Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

The Ministry of Truth is out with what the foreign leaders laughing at Trump were really thinking.

They were jealous of Trump.

[Orange Joe]

The Ministry of Truth is out with what the foreign leaders laughing at Trump were really thinking.

They were jealous of Trump.

So doesn't that mean Trump is jealous of anyone he mocks?

[Edge-]

So doesn't that mean Trump is jealous of anyone he mocks?

We'll have to ask the Ministry of Truth about that, but I feel as if their response would be in the negative.

[Breccia]

The Ministry of Truth

Ah, yes, Kellyanne Conway in her ongoing role as opioid czar. Doesn't she have a job to do?

Also, of course this is just blatantly false. Nothing any of the leaders involved said even hinted at jealousy, at best annoyance due to the inconvenience of Trump taking way more than his allotted time. At worst, calling him an ego-driven narcissist who hogs the spotlight like it's the last bag of Doritos in the White House.

Oh, and I guess I could just throw it back. Trump said "that was funny" about calling Trudeau two-faced, because Trump was jealous of Trudeau. Of course, I can say this with no evidence at all, and be just as corr--



Oh, right. Well, there goes that idea.

- - - Updated - - -

So doesn't that mean Trump is jealous of anyone he mocks?

Yes, exactly!

[Shadowferal]

Maybe he was jealous of Melania?

- - - Updated - - -

North Korea takes shot at Trump: 'Senility of a dotard'

North Korea 1st Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hu said Thursday that her office could not “contain its displeasure” over the president’s comments, and added that if he continues, Trump “will again show the senility of a dotard,” USA Today reported.

Those remarks reflect North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s comments from September 2017 when he said he would “tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard,” referring to Trump.

[Breccia]

Trump was asked point-blank if he was going to increase troop levels in the Middle East, even more than he already has.

He refused to answer.

"Yes, but Trump said never tell the enemy what you're doing!"

Oh, so we're at war then?

"Um..."

Yeah. Because it sure sounds like we want one.

“Based on what we’re seeing and our concerns about the threat picture, it is possible that we would need to adjust our force posture," said Rood, the Pentagon’s No. 3 official. "And I think that would be a be prudent step depending on what we observe because our objective is to deter Iranian aggression, and deterrence is not static. It’s a very dynamic activity.”

Rood told reporters on Wednesday that there were indications that Iran may soon attack U.S. forces or interests in the Middle East.

“We do remain concerned about potential Iranian aggression,” Rood said.

“We also continue to see indications ... potential Iranian aggression could occur.”

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/clin...pardon-2019-12

So the piece of shit soldier that was in jail for ordering soldiers to fire on unarmed civilians, and was pardoned by Trump, is whining about his his dishonorable discharge is making it so he can't even get a job at Wal-Mart.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea.

But he should reach out to the White House. I hear they have a lot of job openings and don't background check. He's a shoe-in.

[Paranoid Android]

I just posted about the Armenian Genocide being blocked. This time by the Senator from North Dakota.

An oh btw...

North Dakota company that Trump touted gets $400 million border wall contract

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immig...d1e_story.html

Like every Trump story it is amazing. Basically the CEO, Tommy Fisher, would show up on Fox News, boasting he could build the wall cheaper and faster (supposedly 1 mile every 4 days).

Well of course the Army Corp of Engineers refute his claims on cost and progression.

More to this company and CEO. The company's partner was sentenced to prison time. Company has been fined for tax fraud and of course EPA violations.

Trump bragged that Senator Kramer of North Dakota recommended them, when we all know it him watching Fox News. Now Kramer blocked the Armenian Genocide.

Oh and simple cronyism, since the contract doesn't seemed bid or at least other companies even getting a chance for contract.

[Breccia]

(supposedly 1 mile every 4 days)

That would be pretty unbelievable. The story I posted recently said 90 miles in a year at best, which yeah matches that timeline, but that's multiple projects all happening at once.

Of course, of all the things Trump's done, this is actually pretty low on the list. Lower than, say, requiring every single person entering the US to get a facial recognition whoops nevermind they decided not to do that.

Unrelated: OPEC and Russia team up to cut oil production. Trump has spent most of the last few years begging for the Saudis to increase production ("Please, you can ambush and murder as many people as you want, just don't raise gas prices on election day") so he's not going to care for this much. Not much he can do -- OPEC and Russia combined outnumber US oil production by over 2 to 1.

[cubby]

https://www.businessinsider.com/clin...pardon-2019-12

So the piece of shit soldier that was in jail for ordering soldiers to fire on unarmed civilians, and was pardoned by Trump, is whining about his his dishonorable discharge is making it so he can't even get a job at Wal-Mart.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea.

But he should reach out to the White House. I hear they have a lot of job openings and don't background check. He's a shoe-in.

He must be playing for the Pardon Card. As a former navy SEAL, I'm sure there are many "contracting" jobs available to him in the international arena.

[Paranoid Android]

@Breccia. I was wrong. Fisher claimed he can build a mile/day. He claimed this on Fox/Ingram btw.

[Thekri]

He must be playing for the Pardon Card. As a former navy SEAL, I'm sure there are many "contracting" jobs available to him in the international arena.

Not with a dishonorable discharge you can't. Pretty much nobody in that space will hire you with one of those. And it isn't hard to look up that he was convicted of second degree murder and pardoned for it, which is a pretty hard sell for any employer.

Oh, and this guy isn't a SEAL. Different war criminal. Trump has basically pardoned everyone the military has convicted of warcrimes in his ongoing battle against good order and discipline.

[Dontrike]

@Breccia. I was wrong. Fisher claimed he can build a mile/day. He claimed this on Fox/Ingram btw.

So he admits to being magic? Who does he think he is Superman from Superman 4 and he can build a wall with just his eyes?

[Edge-]

He must be playing for the Pardon Card. As a former navy SEAL, I'm sure there are many "contracting" jobs available to him in the international arena.

He was pardoned last month. That doesn't take away his dishonorable discharge nor the knowledge that he was convicted of ordering soldiers to kill innocent civilians.

Even without the dishonorable discharge (which alone is enough to kill your chances at most jobs), there's a very small set of companies that would want to deal with the PR nightmare of hiring someone like him given what he was convicted of doing. I'm surprised the Duck Dynasty guys haven't hired him on as a producer yet, honestly.

[Breccia]

Fisher claimed he can build a mile/day.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If he's telling the truth, then Trump has hired the worst motherfuckers around, because DHS is bragging about building one-quarter that rate.

- - - Updated - - -

More issues arise as the budget deal continues.

"The Wall again?"

Maybe, but this article is about the number of dog cages ICE can put children in. Democrats want the number of beds in Trump's concentration camps cut.

[D Luniz]

So not only is the Horowitz Report that is due out the 9th, going to be a dud, but apparently the Durham Report, that was labeled a "criminal investigation" is now pretty much done. https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...2b1_story.html

They can't find any wrongdoing. This is the one where Barr, PERSONALLY, was flying around to these places with Durham, to Australia, Italy, and the UK to talk to these people, and they can't find anything that helps them apparently.

So typical GOP investigations, lots of money and camera time, all for not one indictment, let alone conviction.

[omerome]

So typical GOP investigations, lots of money and camera time, all for not one indictment, let alone conviction.

I find it amazing how they have no problem spending other people's money [frivolous investigations] to then tell people we can't afford things with other people's money [healthcare/education reform].

[Breccia]

So typical GOP investigations, lots of money and camera time, all for not one indictment, let alone conviction.

Which is
a) why Barr is opposing the DoJ's upcoming report, because he needs something/anything, and
b) why it was necessary to actually have this investigation.

The rabid fanbase is increasingly into conspiracy theories, from "vaccines cause autism" to "But Her Emails!" and, in the absence of an investigation by their own team, would continue to shrill about it because it hasn't been proven false yet. Once a right wing media group or WH agency (same thing sometimes) actually tries to find an issue, and can't, that excuse is shut down. True, there will still be some people screaming into the wind, but it can't realistically be used in a 2020 debate.

BEFORE
"When elected, I will pull back the veil protecting the Fake News Deep State Buzzword Catchphrase! You will have the Truth I Decide To Believe!"

AFTER
"When elected, I will pull back the veil protecting --"
"You already did that. You found nothing. Here's the report. You signed it."
"Yeah, but...but...But Her Emails!"

Team Trump might still have most of the rabid fanbase, but a fair number of people, let's say 70,000 or so, voted because they actually believed Trump might deliver on things they needed. Trump has not done so. These people are less likely to do so twice, when Trump tries to deflect from his failures with provably false lies. Not every conservative is a member of the rabid fanbase, and some won't allow themselves to be fooled twice by the same person.

To use a parallel: when an abusing husband tells their battered wife "...and this time, I mean it!" what do her friends say? What does her lawyer say? What do the police say? Even in the most dire of circumstances, the same lies won't work forever, and people start distrusting the liar based purely on their history. We call these people "survivors".

This is why Barr wants that report dead or discredited. Trump brought flowers and said "I still love you, baby, we can work this out" while it's Barr's job to clean up the smeared mascara and cover the black eye with makeup. He's going to have a much harder time if, while trying to wipe away the tears, he grabs for a box of tissues and instead gets the restraining order. Barr is desperate to turn "he hit you" into "why did you make him hit you?"

"There was no Deep State conspiracy" from Trump's own DoJ will end the meaningful part of that debate. Every uncovered lie leads to more survivors. Some will choose, for their own reasons, to stay faithful to Trump. By some accounts, about a thousand per year.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it amazing how they have no problem spending other people's money [frivolous investigations] to then tell people we can't afford things with other people's money [healthcare/education reform].

Okay, well, I agree with you in spirit. But this specific example is more like "you can get fries with your burger, but can't afford a new car?" level of unbalanced.

That said, you're right about the GOP's spending priorities. @Skroe and I remain at odds on how much defense spending is actually necessary, and will indefinitely. But it is 100% hypocritical to give the tax cut for the rich, then claim you can't afford medical or education funding.

Speaking of which, where's that "better health care for more people for less money" Trump said he would do? Anyone heard his plan?

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't help them in 2018.

Here's the thing: it did. They should have lost by far more.

FOX News is still (mostly) clinging to Trump because that's the only way they can keep their viewership up.

"But they top ratings!"

And the reason why, is because factual news sources outnumber FOX by a hefty ratio. If I want to watch or read real news, I can go to NBC CBS ABC PBS/NPR NYT WSJ TIME USAToday most local channels close to the story's source and, when possible, Reuters. (I also go to CNN, but I'm choosing not to cite them often because the rabid fanbase deflect from facts with "lol CNN") People looking for right-wing propaganda have niche sites like Breitbart, but in the mass market, it's mostly just FOX News now. They're a plurality, but not the majority, not by a long shot. Thing is, ratings point at the plurality, and thusly go the advertisers.

FOX News will, therefore, continue to run with Trump to keep their numbers high. They'll continue to push Team Trump conspiracy theories with people like Hannity as long as they can, even though some of their cast and crew are clearly having second thoughts. Seriously, the second they hire someone named Gromit I'll watch that show five nights a week. Until then, they'll push the Trump line to keep Trump promoting them, and by Trump promoting them get viewers. It's like the Lion King, except run by the hyenas.

But imagine if FOX News simply wasn't there one morning. True, Trump tweets a lot when he should be working, but he doesn't tweet 24/7 and livecasts of Trump aren't otherwise shown on televisions in public. Without constant pressure to pretend they're doing the right thing, the doubts would start to erode at their soul until...well, they might not call the police, but they'd probably pack a bag and stay with a friend or a shelter.

[Skroe]

Which is
Okay, well, I agree with you in spirit. But this specific example is more like "you can get fries with your burger, but can't afford a new car?" level of unbalanced.

That said, you're right about the GOP's spending priorities. @Skroe and I remain at odds on how much defense spending is actually necessary, and will indefinitely. But it is 100% hypocritical to give the tax cut for the rich, then claim you can't afford medical or education funding.

I mean to be clear, my position in defense spending is two parts, part 1 is about good governance and part 2 is about my opinion on world affairs. I think part 1 is difficult to argue against. I think part 2 is certainly a valid political debate (and I'm just picking a side)

(1) The US's current foriegn policy and national defense strategy calls for around a $1 trillion defense budget. We spend about $730 billion. We have for many years instituted a foreign policy and national defense strategy that is one size, and then resource it at between 2/3rds and 3/4ths the requirement. That is how you get ships with less than full crews (that lead to accidents), 12 month repeat deployments, and a lack of attack submarines in the Pacific and so forth. It is insane we don't fund our national defense strategy with 100% of its resources. If we ask the defense establishment to do something, we have a responsibility to get them everything they need to do it. If they say "we need 14 carriers", we build up to 14. If they say "we need 200 more bombers", we build 200 more bombers.

We pay for the defense strategy in full. That is good governance. And right now the defense strategy requires about $1 trillion.

(2) Going with the above, the debate should be in what the strategy is, not how much to fund it. The funding should be the relatively straight forward part. The hard part should be deciding what we want to do. If we want to spend $730 billion, then design a defense policy fit precisely for $730 billion. If we went to spend $200 billion, then design a defense policy fit for $200 billion (but also make clear exactly the consequences of that policy, and how hard reversing that will be). It is a perfectly legitimate debate to have if the US should have a defense policy that costs $730 billion. I however think that phrasing it as "we shouldn't spend $730 billion" short circuits that policy debate and just stiffs the execution side of things.

Now my personal belief is that China is the greatest threat the United States has ever or will ever face. I think they're far more dangerous than the Soviet Union. I think we were lucky we beat the Soviet Union and we'll need to be lucky to beat China. I think $1 trillion is a lower bound for what our annual defense needs should be. Within 10 years, we need to be cranking out well over 40 long range bombers and 5 attack subs per year. We need to grow the military's troop numbers by 40%. We need to undo the "National Guard-ing" of Cold War-era formations. We need to engage in major military research programs to mature potential game changing technologies that have appeared in the last decade. The B-2 bomber was the largest secret defense program since the Manhattan Project... what is tomorrow's analogue? In 20 years, China will be the Atlantic. China will be in Europe in Latin America and the Middle East. And we have to deal with them amidst massive debt, rising deficits and climate change costs.

But we can debate if my approach is the right approach. It may certainly not be. I could be over-interpreting the resource requirements for a full court press to keep China down. But I don't think I am. Regardless, whatever this country does decide to do - advance, stay still, retreat - it should resource that in full.

[Paranoid Android]

@Skroe. So if I'm getting your point #1 is "If they ask for something, you give it to them"?

So wouldn't or shouldn't this imply to any government program say a social welfare program? A little off track but I am likely branded as some lefty, big government spending shrill, I'm not.

I will say that let's say an infrastructure bill/spending is a greater return then a new aircraft carrier. To be fair Skroe this is me saying this, not how you feel on spending of say infrastructure.

I'm with @Breccia and to keep this short as I always do is most military spending is welfare. It provides jobs to states and Congressional districts. More importantly money to corporations, who in turn want tax breaks.

So yeah paying defense/militaryl is good governance, but that can be said to any program some person may champion.