|
Post by sherlock on Nov 29, 2017 14:34:15 GMT
It's incredibly depressing that this isn't even surprising.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 29, 2017 16:48:47 GMT
"Trump wrong to share far-right videos - PM" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42172032Yeah, that's putting it mildly, although coming from a woman whose most outrageous and rebellious act as a child was to run through a wheat field it probably feels like a fulsome condemnation.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Nov 29, 2017 16:57:41 GMT
"Trump wrong to share far-right videos - PM" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42172032Yeah, that's putting it mildly, although coming from a woman whose most outrageous and rebellious act as a child was to run through a wheat field it probably feels like a fulsome condemnation. Haha I'm stealing that line. Another time in politics where you just have to pause and wonder: How on earth did we get to this point?
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Nov 30, 2017 11:38:52 GMT
The UK always needs to be on good terms with the office-holder even though we very clearly wouldn't have chosen the man. The Prime Minister doesn't publicly slap down the President whatever, although granted we are all breaking unwelcome new ground in The Special Relationship this time.
'Wrong' is probably about as tough as she could get.
'Stupid', 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' would have been unlikely to improve UK-US relations and we have (at least) three more years of this to go and a transatlantic trade deal to negotiate. I'm so pleased I'm not a politician, free speech is a luxury that only opposition parties can enjoy.
EDIT: Going off on a tangent, in my opinion this demonstrates why a Parliamentary system of government is better than an elected Presidency. Let's imagine a parallel situation where a person with no government experience, ability or rational programme became PM on a wave of popular support from party members and about half of voters but without the support of most legislators in their own party. Once in office, their unsuitability and incompetence is quickly exposed and their national popularity plummets. How long would it be before their own MPs tipped them out and chose a better leader and PM? But with an elected President, you're stuck with them. (Apologies for reminding our American friends of this under current circumstances.)
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 30, 2017 12:21:08 GMT
"Trump wrong to share far-right videos - PM" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42172032Yeah, that's putting it mildly, although coming from a woman whose most outrageous and rebellious act as a child was to run through a wheat field it probably feels like a fulsome condemnation. The UK always needs to be on good terms with the office-holder even though we very clearly wouldn't have chosen the man. The Prime Minister doesn't publicly slap down the President whatever, although granted we are all breaking unwelcome new ground in The Special Relationship this time. 'Wrong' is probably about as tough as she could get. 'Stupid', 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' would have been unlikely to improve UK-US relations and we have (at least) three more years to go and a trade deal to negotiate. I'm so pleased I'm not a politician, free speech is a luxury that only opposition parties enjoy. I've given this subject area some thought in the last day, at want point do the actions of an ally become so egregious that they stop being an ally? And in the build up to that point do you try to protect the relationship by saying and doing little to nothing or do you risk the relationship? And if your protecting the relationship, what is it your protecting, some shared vision of what is right and good? Your wealth? Your security? If your protecting your security... which security? Invasion from the Russians or that your democracy might get subverted or overun by zealots? And which zealots, the religious ones or the racist ones? None of these questions have easy answers, and being in power put them all into sharp focus. My hope is that Trump's state visit goes ahead, but that the protests are so huge and wherever he goes that he leaves with the full knowledge that the British people don't want or like him here.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Nov 30, 2017 12:32:35 GMT
Hes now told May to "Stop focusing on me"
What a douche
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Nov 30, 2017 13:32:38 GMT
The UK always needs to be on good terms with the office-holder even though we very clearly wouldn't have chosen the man. The Prime Minister doesn't publicly slap down the President whatever, although granted we are all breaking unwelcome new ground in The Special Relationship this time. 'Wrong' is probably about as tough as she could get. 'Stupid', 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' would have been unlikely to improve UK-US relations and we have (at least) three more years to go and a trade deal to negotiate. I'm so pleased I'm not a politician, free speech is a luxury that only opposition parties enjoy. I've given this subject area some thought in the last day, at want point do the actions of an ally become so egregious that they stop being an ally? And in the build up to that point do you try to protect the relationship by saying and doing little to nothing or do you risk the relationship? And if your protecting the relationship, what is it your protecting, some shared vision of what is right and good? Your wealth? Your security? If your protecting your security... which security? Invasion from the Russians or that your democracy might get subverted or overun by zealots? And which zealots, the religious ones or the racist ones?None of these questions have easy answers, and being in power put them all into sharp focus. My hope is that Trump's state visit goes ahead, but that the protests are so huge and wherever he goes that he leaves with the full knowledge that the British people don't want or like him here.There was what I thought was a very good piece on 'Newsnight' yesterday about exactly why this is so very damaging. Vast demonstrations might make people feel better, but he already knows over half his own people don't like or want him so I doubt he'd care less what we think. This visit (if it happens) will be a showcase for Britain and widely seen in America. The very best thing that could happen (IMO) would be to include welcoming visits to normal areas of London (or any city), just somewhere ordinary like a market where modern Britain comes and goes peacefully and sociably about its business. An educational 'charm offensive' if you like; he and some of his supporters watching on TV might learn a lot about real life in the UK. In practice I know it couldn't happen - the visit will take place in a helicoptered bubble of official proceedings, worlds away from normal life and he'll learn nothing except that the Queen has even more bling than he does. "So UNFAIR!"
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Nov 30, 2017 15:18:45 GMT
EDIT: Going off on a tangent, in my opinion this demonstrates why a Parliamentary system of government is better than an elected Presidency. Let's imagine a parallel situation where a person with no government experience, ability or rational programme became PM on a wave of popular support from party members and about half of voters but without the support of most legislators in their own party. Once in office, their unsuitability and incompetence is quickly exposed and their national popularity plummets. How long would it be before their own MPs tipped them out and chose a better leader and PM? But with an elected President, you're stuck with them. (Apologies for reminding our American friends of this under current circumstances.) Edit: Somehow my response got eaten. Paraphrasing my original reply: The gist of it was that There are remedies for the removal of an unfit president( this article examines the history and limits of impeachment), but the problem is that Trump did not arise in a vacuum. He's the product of thirty years of deliberate misinformation and willful ignorance. Congress can remove him, but they won't until it's in their best interest. It's very frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Nov 30, 2017 15:39:16 GMT
The UK always needs to be on good terms with the office-holder even though we very clearly wouldn't have chosen the man. The Prime Minister doesn't publicly slap down the President whatever, although granted we are all breaking unwelcome new ground in The Special Relationship this time. 'Wrong' is probably about as tough as she could get. 'Stupid', 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' would have been unlikely to improve UK-US relations and we have (at least) three more years to go and a trade deal to negotiate. I'm so pleased I'm not a politician, free speech is a luxury that only opposition parties enjoy. I've given this subject area some thought in the last day, at want point do the actions of an ally become so egregious that they stop being an ally? And in the build up to that point do you try to protect the relationship by saying and doing little to nothing or do you risk the relationship? And if your protecting the relationship, what is it your protecting, some shared vision of what is right and good? Your wealth? Your security? If your protecting your security... which security? Invasion from the Russians or that your democracy might get subverted or overun by zealots? And which zealots, the religious ones or the racist ones? None of these questions have easy answers, and being in power put them all into sharp focus. My hope is that Trump's state visit goes ahead, but that the protests are so huge and wherever he goes that he leaves with the full knowledge that the British people don't want or like him here. As much as I'd love for the protests to have that effect, a lot of measures would probably be taken to prevent him seeing any of it. The question of allies is a difficult one. If you believe international relations is all about state security (a Realist viewpoint if you're interested in the academic terminology) then the actions of an ally shouldn't matter unless they actively endanger our security. But of course there are other interpretations of international relations, and a common narrative (well certainly in the UK) is that Western states should aim to promote their liberal values, in which case the actions of an ally in contravention of those values should matter. As you said there's no easy answers. Here's what the UK Ambassador to the US (who given his entire job is managing UK-US relations should be something of an authority on this) has said regarding the tweets:
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Nov 30, 2017 20:59:46 GMT
As much as I'd love for the protests to have that effect, a lot of measures would probably be taken to prevent him seeing any of it. In practice I know it couldn't happen - the visit will take place in a helicoptered bubble of official proceedings, worlds away from normal life and he'll learn nothing except that the Queen has even more bling than he does. "So UNFAIR!" I guess your both correct on these counts, but I just keep thinking about the rise to power of the Nazi's in Germany, and I can't but keep coming to the conclusion that anything less than loud in your face protest is nothing less than collusion through inaction. I find myself in a deep quandary, my fears for the US and about Trump grow day by day, and I increasingly see his actions as extremely dangerous and destabilising, and I see his support of Nazis and White Suprematists not only morally abhorrent, but a clear and present threat to the UK national security and interests. I'm no fan of Theresa May or her government, and handling the poison chalice of Brexit is probably enough for anyone, but to add a Russian controlled racist Nazi as president of the US actively promoting his message of hate and intolerance whilst trying to divorce the UK form Europe, seems like attempting to reach for the not only impossible, but for what 2 years ago looked bizarrely improbable, I mean, which policy makers and academic thinkers thought we'd be here, or had done any preparation for it? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't think I am, maybe I'm being pessimistic, I hope beyond hope that I am, but I'm scared for the future of the country I live in like I have never been scared before.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Nov 30, 2017 21:44:56 GMT
I guess your both correct on these counts, but I just keep thinking about the rise to power of the Nazi's in Germany, and I can't but keep coming to the conclusion that anything less than loud in your face protest is nothing less than collusion through inaction. I find myself in a deep quandary, my fears for the US and about Trump grow day by day, and I increasingly see his actions as extremely dangerous and destabilising, and I see his support of Nazis and White Suprematists not only morally abhorrent, but a clear and present threat to the UK national security and interests. I'm no fan of Theresa May or her government, and handling the poison chalice of Brexit is probably enough for anyone, but to add a Russian controlled racist Nazi as president of the US actively promoting his message of hate and intolerance whilst trying to divorce the UK form Europe, seems like attempting to reach for the not only impossible, but for what 2 years ago looked bizarrely improbable, I mean, which policy makers and academic thinkers thought we'd be here, or had done any preparation for it? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't think I am, maybe I'm being pessimistic, I hope beyond hope that I am, but I'm scared for the future of the country I live in like I have never been scared before. Yup. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's absolutely terrifying looking at it over here. It looks like Trump will be reshuffling his officers again and Tillerson will be out at State, replaced by Trump goon Pompeo and Tom Cotton will move into Pompeo's position as the head of the CIA. I remember about a year ago. I was talking to my wife and we agreed that Trump couldn't be allowed to win, because he would consolidate his power to erode democratic institutions to such a point that it would ensure permanent right wing hegemony. I'm trying to phrase this in such a way so as not to sound alarmist, but it sure looks like that's what he's doing. If Mueller is terminated and Trump is not removed from office because of that, I say without any hint of irony whatsoever that this will mark the beginning of the end of American democracy.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Nov 30, 2017 21:59:30 GMT
EDIT: Going off on a tangent, in my opinion this demonstrates why a Parliamentary system of government is better than an elected Presidency. Let's imagine a parallel situation where a person with no government experience, ability or rational programme became PM on a wave of popular support from party members and about half of voters but without the support of most legislators in their own party. Once in office, their unsuitability and incompetence is quickly exposed and their national popularity plummets. How long would it be before their own MPs tipped them out and chose a better leader and PM? But with an elected President, you're stuck with them. (Apologies for reminding our American friends of this under current circumstances.) Edit: Somehow my response got eaten. Paraphrasing my original reply: The gist of it was that There are remedies for the removal of an unfit president( this article examines the history and limits of impeachment), but the problem is that Trump did not arise in a vacuum. He's the product of thirty years of deliberate misinformation and willful ignorance. Congress can remove him, but they won't until it's in their best interest. It's very frustrating. Thanks Josh, a fascinating article. My English was sloppy - I should have said ' effectively stuck with them'. I did remember that impeachment is theoretically available but I didn't think it had ever been done successfully and I see it hasn't (though only because Nixon resigned first - I'm just old enough to remember seeing the news coverage of that lengthy process.) I agree with the conclusion: "Being extremely bad at the job of president of the United States should be enough to get you fired." Our system of what the article describes as "occasional no-confidence votes and snap elections" also rarely produces change - only once in my lifetime, in 1979. But internally, the ability of parties to change leader without it becoming a constitutional crisis has removed three Conservative leaders during my lifetime including one sitting Prime Minister (purely on grounds of party 'confidence' - or perceived electoral advantage for their party and each time with the desired result - two wins and one advance at the following election.) Leaders of some of the smaller parties have also been removed; Labour are more loyal or less decisive, as you choose to view it.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Nov 30, 2017 22:44:47 GMT
I guess your both correct on these counts, but I just keep thinking about the rise to power of the Nazi's in Germany, and I can't but keep coming to the conclusion that anything less than loud in your face protest is nothing less than collusion through inaction. I find myself in a deep quandary, my fears for the US and about Trump grow day by day, and I increasingly see his actions as extremely dangerous and destabilising, and I see his support of Nazis and White Suprematists not only morally abhorrent, but a clear and present threat to the UK national security and interests. I'm no fan of Theresa May or her government, and handling the poison chalice of Brexit is probably enough for anyone, but to add a Russian controlled racist Nazi as president of the US actively promoting his message of hate and intolerance whilst trying to divorce the UK form Europe, seems like attempting to reach for the not only impossible, but for what 2 years ago looked bizarrely improbable, I mean, which policy makers and academic thinkers thought we'd be here, or had done any preparation for it? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I don't think I am, maybe I'm being pessimistic, I hope beyond hope that I am, but I'm scared for the future of the country I live in like I have never been scared before. Yup. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's absolutely terrifying looking at it over here. It looks like Trump will be reshuffling his officers again and Tillerson will be out at State, replaced by Trump goon Pompeo and Tom Cotton will move into Pompeo's position as the head of the CIA. I remember about a year ago. I was talking to my wife and we agreed that Trump couldn't be allowed to win, because he would consolidate his power to erode democratic institutions to such a point that it would ensure permanent right wing hegemony. I'm trying to phrase this in such a way so as not to sound alarmist, but it sure looks like that's what he's doing. If Mueller is terminated and Trump is not removed from office because of that, I say without any hint of irony whatsoever that this will mark the beginning of the end of American democracy.Trump being elected was a decay in American democracy. He tapped into the cruel, outdated subconscious of American, playing on the worst of them in their racism, gun pride and intolerance of the different. He failed tact, diplomacy and well-reasoned argument, but that hasn't failed him because of Benghazi, emails, Crooked Hillary and lock her up! He said he could shoot someone in the street and not suffer any consequences. Sadly that's looking very much like the reality.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Dec 1, 2017 2:20:57 GMT
Trump being elected was a decay in American democracy. He tapped into the cruel, outdated subconscious of American, playing on the worst of them in their racism, gun pride and intolerance of the different. He failed tact, diplomacy and well-reasoned argument, but that hasn't failed him because of Benghazi, emails, Crooked Hillary and lock her up! He said he could shoot someone in the street and not suffer any consequences. Sadly that's looking very much like the reality. Yup. And I'll add that it's an indication of how weak democracy has become in America that I candidate as unqualified as Trump was elected.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 1, 2017 3:12:11 GMT
Trump being elected was a decay in American democracy. He tapped into the cruel, outdated subconscious of American, playing on the worst of them in their racism, gun pride and intolerance of the different. He failed tact, diplomacy and well-reasoned argument, but that hasn't failed him because of Benghazi, emails, Crooked Hillary and lock her up! He said he could shoot someone in the street and not suffer any consequences. Sadly that's looking very much like the reality. Yup. And I'll add that it's an indication of how weak democracy has become in America that I candidate as unqualified as Trump was elected. Cult of celebrity. We know more about other people than we ever used to, and still crave more. Gossip websites and tabloids thrive on this. Where you have a reality show winner, you have a big spread in the magazines you find at the supermarket checkout. It's easier to be talked about, and people find validation in this. Look at the Kardashians. They've had who knows how many seasons of how many shows, but who can pinpoint what they actually do that isn't done for the cameras? Trump finds validation in an audience. Either someone's supporting him, making him feel liked, or he's got someone he can put down or bully, whether it be in person or on Twitter. He's not selective about how he gets attention, as long as he gets attention. Combine that with a complete inability to acknowledge even the possibility of him being wrong and you have a narcissist, who has the whole world talking about him for good or for ill. He's even got the knack for making what would normally sink a career into an everyday thing we are sadly desensitised to. I think Trump bases his self-worth on his image, and has a very thin veneer. He needs supporters to feel he's become something. When someone says something he doesn't like he has to lash out and prove them wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 1, 2017 14:25:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Dec 1, 2017 16:53:12 GMT
Flynn has promised Special Counsel 'full cooperation' in Russia probeRetired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, and is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 1, 2017 17:31:30 GMT
Flynn has promised Special Counsel 'full cooperation' in Russia probeRetired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, and is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria. Expect the usual flurry of tweets. Trump brought "Pocahontas" out this week, is "sad man" due for a revival?
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Dec 1, 2017 17:41:09 GMT
Flynn has promised Special Counsel 'full cooperation' in Russia probeRetired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, and is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria. Expect the usual flurry of tweets. Trump brought "Pocahontas" out this week, is "sad man" due for a revival? My money is on "Deep State".
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Dec 1, 2017 23:46:28 GMT
Flynn has promised Special Counsel 'full cooperation' in Russia probeRetired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn has promised “full cooperation” in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and, according to a confidant, and is prepared to testify that Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians, initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria. Anyone says anything about “fake news”, we can now respond with “Michael Flynn” and walk away. If candidate Trump instructed Flynn to reach out to Russia, well, it would be game over in a sane and rational universe. The ones who should be losing major sleep tonight are Mike Pence and Jared Kushner.
|
|