed about seeing France's military might on display in the streets of Paris during his visit. And he told reporters he is looking into the possibility of having a parade down the streets of Washington on Independence Day to show the United States' “military strength.”

“I was your guest at Bastille Day, and it was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,” Trump told Macron, who sat next to him. “It was two hours on the button, and it was military might and, I think, a tremendous thing for France and the spirit of France.”

“To a large extent because of what I witnessed, we may do something like that on July Fourth in Washington down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump said.

The comments prompted laughter from Macron and other officials sitting around them. The leaders were meeting in New York ahead of the United Nations General Assembly. But it wasn't the first time Trump has talked about wanting a military parade in the streets of Washington.

Before the inauguration, Trump officials inquired with the Pentagon about having armored vehicles participate in his inauguration parade, according to documents obtained by HuffPost. And he told The Washington Post in January that he hoped that during his tenure, U.S. military might would be on display.

“Being a great president has to do with a lot of things, but one of them is being a great cheerleader for the country,” Trump said in the January interview. “And we’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military.”

“That military may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military,” he added.

Although Trump is deeply unpopular in France, he was invited for the 100th Bastille Day ceremony in Paris by Macron in an effort to strengthen the relationship between the two countries and their new leaders. The lengthy parade seemed to thrill the president, who has long held a fascination with military force.

On Monday, seated next to Macron, he boasted about the levels of U.S. military spending so far in his term. And he said his goal would be to “try to top” what France did.

“I think we're looking forward to doing that,” Trump said. “I'm speaking with General Kelly and with all of the people involved, and we'll see if we can do it this year,” he added, referring to Chief of Staff John F. Kelly.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests for comment about plans to hold such a parade.

He just HAS to prove that his pieces parts are bigger than Macron's.

[Cleopatra7]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Good grief:  "Trump says he wants a massive military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on July 4"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump's trip to France for the country's Bastille Day parade in July left a big impression. So big, in fact, that he wants to replicate the experience back home.

As Trump met Monday with French President Emmanuel Macron, the commander in chief gushed about seeing France's military might on display in the streets of Paris during his visit. And he told reporters he is looking into the possibility of having a parade down the streets of Washington on Independence Day to show the United States' “military strength.”

“I was your guest at Bastille Day, and it was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,” Trump told Macron, who sat next to him. “It was two hours on the button, and it was military might and, I think, a tremendous thing for France and the spirit of France.”

“To a large extent because of what I witnessed, we may do something like that on July Fourth in Washington down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump said.

The comments prompted laughter from Macron and other officials sitting around them. The leaders were meeting in New York ahead of the United Nations General Assembly. But it wasn't the first time Trump has talked about wanting a military parade in the streets of Washington.

Before the inauguration, Trump officials inquired with the Pentagon about having armored vehicles participate in his inauguration parade, according to documents obtained by HuffPost. And he told The Washington Post in January that he hoped that during his tenure, U.S. military might would be on display.

“Being a great president has to do with a lot of things, but one of them is being a great cheerleader for the country,” Trump said in the January interview. “And we’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military.”

“That military may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military,” he added.

Although Trump is deeply unpopular in France, he was invited for the 100th Bastille Day ceremony in Paris by Macron in an effort to strengthen the relationship between the two countries and their new leaders. The lengthy parade seemed to thrill the president, who has long held a fascination with military force.

On Monday, seated next to Macron, he boasted about the levels of U.S. military spending so far in his term. And he said his goal would be to “try to top” what France did.

“I think we're looking forward to doing that,” Trump said. “I'm speaking with General Kelly and with all of the people involved, and we'll see if we can do it this year,” he added, referring to Chief of Staff John F. Kelly.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests for comment about plans to hold such a parade.

He just HAS to prove that his pieces parts are bigger than Macron's.

The Democrats are still haunted by that photo of Michael Dukakis in a tank, so why doesn't this ridiculousness do the same for the GOP? Of course, Trump looks ridiculous when he does anything, whether it has to do with the military or not...

[candygirl200413]

Did anyone hear his speech to the UN? Basically every man for himself and don't fuck with America cause we will fight back hard? Then saying that if NK doesn't comply he isn't afraid to start war?

[Flossie]

13 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

Did anyone hear his speech to the UN? Basically every man for himself and don't fuck with America cause we will fight back hard? Then saying that if NK doesn't comply he isn't afraid to start war?

I didn't watch because I knew I'd spend the rest of the day grinding my teeth and kicking puppies (don't worry, I don't actually have any puppies).

[Audrey2]

It has taken me a long time to verbalize this, but I've finally figured Trump out. He's a fantasy camper. You' re probably familiar with Space Camp, where kids go to learn what it's like to be an astronaut. Most baseball teams have fantasy camps, where men (not sure if they take women or not) pay to go and live out their baseball dreams. Trump always wanted to be the boss of the world, so the figured being President of the US would allow him this. He doesn't realize this "camp" requires actual work and has a four year session. Now, he wants to go to "Army Guy" camp (using the words of a two year old), so he can pretend he's a soldier, hence the military parade. He has already lived out his "famous actor" fantasy camp with The Apprentice.

[47of74]

Just saw this about Melania

Quote

Billboards featuring Melania Trump and the slogan "just imagine how far you can go with a little bit of English" were removed Tuesday from the Croatian capital after her lawyer threatened a lawsuit.

The billboards were part of a marketing campaign by a private English language school in Zagreb, which tried to persuade Croats to learn English by reminding them of the Slovenian-born U.S. first lady's personal experience.

But Mrs. Trump did not accept what was apparently meant to be a joke about her English, spoken with a heavy accent. Her Slovenian lawyer demanded that the billboards, showing Melania Trump delivering a speech standing before a fluttering American flag, be immediately removed.

"I'm satisfied with the fact that the school admitted that they violated the law and that they are ready to remove the billboards and (Facebook) ads," lawyer Natasa Pirc-Musar told The Associated Press. "We are still analyzing possible further legal steps."

 

[GrumpyGran]

14 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

It has taken me a long time to verbalize this, but I've finally figured Trump out. He's a fantasy camper. You' re probably familiar with Space Camp, where kids go to learn what it's like to be an astronaut. Most baseball teams have fantasy camps, where men (not sure if they take women or not) pay to go and live out their baseball dreams. Trump always wanted to be the boss of the world, so the figured being President of the US would allow him this. He doesn't realize this "camp" requires actual work and has a four year session. Now, he wants to go to "Army Guy" camp (using the words of a two year old), so he can pretend he's a soldier, hence the military parade. He has already lived out his "famous actor" fantasy camp with The Apprentice.

Yeah, he sees this as an opportunity to do all the things he isn't really qualified for. Next, he'll find some way to make it look like he's in charge at NASA and sending spaceships to other planets. He'll have universities start giving him honorary degrees but he'll insist they leave the word honorary out.

He'll start whining about the Nobel committee being run by the crooked mainstream media because they won't give him a Nobel prize of some sort. Or because they don't have a Nobel prize for business.

He'll pressure the Golf Hall of Fame to induct him. He'll give himself the Medal of Freedom and pressure Congress with nasty tweets until they give him the Congressional Gold Medal. Then he'll start wearing a uniform with all of his medals on it.

 It's funny, I think if he had actually won an Emmy for Apprentice(though why would he have?)I think things would be very different now. 

7 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Just saw this about Melania

 

I'm going to start calling her FLOLA. First Lady of Legal Actions.

[GreyhoundFan]

From Jennifer Rubin: "Fed up with Trump’s ethics? Call your congressman."

Spoiler

President Trump has flouted a standard upheld by every preceding president: Don’t use the presidency to enrich yourself and your family. Whether or not he has violated the emoluments clause (more about that in a moment), he surely has abused his powers by hawking his businesses while speaking in his official capacity, using his presidency to drive business to his properties, putting family members in positions of power that create inevitable conflicts of interest and refusing to divest himself of business interests that create at the very least the appearance of a conflict.

The most egregious case may have started even before he was elected — pursuing a deal for Trump Tower in Moscow while telling debate audiences and interviewers Vladimir Putin wasn’t such a bad fellow after all. Was Jared Kushner meeting with a sanctioned Russian bank to discuss his own finances or to open up communication for the incoming administration? We’ll never know for sure, but that’s precisely why he should never have been placed in that position.

Trump was at it again on Monday at the United Nations. USA Today reported:

President Trump kicked off his Monday speech before the United National general assembly with a plug for his nearby residential tower.

“I actually saw great potential across the street, to be honest with you, and it’s only for the reason that the United Nations was here that that turned out to be such a successful project,” Trump said, after an introduction from U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.

The building in question is the Trump World Tower, a residential skyscraper in the United Nations Plaza.

The Post also reports that Trump properties are becoming ways for domestic and foreign petitioners to endear themselves to Trump:

Trump-owned hotels and clubs have long made money by holding galas and other special events. Now, their clientele is changing. Trump’s properties are attracting new customers who want something from him or his government.

The downside is he is losing a lot of business from individuals and charities that want nothing to do with him, but the issue is not whether on net he comes out ahead or behind. The issue remains whether his nest is being feathered by everything from hotel bookings to trademarks from the Chinese government to influence his official decision-making. He’s getting money from domestic interest-seekers. (“At least 27 federal political committees — including Trump’s reelection campaign — have flocked to his properties. They’ve spent $363,701 in just seven months, according to campaign-finance reports. In addition, the Republican Governors Association paid more than $408,000 to hold an event this spring at the Trump National Doral golf resort, according to tax filings, a gathering the group said was booked back in February 2015.”) And worse, from business associations under investigation or regulatory control of the federal government and foreign delegations Trump now gets a regular stream of bookings.

This grotesque, open corruption, the kind of pay-to-play politics our ethics laws are designed to protect against has been allowed to fester by the Republican Congress. In sitting idly by, Congress has set a new, low standard and an invitation to future presidents to do the same. There are three ways to address the problem.

First, lawsuits have already been filed challenging Trump’s ability to receive monies from foreign governments. The emoluments clause, however, give Congress the right to approve these dealings, which it has not done. Should one or both houses of Congress flip to Democratic control votes can be taken to specifically disallow foreign business to continue, thereby challenging Trump to give up assets or give up the presidency.

Second, in our system of checks and balances Congress should be able to legislate to prevent egregious ethical violations. It could, if it wanted to, pass legislation specifically banning relatives from working in the White House and using government resources. It could, if it wanted to, require a blind trust or full divestiture (that’s not a requirement for the job or a bar to the presidency, just a law that could be applied to the president and vice president as it is for other executive branch employees). It could, if it wanted to, require all presidents to release years of tax returns and other financial information. It could, if it wanted to, bar the government from spending money at his properties. Trump could choose to veto such measures, but that, like any veto, could be overridden. Unfortunately, we have a Republican Congress that considers itself defensive backs for the president not of the Constitution or good governance.

Third, he could be impeached for abusing his office, whether there are new laws or not. It might seem unfair to remove him from office when Congress has heretofore not addressed these issues, but remember that impeachment is not limited to statutory crimes (e.g., bribery). “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a political determination. What if, for example, the president required employees to stay at his properties, would only meet with foreign diplomats who rented rooms at his hotels or wouldn’t travel to a foreign country unless it granted favors to promote his businesses. That would be akin to the Russian system — which amounts to an organized crime syndicate. Surely we would say that’s impeachable even if no law is implicated?

What we cannot do is allow this behavior to go unchecked and even unremarked upon. Democrats should introduce legislation and run on it in 2018 to stop Trump’s self-dealing. Republicans on the ballot in 2018 should have to explain why they haven’t restrained the president’s behavior. And if there is anyone on the GOP side who has an ounce of moral courage he or she should join with Democrats in pushing for such legislation right now. Don’t hold your breath. Republicans could have prevented all of this by not nominating him or by passing legislation at the start of the presidency. In refusing to do so, they are enabling corruption and turning the White House into a Kremlin-like operation where the government serves the president’s interests, not the other way around.

She is quite correct.

[sawasdee]

The Mandarin Maniac  at the UN. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/19/donald-trump-un-speech-analysis-north-korea

Spoiler

Donald Trump’s maiden address to the UN general assembly was unlike any ever delivered in the chamber by a US president.

There are precedents for such fulminations, but not from US leaders. In tone, the speech was more reminiscent of Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez.

It did echo George W Bush’s 2002 “axis of evil” speech. That was delivered to a domestic audience, and there was little doubt that in his mind Trump was looking beyond the stony foreign faces looking up at him from the hall – where his customary pauses for applause were filled with uneasy silence – to the cheering crowds of supporters that carried to him to his stunning electoral victory, and to the centre of the world stage.

He did not even bother to mention climate change, generally seen as the greatest threat to the planet at the UN, but viewed as a liberal hoax by much of Trump’s political base – a view he has encouraged over the years.

The speech struck some of the darker notes of Trump’s earlier rhetoric, like the “American carnage” he described at his inauguration in January, and his evocation of an embattled western civilisation in his speech in Poland in July.

All three used fear as their major key. All three bore the combative hallmark of his chief speechwriter, Stephen Miller, a nativist acolyte of Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist who has left the White House but clearly still wields formidable influence.

Like Bush, Trump offered the world a black-and-white choice between the “righteous many” against the “wicked few” – but his choice of language was far blunter than his predecessor. There can not have been many, if any, threats to “totally destroy” another nation at a UN general assembly. He did not even direct the threat at the regime, making it clear it was North Korea as a country that was at peril.

Trump issued the warning just minutes after the UN secretary general, António Guterres, had appealed for calmer rhetoric. “Fiery talk can lead to fatal misunderstandings,” Guterres had said in his own first general assembly address, and it was clear who those remarks were directed towards.

Trump’s rhetoric was aimed at a jumpy and defensive regime at a time of high tension. In the aftermath of North Korea’s sixth nuclear weapons test and second launch of a ballistic missile over Japan and into the Pacific, the US has resumed overflights of the Korean peninsula by heavy bombers, even carrying out practice runs with real bombs near the demilitarized zone.

The day before Trump’s address, the US defence secretary James Mattis claimed that there were “many military options” for dealing with Pyongyang, even suggesting, cryptically, that some of those options did not put Seoul at risk.

Kim Jong-un and his regime expect to be targeted by a “decapitation strike” and have shaped their military strategy accordingly, threatening annihilation of Seoul and other targets within reach of its nuclear missiles and artillery.

Like Bush 15 years ago, Trump concentrated on trio of enemies: although the current president removed Iraq and added Venezuela alongside North Korea and Iran. Iran was included for being its regional role, such as its backing for the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, and also because of the nuclear deal that Tehran sealed with six global powers in 2015, including the US.

Trump used the green marble UN podium to pour scorn on the agreement, the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama, the predecessor he so blatantly despises.

Venezuela was targeted for the socialist policies of the Nicolás Maduro government and the erosion of its democracy, but Trump did not attempt to distinguish Venezuela’s faults from other autocratic regimes with whom Trump has sought to cultivate.

Saudi Arabia was not mentioned. Nor was Russia, although there was, early on in the speech, a rare public expression of support for Ukrainian sovereignty.

Nor was there any explanation of how the castigation of these “rogue regimes” dovetailed with the dominant theme of the first half of Trump’s speech, which was devoted to the assertion of the undiluted sovereignty of the nation state.

Seeking to draw a sharp line between his view of international relations and those of his predecessors in the Oval Office, Trump stressed that diverse nations had the right to their own “values” and “culture” without the interference of outsiders. The UN was there as a forum for cooperation between strong and independent nations, not to impose “global governance” from on high.

In a briefing on the eve of the speech, a senior White House official had insisted that Trump had pondered long and hard over this “deeply philosophical” segment of his address, as it marked an important exposition of his approach to foreign policy, labelled “principled realism”.

Trump and his administration have frequently invoked such ideas to justify the absence of criticism for Saudi Arabia, Russia and other perceived partners for their appalling human rights records.

With Tuesday’s address, however, Trump punched yawning holes in his own would-be doctrine, singling out enemies, expressing horror at their treatment of their people and threatening interference to the point of annihilation.

What was left, when the muted applause died down in the UN chamber, was a sense of incoherence and a capricious menace hanging in the air.

Holy shit. He's totally bonkers.

Kelly needs to get Miller out of the WH - fast.

Bolding by me.

A very interesting - and very scary - analysis of the TT's policies towards Iran. Note that the only countries in agreement are Saudi Arabia (what a surprise) Israel (ditto) and the UAE.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/trump-pyongyang-tehran-iran-deal

Spoiler

President Donald Trump took a page out of the George W Bush playbook at his UN address on Tuesday. To justify confrontation with Iran, conflate it with Pyongyang. To justify confrontation with North Korea, conflate it with Tehran.

This is the latest gimmick in Trump’s desperate efforts to kill the nuclear deal with Iran: by focusing on Tehran’s objectionable non-nuclear policies and false claims of the unevenness of the Iran deal, Trump is arguing that sustaining the international accord can no longer be justified since it doesn’t address the totality of America’s concerns with Iran.

Problem is: there is no deal that could address the totality of US-Iran tensions unless Trump is willing to engage in extensive diplomacy with Iran for such a grand bargain. Thus far, Trump has shown zero interest in negotiations with Iran. And mindful of how he has conducted himself on the world stage, significant doubts exist as to whether his administration has the capacity and competence to face Iran diplomatically.

Instead, the contours of Trump’s Iran policy are crystallizing. Rather than a new deal with Iran, Trump is reigniting the US-Iran cold war that the nuclear deal began to cool down.

On the international stage, Trump calls for Iran’s total isolation, accuses it of being the main source of instability in the Middle East, and describes it as a new North Korea in the making. At home, he plans to give the nuclear deal a death knell by decertifying it on 15 October and leave its fate in the hands of the US Congress – as he did with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (Daca). (The likelihood of the Republican Congress showing restraint and opting to not kill the nuclear accord is minuscule.)

The only countries on the world stage that would welcome Trump’s reigniting this cold war with Iran would be Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They prefer that the United States resurrects Pax Americana in the Middle East and re-establishes strong American hegemony there in order for the region to return to its pre-2003 equilibrium – before, ironically, Iran was unleashed by George W Bush’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Only by having America by their side as a full military partner can these countries balance Iran. The end result would either be a military confrontation at worst or at best a tense cold war-like standoff between Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the US on one hand, and Iran and its allies (including Russia) on the other.

What this wouldn’t achieve – and isn’t designed to achieve – is stability in the Middle East. Rather, Trump would further inflame the Middle East and intensify the existing rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. More arms would be poured into the region, while diplomacy would become an increasing rarity. Nor would this cold war with Iran make America or Europe any safer as instability in the Middle East has a way of finding its way to the west.

All eyes are now on Europe. Strong European leadership may succeed in preventing Trump from destabilizing the Middle East and killing the Iran deal. European leaders have already recommitted themselves to the nuclear deal and pointed out that it is thus far an astounding success.

The deal has blocked all of Iran’s paths to a nuclear weapon and the IAEA has eight times certified that the Iranians are in compliance with the agreement. In fact, the deal has been such a success that Germany’s Angela Merkel has on numerous occasions urged the Iran negotiations to be used as model to find a solution to the North Korean crisis.

Though it did its utmost, Europe failed to prevent the Bush administration from launching the disastrous invasion of Iraq. On Iran, Europe can still stop Trump from following the footsteps of George W Bush. It is not just the nuclear deal that is at stake, but the entire stability of the Middle East.

So it isn't just North Korea we need to worry about. He's well on his way to causing further destabilisation in the Middle East. Fancy a war on a third front, anyone?

[apple1]

Embarrassing.

And terrifying.

I had read portions of that speech online, but I hadn't posted because I just don't have any more words than this.

[sawasdee]

I highly recommend this annotated version of the Maniac's speech. It's very long, so just a link. No paywall at the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/sep/19/an-annotated-guide-to-donald-trumps-united-nations-speech

 

And another good opinion piece - sorry, I'm deep in the Guardian at the moment!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/trumps-terrifying-un-speech-presidential

Spoiler

Donald Trump will always be Donald Trump. If anyone hasn’t yet learned that lesson, today was educational. Trump, the reality show, punchline president – he’s great for the Emmys! – rambled in front of the United Nations general assembly about “Rocket Man” Kim Jong-un and threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea. His colorful language might even be funny if it weren’t for the fact that Trump controls a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to annihilate humanity several times over.

“If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph,” Trump said, detailing the horrors of what he deemed a “depraved” North Korean regime. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission” he said, adding: “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

Trump is partially right. The United States does have great strength. But patience is predicated on whoever sits in the Oval Office. The world remembers only one country has murdered civilians with atomic weapons, and that was when a much saner president – Harry Truman – was calling the shots in 1945.

The best we can hope for, conservatives and liberals and socialists and paleocons alike, is a world where Trump and Kim decide they would rather play with other toys than their nuclear missiles. Unlike his father, Kim Jong-il, this new tyrant is more willing to saber-rattle and less inclined to even engage in the pretenses of a diplomatic solution. Kim, somewhere in his early 30s, is deeply inexperienced and profoundly erratic.

America reckons with its own deeply inexperienced and profoundly erratic leader. Trump knew nothing about governing before winning a Black Swan presidential election. He has not helped his cause by surrounding himself with know-nothings like Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.

Even Bannon, the overrated Breitbart mogul, understood a military solution to the North Korean problem was not a real solution. There is no “totally” destroying the isolated nation without putting the lives of millions in Japan and South Korea at risk. We know almost nothing about North Korea, and hidden missiles and artillery could inflict devastating casualties on our Asian allies before Trump’s bombs laid waste to the country. Millions of innocent, oppressed North Korean civilians would also die.

Maybe Trump knows this. Maybe Trump doesn’t. He is, charitably speaking, not a thinker recognized for his depth or willingness to learn things he does not already know. Even presidents with more shallow intellects – Ronald Reagan being one recent example – understood that a cabinet must be stocked with men and women who have an inkling of how to wrangle with vast bureaucracies and intractable problems.

It is disturbing to consider the terrifying stakes resting on the state of one mercurial, TV-addled mind. Trump should not be running a mid-sized city somewhere in the midwest, let alone the most powerful nation on Earth. Most corporations wouldn’t let such a character near their boardrooms, either.

The office of the president will not change Trump. He is the same man he was 30 years ago, only older, more embittered, and more emboldened. He is Trump in the United Nations, Trump in the White House, Trump at home at night, railing at the cable news.

There is an old expression that may have originated somewhere near Trump’s boyhood home of Queens. You can take the kid out of the neighborhood, but you can’t take the neighborhood out of the kid.

You can’t take the Trump out of President Trump.

 "Trump should not be running a mid-sized city somewhere in the midwest, let alone the most powerful nation on Earth. Most corporations wouldn’t let such a character near their boardrooms, either."

I've never seen it better phrased.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why Donald Trump’s tweets are only going to get worse"

Spoiler

We need to talk about the president’s tweets again.

Over the weekend, the president went on what can only be described as a Twitter bender. Here’s a sampling of the past 48 hours:

... < string of unhinged tweets from twitler >

The last tweet was actually from a few days ago, except that it appears that President Trump has finally learned that he can retweet his own tweets. This may cause PTSD among some observers.

What is interesting is that Trump’s more unhinged Twitter tantrums are occurring at the same time that his White House operation is being professionalized and de-MAGAfied, if you will. As Axios’s Jonathan Swan noted:

Staff who oppose the moderate immigration turn no longer have unfettered access to Trump, and nor do allies on the outside who, in the first six months of the administration, used to send text messages to Trump’s bodyguard Keith Schiller, and often receive a snappy callback from the president. Kelly now has real control over the most important input: the flow of human and paper advice into the Oval Office. For a man as obsessed about his self image as Trump, a new flow of inputs can make the world of difference.

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that these two phenomena are related. The more that the prime minister White House chief of staff weeds out the sycophants and malcontents, the more that the toddler in chief will rebel.

Trump is tweeting like a crazy old man for three reasons. First, he has little choice but to spend the next six months or so — at a minimum — on thorny issues that have little upside for him: North Korea, a longer-term lift of the debt ceiling, funding the federal government, dealing with the “dreamers.” All of these issues will require him to make compromises that are necessary but are of little benefit to him. In these circumstances, Twitter can function as a venue for him to blow off steam.

Second, in dealing with all of these issues, Trump will have to do things that will alienate the parts of his base that believed in him. In the past week, we have seen the likes of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Mickey Kaus go ballistic about the possibility of a deal on the dreamers. The easiest way for Trump to counteract any criticism he gets from Trump-friendly pundits is to feed his base some form of red meat. Tweets about Hillary Clinton could do the trick.

... < more tweets >

Third, Trump possesses such an oppositional personality that he needs to find ways to rebel against the constraints that John F. Kelly has placed on his White House staff. As his sycophants depart, Twitter is the one place where he can quickly get a similar hit of flattery.

There are two ways to react to this dialectic. The first, alas, is to simply shrug off Trump’s more idiotic tweets. Yes, most of his tweets are outrageous, but they are also toothless. Some might argue that simply shrugging off deranged tweets is normalizing the Trump administration. The thing is, we are only nine months into the lamest administration in modern history. Outrage needs to be conserved as a resource for the important stuff.

The second reaction is to marvel at the ways in which Trump has neutered his presidency.

... < still more tweets >

We already know that he has not figured out how to use the presidential levers of power. As Zachary Karabell noted recently in Politico:

For the moment, the Trump presidency is looking tame and pedestrian, far more fettered by processes, precedents and laws than the continued outcries against the administration or the continued adulation of supporters would have us believe.

Trump promised to restore muscle to the presidency and respect to America. Eight months in, he is a not-so-imperial president heading a government and a country that neither must nor will do his bidding, left to flail against democratic structures more resilient and far stronger than many of us suspected.

It is not surprising that Trump has not figured out how to run the executive branch. It is a little more surprising to see him squander the one tool he mastered during the presidential campaign. Back in January, his bravado on Twitter seemed genuinely menacing. In the run-up to Inauguration Day, he could tweet at a company and its stock price buckled.

What has changed in the past nine months is that Trump has been proven to be a weak and feckless president. Yes, his administration has racked up some accomplishments, but none that it can brag about in public. At this point, when Trump promises or threatens on Twitter, no one believes him. As he acts more and more hysterical online, he will further erode his ability to use social media to set the agenda.

It is sad and scary that Donald Trump is the president. But even as his Twitter behavior worsens, it also reveals his impotence as a leader. As insufferable as his tweets might be, it is his impotence that is worth remembering.

What an unpleasant thought.

[Destiny]

I’m about ready to lose my shit. If he doesn’t stop fucking telling us how big his dick is when 3.5 million Americans are getting fucked by a hurricane, I’m gonna lose it.

WHERE THE FUCK ARE HIS ADULTS!?

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Daily 202: Why conservatives loved Trump’s U.N. speech so much"

Spoiler

THE BIG IDEA: For many of President Trump’s core supporters, his appeal has always been more about tone than substance.

Commentators often misunderstood his 2016 success by overly focusing on the specific policies he was proposing. To borrow one trite formulation, the media took Trump literally while voters took him seriously. Many Republicans who backed Trump in the primaries were willing to overlook his apostasies on the issues they theoretically cared about most, such as abortion or guns, because they liked his style. The brashness, bellicosity, swagger and machismo — whatever you want to call it — that made so many elder statesmen so uncomfortable was central to his success.

Many conservatives feel like the system — in Washington and the world — is broken. They don’t want leaders to prevaricate or speak the language of diplomacy. They want a streetfighter.

After a week of being angry at Trump for cutting deals with “Chuck and Nancy,” that’s what a lot of these same people saw in Trump’s maiden speech yesterday to the United Nations General Assembly.

“Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime,” the president said in the most memorable sound bite of the day. “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

-- The conservatives who praised the speech focused mainly on the way Trump talked about North Korea:

John Bolton declared that “this was the best speech of the Trump presidency” because “people will remember” Trump’s threat against Pyongyang. “I think he was as clear and direct as it's possible to be” the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. said on Fox News. “For Americans, plain speaking is still a virtue. And there was a lot of plain speaking in that speech.”

The Resurgent’s Erick Erickson also called it “the best speech by President Trump so far” and said it was because “he did not mince words”: “A White House contact told me the President intended to wake up the United Nations to the threat North Korea poses on the world stage by using harsh language. I think it probably worked. Foreign policy elitists will treat the President’s statements about North Korea and ‘rocketman’ with the same disdain they showed Reagan for his ‘evil Empire’ remarks. But I suspect both Presidents will have the last laugh. … With President Trump we are not going to get the soaring rhetoric of Barack Obama or the happy smile and sentiment of George W. Bush. We are not going to get Reagan or Clinton. What we are going to get is a blunt instrument who understands he can occasionally use his bluntness to make real change.”

“The apology tour is over,” wrote Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt, praising the “strong dose of straight talk.”

“Thank God we have a president who … is not afraid to speak truth to the whole world,” evangelical leader Franklin Graham wrote on Facebook. “It made you proud to be an American.”

“If his supporters worried about the supposed ‘globalists’ on his staff watering down Trump’s approach on foreign policy, the president dispelled all of those worries…,” Ed Morrissey wrote on his Hot Air blog.

“It may not be the most elegant solution, and it's certainly not what we're used to, but blunt threats are sometimes the only thing two-bit despots understand,” added Washington Examiner columnist Becket Adams.

-- Compare the tenor of that commentary to the horrified reaction of many media elites: ABC News correspondent Terry Moran said on the air after Trump finished speaking that threatening to “totally destroy” a nation of 25 million people “borders on the threat of committing a war crime.”

.. < tweets from CNN and Politico >

Here is a taste of some of the headlines out there this morning:

• Vanity Fair: “IN MANIACAL U.N. SOLILOQUY, TRUMP THREATENS ANNIHILATION.”
• Baltimore Sun Editorial Board: “Who's the madman, Kim or Trump?”
• Daily Beast: “Strange Bedfellows: Israel and Saudi Arabia Loved Trump’s Nuke-Happy U.N. Speech.”
• NPR: “After Trump's U.N. Speech, Some Senators Look To Reinforce War Powers.”
• The Globe and Mail of Canada: “Trump stokes global tensions with threats against North Korea in UN speech.”

-- On the right, though, Trump offered a little something for everyone.

If you want to believe that the president’s heart is in the right place, if you’re inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, there was at least something in the speech you could seize on and celebrate. Whether you’re a traditional Republican who cheered when George W. Bush focused on promoting democracy abroad during his second inaugural address or a libertarian who wants to bring the troops home, there was a theme for you to embrace.

In part, that is what happens whenever a speech is drafted by committee. It’s plainly obvious from reading the transcript that different sections of the speech were written by different people with different worldviews.

The Washington Post’s Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung focus on the ideological incoherence that resulted from that dynamic: “In previewing the speech for reporters, one senior White House aide described it as ‘a deeply philosophical address’ that would explain ‘how America fits into the world, how it operates, what its values are.’ These have been subjects of often intense debate in a White House split between foreign policy traditionalists and Trump’s senior political advisers … Trump’s initial instincts often have been to upend U.S. foreign policy — or at least question the core principles that have guided it — before pivoting back to a more traditional stance. Trump’s U.N. speech struggled with these conflicting impulses to the point of incoherence.”

• “In some moments, Trump suggested that his commitment to sovereignty — a word that he repeated 21 times — would lead to a less interventionist foreign policy. … In other instances, Trump outlined a far more expansive role for the United States.”
• “In paying homage to American generosity on the world stage, Trump cited several U.S.-funded global health programs that the budget his administration released May 7 calls for significantly cutting. He praised the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe after World War II, even as he has repeatedly vowed that the United States’ days of nation-building are finished.”
• “The president was selective in his view of bad actors — North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela — whose sovereignty did not merit respect. He made little mention of China or Russia, congratulating both on their recent U.N. vote for more sanctions on North Korea and offering only a brief mention of Moscow’s violations of Ukraine’s sovereign territory.”

-- Foreign affairs columnist David Ignatius said he was “modestly reassured” by what he saw as a shockingly “conventional” speech: “He supported human rights and democracy; he opposed rogue regimes; he espoused a global community of strong, sovereign nations. … Because he’s Trump, the zingers got the headlines. … He said the Iran nuclear deal was ‘an embarrassment’ and Iran’s regional actions were a ‘scourge,’ but he didn’t say he would tear up the deal. He appealed to the Iranian people, without exactly calling for regime change. He checked all the hard-liner boxes, in other words, without making any new commitments. … He spoke about righteousness defeating evil, a ‘great reawakening of nations’ and other fuzzy Reaganisms. But at its core, this was a speech that any president since Harry S. Truman probably could have delivered. (Interestingly, Trump twice favorably mentioned Truman…) … Trump even invoked the Marshall Plan, the very cornerstone of the liberal international order. … (Warning to base: Has POTUS been kidnapped by the black-helicopter crowd?)”

-- “The tension between national sovereignty and universal rights has thrummed through the UN’s work like an electric charge ever since the organization was founded after the second world war,” The Economist observes. “Mr. Trump, in his speech to the General Assembly, did not so much resolve that tension as pretend that it does not exist. This required some heroic squinting at the historical record.”

-- The fact Trump threaded the needle allowed various conservative thought leaders who have been critical of his foreign policy to praise him:

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, for example, thinks the president signaled that he’s coming around to their more globalist views: “Donald Trump’s method has been to use his speeches on the world stage to roil diplomatic convention, and he did it again Tuesday in his address to the United Nations. No coterie of complacency deserves candor more, and perhaps Mr. Trump’s definition of ‘America First’ is even evolving to recognize the necessity of American global leadership.”

In a nuanced take, National Review Editor Rich Lowry described the speech as a “sometimes awkward marriage of conventional Republican foreign policy and a very basic version of Trump’s nationalism.” But he keyed in on its “Jacksonian nature”: “As someone said on Twitter, never before has been there so much murmuring of ‘holy sh**’ in so many different languages. … It’s very safe to say that … we’ve never heard such direct, undiplomatic language from a U.S. president at Turtle Bay. … If the point of the speech was to get the world to take notice (of his threat to destroy North Korea), this surely succeeded. But it’s still an open question of what exactly the administration’s North Korea policy is — a rhetorically forceful version of the usual hope that we can get China to pressure North Korea and eventually sit down to negotiate again with Pyongyang, or something different?”

-- Other Trump critics in the GOP tent also found something to like.

Mitt Romney posted a rare tweet praising Trump:

,,, < tweet >

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has been one of the most outspoken Trump critics among congressional Republicans since announcing her retirement. But she loved his attacks on the governments in Havana and Caracas:

... < tweets >

HOW IT’S PLAYING IN THE POST:

-- “The defiant and pugilistic speech put the General Assembly hall of more than 150 delegations on notice that the United States, under Trump’s leadership, is willing to pursue an unpopular and unpredictable course to protect its interests across the globe,” David Nakamura and Anne Gearan write in the lead story for today’s newspaper. “Most of the president’s views were well known before he arrived at the annual U.N. gathering. But his 42-minute speech, delivered in a combative tone rare for an American leader, put them in stark relief at a time of widespread anxiety among U.S. allies and partners over the nation’s traditional role of world leader.”

-- Sidebar: “Jitters and surprise in South Korea and Japan over Trump’s speech to the U.N.,” by Anna Fifield in Tokyo and Simon Denyer in Beijing.

-- Read the transcript of the full speech, annotated by The Fix’s Aaron Blake.

-- From the opinion page:

• David Rothkopf: “Trump’s first speech to the United Nations was a disastrous, nationalistic flop.”
• Jennifer Rubin on Right Turn calls it “the weirdest U.N. speech ever.”
• Paul Waldman on Plum Line: “Trump just made it harder to get North Korea to give up nukes.”

,,,

I can't believe any sane person would cheer for the TT's "speech" in front of the UN.

[Howl]

17 hours ago, sawasdee said:

Kelly needs to get Miller out of the WH - fast.

We're in total agreement on this!  

Actually, I just logged on to say that Jamie Dimon, who should be in prison IMHO, is a raging turd.  He's in DC lobbying to reduce the corporate tax rate, because doing that will goose the economy and create jobs make him even more insanely wealthy beyond even his wildest dreams of avarice. 

Even though Jamie has said America's high corporate tax rate made him almost ashamed to be American, he says what he really meant is how much he loves America, just loves America, is proud to be American.