Jump to content
IGNORED

Trump 36: We Shall Overcome


Destiny

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Howl said:

TV headphones have saved our marriage. 

We are just now looking into purchasing TV headphones.*  Are they easy to set up with the TV's audio system?  Any suggestions welcome! 

*My husband has a higher Trump tolerance than I do, but primarily I notice the volume level is sneaking up over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 625
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Howl said:

First, we're 100% agreement on politics, but our viewing habits vary. Hubs watched Trump but I muted the audio, because NOTHING Trump says is informative. TV headphones have saved our marriage.  He wears them and I mute as needed. 

This is already shaping up to be a stellar Infrastructure Week and it's not even 8 am Central.

My take? The Saudis murdered Jamal Khashoggi and likely there is an audio and visual record.   There will be tons of posturing and hand wringing over what to do to punish the Saudis.  Trump can posture and carry on about what he'll do if it is "proven" that the Saudis assassinated Khashoggi,  but won't do anything, because a) jared and b) jared  and Saudi investment in the US. I was reading here and there and came across this statement: "All the Saudis have to do is sit out one T-Bill Auction and they can crash the entire US economy."

A bit of googling comes up with two time frames relative to Saudis investment in US: one is April 2016 and the other is mid September of this year. 

From Bloomberg, May 30, 2016 

The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret: How a legendary bond trader from Salomon Brothers brokered a do-or-die deal that reshaped U.S.-Saudi relations for generations.

Sept. 9, 2018 The Start Of Saudi Arabia’s Power Play

I try to be fair and remain objective, but I truly despise the Saudis.  I wondered why our government didn't feel the need to kick their asses after 9/11 or at least issue sanctions, when it turned out that 15 of the 19 Al Qaeda highjackers were Saudi.  Instead, with Saudi help we invaded and destabilized Iraq, which was a regional threat to the Saudis.  I knew Bush family relations and the oil business had a lot to do with our continuing friendly relationship with the Saudis after 9/11, but I didn't know until reading the article you posted how much of the US government debt the Saudis are holding.  I swear, the US government has sold its soul to the devil.  I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't start a war with Iran, the remaining regional threat to the Saudis.  We're already supporting a proxy war in Yeman between Saudi Arabia & Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Yemeni humanitarian crisis is beyond horrible.  That gets zip coverage in the American press. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuckhead hung a tacky painting in the White House

Quote

President Trump’s latest addition to White House decor is a kitschy fantasy painting that shows him relaxing with Republican presidents of the past—an update to a best-selling image commonly found in tourist gift shops and online galleries.

The artwork, “The Republican Club” by Andy Thomas, could be seen in the background of a photo tweeted by 60 Minutes, which aired an interview with Trump on Sunday night.

It shows a slimmed-down Trump sandwiched between Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, directly across from Abraham Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and both Bushes are also in the imaginary scene.

Amateur art critics sneered on social media that the painting was “tacky,” “a travesty,” or “blasphemy.” Some said it looked like the political version of the famous “dogs playing poker” painting.

Like Ike, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Ford would want to have anything to do with fuckhead.  Makes me fucking sick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Fuckhead hung a tacky painting in the White House

Like Ike, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Ford would want to have anything to do with fuckhead.  Makes me fucking sick. 

I'd actually like to see Teddy Roosevelt and Trump together. With his progressive politics, trust busting big business, and dedication to saving and protecting the environment, along with his energetic personality, I think he would make Trump's life miserable. Go Teddy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

I'd actually like to see Teddy Roosevelt and Trump together. With his progressive politics, trust busting big business, and dedication to saving and protecting the environment, along with his energetic personality, I think he would make Trump's life miserable. Go Teddy!

Teddy would have steamrolled Dumpy. Dumpy would be an orange stain on the floor.

 

"Trump’s ugly, dishonest CBS interview reveals GOP’s predicament in midterms"

Spoiler

In an interview broadcast Sunday night on CBS, President Trump spectacularly outdid himself in revealing all of his very worst qualities in a compressed time period: the relentless lying; the unabashed sympathy with autocrats and dictators; the gloating, misogynist contempt for Christine Blasey Ford and the millions who saw her as an icon; the rabid xenophobia; and the lack of even minimal regret over the cruelest policies birthed by that xenophobia, such as the family separations resulting in thousands of children locked in cages.

In so doing, Trump perfectly showcased the Republicans’ predicament as they seek to hold the House: They need Trump to go full Trumpist to get out his voters, because his policies aren’t getting the job done — yet these displays are simultaneously strengthening the anti-Trump backlash among the constituencies most likely to deliver the House to Democrats.

The Post has a useful report on the struggles of Republican candidates in so-called “Trump country.” Republicans are likely to lose all the key Senate races, most of the gubernatorial races, and a number of House races in the industrial Midwestern states where Trump made such big inroads in 2016.

A single quote from a GOP consultant tells the whole story. Republican Lou Barletta is trailing Sen. Bob Casey (D) by double digits — in Pennsylvania, where Trump’s win shocked the world — despite running as a full-blown Trumper. Why? A strategist for Barletta explains it to The Post this way: “One false assumption that was made was that a Trump voter from the 2016 election was necessarily a Republican voter.”

The challenge for Republicans, then, is to turn Trump voters into Republican voters — that is, to get them to vote in midterms in sufficient numbers without Trump on the ballot. But how?

Trump provided a clue in his CBS News interview. Trump declared that it “doesn’t matter” whether Ford was telling the truth, “because we won” in getting Brett Kavanaugh confirmed. Pressed by CBS News’s Lesley Stahl on why he ridiculed Ford, Trump claimed that if he hadn’t, they would not have “won.” When Stahl pointed out that “thousands” of his supporters laughed at Ford after he did that, Trump insisted the Kavanaugh battle has “become a big factor in the midterms. Have you seen what’s gone on with the polls?”

Thus, Trump himself confirmed the basic outlines of the situation: The way to sufficiently energize base voters is for Trump to fill the media space with a big “win” that has the added benefit of rubbing the faces of millions on the losing side in excrement over it. We keep hearing that the motivating factor is the supposed mistreatment of Kavanaugh, and perhaps that is driving some GOP voters, but in Trump’s own telling, the necessary additional ingredient is the display of contempt and humiliation for the losers.

‘Donald Trump in full’

As The New York Times recently reported, the White House has adopted a strategy of unleashing what counselor Kellyanne Conway describes as “Donald Trump in full.” This entails letting Trump do as many rallies and as much talking as possible, enabling him to unleash as many lies and depravities as the media space will absorb.

Thus, in the CBS interview, when Stahl asked why Trump recently declared his “love” for Kim Jong Un, despite his history of repression, torture and political murder, Trump unapologetically said: “I get along with him, okay?” Trump idiotically insisted that climate change will “change back.” He claimed “China meddled” in the 2016 election, downgrading the blame on Russia. And he wouldn’t rule out constraining the Mueller probe. It’s more authoritarian signaling that the war on facts, empiricism, institutions and accountability (for Trump) continues.

Immigration is central to all of this. Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s ethno-nationalist agenda, believes Republicans will win if immigration is in the headlines, and Miller is behind Trump’s plan, now in the works, to revive his family separations policy in a new form. Indeed, Trump suggested to CBS that he might do just that, because otherwise people are “gonna pour into our country,” which reaffirms the cruel xenophobia behind dangling the horror of child separations to dissuade border-crossers, desperate asylum seekers included.

The Trump agenda isn’t getting it done

It turns out that the real Trump agenda — a combination of orthodox GOP plutocracy on taxes and ham-fisted, destructive xenophobic populism on trade and immigration — isn’t delivering political rewards. Bloomberg reports that the biggest-spending GOP outside group, which had pledged to turn the Trump/GOP tax cut into a winner for Republicans, has only mentioned the tax plan in a “fraction” of ads — because it’s a political flop.

Meanwhile, even in Trump country, Trump’s trade agenda isn’t getting it done. As The Post puts it: “Rising steel and aluminum prices, falling soybean prices, and new restrictions on car imports have sparked a wave of headlines in the region about layoffs and struggling farmers.”

All of which is why “Donald Trump in full” is the closing strategy. But this could end up putting the House, at least, at greater risk. Jonathan Allen closely analyzed Trump’s political itinerary and found that he’s mostly confining his campaigning to areas he won overwhelmingly, which means Republicans may privately understand that he’s toxic even in swing territory.

Meanwhile, Ron Brownstein reports that Democrats are now extremely well positioned in many of the suburban, well-educated House districts that will determine control of the lower chamber. And Trump is the reason. Brownstein looked at polling data and found that Trump’s approval rating in many of these districts is appallingly low, particularly so among college-educated white women, who plan to vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers.

As Brownstein concludes, the GOP’s precarious position in all these districts is a direct outgrowth of “Trump’s weak position in them,” which in turn flows from the fact that “Trump has focused his presidency almost entirely on the priorities and peeves of his base.”

The fact that “Donald Trump in full” is alienating and infuriating so many voters outside his base is the whole point. It’s almost as if this is the necessary precondition for ministering to his base’s priorities and peeves — it’s the only remaining hope, as that GOP strategist put it, of converting Trump voters into Republican voters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been keeping a pretty close eye on Big Dummy's rally schedule, because he's bragged that he's going to get a huge venue when he comes here to campaign for Lyin' Ted. I'm genuinely curious to see where he ends up holding the Cruz rally.

Anyhoo, there's still no mention of Texas or Lyin' Ted on this week's schedule, but rallies are scheduled for Montana, Arizona, and Nevada. Trump's been doing four a week here lately, so I guess having to go to Georgia and Florida today to look at hurricane damage is eating into his rally time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Anyhoo, there's still no mention of Texas or Lyin' Ted on this week's schedule, but rallies are scheduled for Montana, Arizona, and Nevada. Trump's been doing four a week here lately, so I guess having to go to Georgia and Florida today to look at hurricane damage is eating into his rally time.

He did make time to go golfing yesterday. No big surprise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very idea of him 'personally testing her DNA' is so gross -- because we all know what the pussy-grabber is implying here (with his wife right there next to him! ) --  I don't even know what to say. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

because we all know what the pussy-grabber is implying here

I'm rather embarrassed here, but I'm not sure what he is implying. :embarrassed: Is it sex? I don't understand how sex would be a DNA test. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

The very idea of him 'personally testing her DNA' is so gross -- because we all know what the pussy-grabber is implying here (with his wife right there next to him! ) --  I don't even know what to say. 

 

Yeah, President Grabber will "scientifically" test Warren's DNA like he had the FBI "investigate" Kavenaugh. No wonder he doesn't believe in science- he only believes in things he can manipulate to his benefit. Therefore, if science can be manipulated, there's no such thing as science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, formergothardite said:

I'm rather embarrassed here, but I'm not sure what he is implying. :embarrassed: Is it sex? I don't understand how sex would be a DNA test. 

think he's implying sex. I mean, I guess with his extremely limited knowledge, the only thing he can relate to the building blocks of life is the act which creates it. Ergo, DNA = the result of sex. DNA testing is... well... 

Brain bleach needed. :brainbleach:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CTRLZero said:

We are just now looking into purchasing TV headphones.*  Are they easy to set up with the TV's audio system?  Any suggestions welcome! 

*My husband has a higher Trump tolerance than I do, but primarily I notice the volume level is sneaking up over the years.

Very easy if you have a smart TV, which most TVs are these days.  Truth is, DH set it up, but I don't recall any cursing.  The headphones are Sony.   He could watch every Blue Bloods rerun in existence (twice), car shows like Counting Cars, Jay Leno's Garage, Barrett Jackson auctions, plus Good Morning America, Kelly & Ryan, Morning Joe, Ari Melber  and Dancing With the Stars.  I do murder porn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good analysis: "6 takeaways from Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview"

Spoiler

President Trump sat down this weekend for what is an increasingly rare thing: A non-Fox News, nonconservative interviewer peppering him with questions in a full-length interview.

Below are six takeaways.

1) Trump is still downplaying Russian interference

The latest tack seems to be suggesting it is nothing compared with what China is doing. Trump has claimed before that China is interfering in the 2018 election, even as the administration has provided no actual instances of specific electoral interference.

And in Sunday’s interview, Trump quickly parried a question about Russian interference by arguing China also interfered — in 2016:

LESLEY STAHL: Do you believe that the Russians interfered in the 2016 campaign election? Our election —

TRUMP: They — they meddled. But I think China meddled too.

STAHL: But why do you —

TRUMP: And I think other countries —

STAHL: — say China meddled too?

TRUMP: And you want to know something?

STAHL: Why do you say Chi— why don’t you just say —

TRUMP: Well, let me ask you —

STAHL: — the Russians meddled?

TRUMP: Because I think China meddled also. And I think, frankly, China —

STAHL: This is amazing.

TRUMP: — is a bigger problem.

STAHL: You are diverting the whole Russia thing.

TRUMP: I’m not doing anything.

STAHL: You are, you are.

TRUMP: I’m saying Russia, but I’m also saying China.

Trump is indeed diverting. He’s been doing it for the past two years. And the latest strategy here seems to be whataboutism. Yeah, Russia may have interfered, but what about China now interfering to help the Democrats! The problem is it’s not apples to apples.

2) He’s still downplaying human rights abuses, too

And that’s whether we’re talking about Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any other place. Trump has generally made clear he views these things as an impediment to cutting deals, and that was again the case Sunday.

Trump, not for the first time, suggested he doesn’t like the idea of scaling back an arms deal with or imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia for Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance and alleged murder, if indeed the Saudis were responsible. He suggested such a thing would unnecessarily punish U.S. companies:

STAHL: What are your options? Let’s say [the Saudis] did. What are your options? Would you consider imposing sanctions, as a bipartisan group of senators have proposed?

TRUMP: Well, it depends on what the sanction is. I’ll give you an example: They are ordering military equipment. Everybody in the world wanted that order. Russia wanted it, China wanted it, we wanted it. We got it.

STAHL: So would you cut that off —

TRUMP: Do I — well — I tell you what I don’t want to do. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these com— I don’t want to hurt jobs. I don’t want to lose an order like that. There are other ways of — punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.

Perhaps the most telling part of this is that Trump views the mere idea of “punishing” as being “pretty harsh.”

Trump has also downplayed the idea of punishing Saudi Arabia by noting that Khashoggi “is not a[n American] citizen.” (Update: He again noted this Monday.) And he did the same Sunday when it comes to Russia’s targeting of dissidents, noting that they aren’t Americans:

STAHL: Do you agree that Vladimir Putin is involved in assassinations? In poisonings?

TRUMP: Probably he is, yeah. Probably. I mean, I don’t —

STAHL:  Probably?

TRUMP: But I rely on them. It’s not in our country.

It’s not a coincidence that he keeps bringing this up. And his track record is pretty consistent on this stuff.

Trump also suggested, yet again, that Kim Jong Un’s human rights record is a nuisance more than anything, after Stahl noted he recently said that he and Kim “fell in love”:

STAHL: I want to read you his resume, okay? He presides over a cruel kingdom of repression, gulags, starvation. Reports that he had his half-brother assassinated, slave labor, public executions. This is a guy you ‘love?’

TRUMP: Sure. I know all these things. I mean -- I’m not a baby. I know these things.

...

STAHL: But you love him.

TRUMP: Okay. That’s just a figure --

LESLEY STAHL: Just like  --

TRUMP: -- of speech.

STAHL: No, it’s like an embrace.

TRUMP: It -- well, let it be an embrace. Let it be whatever it is to get the job done.

STAHL: He’s a bad guy.

TRUMP: Look. Let it be whatever it is. I get along with him really well. I have a good energy with him. I have a good chemistry with him. Look at the horrible threats that were made. No more threats. No more threats.

3) Something may be afoot with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis

A preview clip airing Sunday morning on “Face the Nation” featured Trump leaving open the idea that Mattis might be leaving soon.

And in the same comments, Trump rather curiously argued that Mattis is a Democrat — a comment that is thick with subtext and suggests possible discord:

STAHL: What about General Mattis? Is he going to leave?

TRUMP: Well, I don’t know. He hasn’t told me that. I have —

STAHL: Do you want him to —

TRUMP: — a very good relationship with him. It could be that he is. I think he’s sort of a Democrat, if you want to know the truth. But General Mattis is a good guy. We get along very well. He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves. Everybody. People leave. That’s Washington.

Also suggesting discord is Trump’s claim that he knows more about NATO than Mattis and argued that Mattis might be wrong when he says NATO has prevented war:

STAHL: Are you willing to get rid of that Western alliance?

TRUMP: Now, I like NATO, NATO’s fine. But you know what? We shouldn’t be paying almost the entire cost of NATO to protect Europe. And then on top of that, they take advantage of us on trade. They’re not going to do it anymore. They understand that.

STAHL: Okay, but are — it does seem this — are you willing to disrupt the Western Alliance? It’s been going for 70 years. It’s kept the peace for 70 years.

TRUMP: You don’t know that. You don’t know that.

STAHL: I don’t know what?

TRUMP: You don’t know that.

STAHL: Is it true General Mattis said to you, “The reason for NATO and the reason for all these alliances is to prevent World War III?”

TRUMP: No, it’s not true.

STAHL: What’s not true?

TRUMP: Frankly, I like General Mattis. I think I know more about it than he does. And I know more about it from the standpoint of fairness. That I can tell you.

4) 'What’s an ally?’

You could have missed it if you didn’t look at the transcript, but at one point, Trump seems to suggest that our allies aren’t actually our allies — and perhaps that the traditional concept of allies is something he doesn’t subscribe to:

STAHL: You have also slapped some tariffs on our allies.

TRUMP: I mean, what’s an —

STAHL: And —

TRUMP: — ally? We have wonderful relationships with a lot of people. But nobody treats us much worse than the European Union. The European Union —

STAHL: But why —

TRUMP: — was formed in order to take advantage of us on trade, and that’s what they’ve done.

STAHL: But this is hostile.

TRUMP: And yet, they — it’s not hostile.

STAHL: It sounds hostile.

TRUMP: You know what’s hostile? The way they treat us. We’re not hostile.

5) He’s now arguing climate change will reverse itself

This isn’t a completely new argument on the conservative side of the climate science debate, but it’s notable that Trump is now picking up on it and confidently predicting it will reverse itself:

STAHL: Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?

TRUMP: I think something’s happening, something’s changing, and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.

. . .

TRUMP: I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back. You know, we’re talking about over a millions —

STAHL: But that’s denying it.

TRUMP: — of years. They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael.

6) He tacitly confirmed the White House is chaotic — and said he doesn’t trust his own staff

Trump likes to say there isn’t actually chaos in his White House, but then he gives away the game like this:

STAHL: The first lady, Melania. She said that there are still people in the White House that she doesn’t trust and that you shouldn’t trust.

TRUMP: I feel the same way. I don’t trust everybody in the White House, I’ll be honest with you.

STAHL: You go to a meeting, do you have to wonder, “Is he wearing a wire — ”

DONALD TRUMP: I’m usually —

STAHL: — or whatever?

TRUMP: Not so much a wire. I’m usually guarded. And I think I’m guarded anyway. But I’m not saying I trust everybody in the White House. I’m not a baby. It’s a tough business. This is a r— this is a vicious place. Washington, D.C., is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the — the bad-mouthing, the speaking behind your back. But — you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone fixed that tacky painting fuck face hung up in the White House.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is a good analysis: "6 takeaways from Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview"

  Hide contents

President Trump sat down this weekend for what is an increasingly rare thing: A non-Fox News, nonconservative interviewer peppering him with questions in a full-length interview.

Below are six takeaways.

1) Trump is still downplaying Russian interference

The latest tack seems to be suggesting it is nothing compared with what China is doing. Trump has claimed before that China is interfering in the 2018 election, even as the administration has provided no actual instances of specific electoral interference.

And in Sunday’s interview, Trump quickly parried a question about Russian interference by arguing China also interfered — in 2016:

LESLEY STAHL: Do you believe that the Russians interfered in the 2016 campaign election? Our election —

TRUMP: They — they meddled. But I think China meddled too.

STAHL: But why do you —

TRUMP: And I think other countries —

STAHL: — say China meddled too?

TRUMP: And you want to know something?

STAHL: Why do you say Chi— why don’t you just say —

TRUMP: Well, let me ask you —

STAHL: — the Russians meddled?

TRUMP: Because I think China meddled also. And I think, frankly, China —

STAHL: This is amazing.

TRUMP: — is a bigger problem.

STAHL: You are diverting the whole Russia thing.

TRUMP: I’m not doing anything.

STAHL: You are, you are.

TRUMP: I’m saying Russia, but I’m also saying China.

Trump is indeed diverting. He’s been doing it for the past two years. And the latest strategy here seems to be whataboutism. Yeah, Russia may have interfered, but what about China now interfering to help the Democrats! The problem is it’s not apples to apples.

2) He’s still downplaying human rights abuses, too

And that’s whether we’re talking about Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any other place. Trump has generally made clear he views these things as an impediment to cutting deals, and that was again the case Sunday.

Trump, not for the first time, suggested he doesn’t like the idea of scaling back an arms deal with or imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia for Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance and alleged murder, if indeed the Saudis were responsible. He suggested such a thing would unnecessarily punish U.S. companies:

STAHL: What are your options? Let’s say [the Saudis] did. What are your options? Would you consider imposing sanctions, as a bipartisan group of senators have proposed?

TRUMP: Well, it depends on what the sanction is. I’ll give you an example: They are ordering military equipment. Everybody in the world wanted that order. Russia wanted it, China wanted it, we wanted it. We got it.

STAHL: So would you cut that off —

TRUMP: Do I — well — I tell you what I don’t want to do. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these com— I don’t want to hurt jobs. I don’t want to lose an order like that. There are other ways of — punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.

Perhaps the most telling part of this is that Trump views the mere idea of “punishing” as being “pretty harsh.”

Trump has also downplayed the idea of punishing Saudi Arabia by noting that Khashoggi “is not a[n American] citizen.” (Update: He again noted this Monday.) And he did the same Sunday when it comes to Russia’s targeting of dissidents, noting that they aren’t Americans:

STAHL: Do you agree that Vladimir Putin is involved in assassinations? In poisonings?

TRUMP: Probably he is, yeah. Probably. I mean, I don’t —

STAHL:  Probably?

TRUMP: But I rely on them. It’s not in our country.

It’s not a coincidence that he keeps bringing this up. And his track record is pretty consistent on this stuff.

Trump also suggested, yet again, that Kim Jong Un’s human rights record is a nuisance more than anything, after Stahl noted he recently said that he and Kim “fell in love”:

STAHL: I want to read you his resume, okay? He presides over a cruel kingdom of repression, gulags, starvation. Reports that he had his half-brother assassinated, slave labor, public executions. This is a guy you ‘love?’

TRUMP: Sure. I know all these things. I mean -- I’m not a baby. I know these things.

...

STAHL: But you love him.

TRUMP: Okay. That’s just a figure --

LESLEY STAHL: Just like  --

TRUMP: -- of speech.

STAHL: No, it’s like an embrace.

TRUMP: It -- well, let it be an embrace. Let it be whatever it is to get the job done.

STAHL: He’s a bad guy.

TRUMP: Look. Let it be whatever it is. I get along with him really well. I have a good energy with him. I have a good chemistry with him. Look at the horrible threats that were made. No more threats. No more threats.

3) Something may be afoot with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis

A preview clip airing Sunday morning on “Face the Nation” featured Trump leaving open the idea that Mattis might be leaving soon.

And in the same comments, Trump rather curiously argued that Mattis is a Democrat — a comment that is thick with subtext and suggests possible discord:

STAHL: What about General Mattis? Is he going to leave?

TRUMP: Well, I don’t know. He hasn’t told me that. I have —

STAHL: Do you want him to —

TRUMP: — a very good relationship with him. It could be that he is. I think he’s sort of a Democrat, if you want to know the truth. But General Mattis is a good guy. We get along very well. He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves. Everybody. People leave. That’s Washington.

Also suggesting discord is Trump’s claim that he knows more about NATO than Mattis and argued that Mattis might be wrong when he says NATO has prevented war:

STAHL: Are you willing to get rid of that Western alliance?

TRUMP: Now, I like NATO, NATO’s fine. But you know what? We shouldn’t be paying almost the entire cost of NATO to protect Europe. And then on top of that, they take advantage of us on trade. They’re not going to do it anymore. They understand that.

STAHL: Okay, but are — it does seem this — are you willing to disrupt the Western Alliance? It’s been going for 70 years. It’s kept the peace for 70 years.

TRUMP: You don’t know that. You don’t know that.

STAHL: I don’t know what?

TRUMP: You don’t know that.

STAHL: Is it true General Mattis said to you, “The reason for NATO and the reason for all these alliances is to prevent World War III?”

TRUMP: No, it’s not true.

STAHL: What’s not true?

TRUMP: Frankly, I like General Mattis. I think I know more about it than he does. And I know more about it from the standpoint of fairness. That I can tell you.

4) 'What’s an ally?’

You could have missed it if you didn’t look at the transcript, but at one point, Trump seems to suggest that our allies aren’t actually our allies — and perhaps that the traditional concept of allies is something he doesn’t subscribe to:

STAHL: You have also slapped some tariffs on our allies.

TRUMP: I mean, what’s an —

STAHL: And —

TRUMP: — ally? We have wonderful relationships with a lot of people. But nobody treats us much worse than the European Union. The European Union —

STAHL: But why —

TRUMP: — was formed in order to take advantage of us on trade, and that’s what they’ve done.

STAHL: But this is hostile.

TRUMP: And yet, they — it’s not hostile.

STAHL: It sounds hostile.

TRUMP: You know what’s hostile? The way they treat us. We’re not hostile.

5) He’s now arguing climate change will reverse itself

This isn’t a completely new argument on the conservative side of the climate science debate, but it’s notable that Trump is now picking up on it and confidently predicting it will reverse itself:

STAHL: Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?

TRUMP: I think something’s happening, something’s changing, and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.

. . .

TRUMP: I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back. You know, we’re talking about over a millions —

STAHL: But that’s denying it.

TRUMP: — of years. They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael.

6) He tacitly confirmed the White House is chaotic — and said he doesn’t trust his own staff

Trump likes to say there isn’t actually chaos in his White House, but then he gives away the game like this:

STAHL: The first lady, Melania. She said that there are still people in the White House that she doesn’t trust and that you shouldn’t trust.

TRUMP: I feel the same way. I don’t trust everybody in the White House, I’ll be honest with you.

STAHL: You go to a meeting, do you have to wonder, “Is he wearing a wire — ”

DONALD TRUMP: I’m usually —

STAHL: — or whatever?

TRUMP: Not so much a wire. I’m usually guarded. And I think I’m guarded anyway. But I’m not saying I trust everybody in the White House. I’m not a baby. It’s a tough business. This is a r— this is a vicious place. Washington, D.C., is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the — the bad-mouthing, the speaking behind your back. But — you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here.

 

Does anyone notice that lately the presidunce is saying “I’m not a baby” quite often?

I wonder why. ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Does anyone notice that lately the presidunce is saying “I’m not a baby” quite often?

I wonder why. ?

 

How the hell is it going to help us if the climate change reverses itself over millions of years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The presidunce is getting owned by intelligent women more and more, which I find deliciously ironic for that misogynistic asshole.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so glad he cleared that up for us. A pity he can't back it up with his tax returns...

 

I don't get the confusion. He's being quite consistent. Humanitarian morals are lacking in both cases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.