President Trump said on Wednesday [12 June] that there would be nothing wrong with accepting incriminating information about an election opponent from Russia or other foreign governments and that he saw no reason to call the F.B.I. if it were to happen again.

“It’s not an interference,” he said in an interview with ABC News, describing it as “opposition research.” “They have information — I think I’d take it.” He would call the F.B.I. only “if I thought there was something wrong.”

... When the interviewer, George Stephanopoulos, noted that the F.B.I. director has said a candidate should call, Mr. Trump snapped, “The F.B.I. director is wrong.”

https://nyti.ms/2ICaC4y

Thereby demonstrating his total incomprehension of what the Mueller probe was about, what 'probity in office' comprises.... and so many other factors, that again, it beggars belief that this man is allowed to stay in office or that there aren't massive demonstrations by Republicans calling for his immediate resignation.

Oh, and the other bit of news is that the congressional watchdog has written to Trump saying that KellyAnne Conway, his alleged 'counsellor', has been repeatedly and clearly in violation of The Hatch Act and should be sacked immediately. The response from the White House is that the office has been 'corrupted by the liberal media' and is 'acting outside its scope'.

So, basically, there is a criminal regime in the White House now.

So, basically, there is a criminal regime in the White House now. — Wayfarer

Didn't Hillary pay for oppo research written by a former member of British intelligence who got his (fictitious) information from Russian sources?

I watched the Trump clip. He said that if a rep of a foreign government told him something, he'd listen; and if he thought there was a problem, he'd talk to the FBI. That sounds perfectly reasonable. What is the president of the US supposed to do when a foreigner talks to him in private? That's the president's job, to listen to what a lot of people have to say about a lot of things.

Now, do I wish Trump had for once in his life transcended his worst tendencies and just put a sock in in? Yes. I wish Trump hadn't thrown all this red meat to his haters. Trump loves to throw gasoline on fires. I wish he'd dial it back.

And frankly, why did Trump let George Stephanopoulos, a loyal Clintonista, ask him anything at all? Hard to know. Also the optics of Stephanopoulos standing over him. The prez should have advisors looking out for things like that.

But I see the same people who hated Trump's guts yesterday, finding yet one more thing to get hysterical about so they can hate him some more today. Nobody's opinion of Trump was changed by this news item. Meanwhile someone's taking pot shots at oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm a lot more concerned about that than I am about the latest leftist hysteria about whatever impolitic remark Trump made.

Indeed. ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’, and Trumpworld is going to town on their dime.

Demonstrating once again that Trump is what the Russians call a useful idiot.

And frankly, why did Trump let George Stephanopoulos, a loyal Clintonista, ask him anything at all? Hard to know. — fishfry

A minor victory in Trump's war against a free press - Trump should not allow Stephanopoulos to ask him anything at all because Stephanopoulos supported the Clintons. Did Stephanopoulos's questions betray a partisan bias? Should all interviewers be subject to review by the Trump administration as to their political affiliations before being allowed to ask questions? Who should be allowed to ask questions? Only declared Republicans? Only Republicans who swear an oath of loyalty to Trump?

It seems likely to me that Trump agreed to an interview because he wants to reach voters who do not watch Fox News, and thinks he can persuade them by hook or by crook.

I'm a lot more concerned about that than I am about the latest leftist hysteria about whatever impolitic remark Trump made. — fishfry

First of all, it is not an either/or problem. Second, Russian propaganda is war by other means, and Trump, rather than doing what he can to prevent it, willingly promotes it. It is not simply that the information is false, it is designed to destabilize democracy not just in the United States but elsewhere as well. Third, dismissing it as the latest leftist hysteria shows a remarkable ignorance of both history and the concerns of the intelligence community.

Fantastic article summing up the road where a growing faction of right-wingers are heading, and the outright hypocrisy of their concerns and grievances. Some salient paragraphs below also sum up my own thoughts about the ridiculous concerns from moderates and right-wingers on this site (and of course everywhere else) i.e., their overwrought response towards college students, political correctness. and the outright stupid argument that people move farther right, into the arms of fascists and white supremacists because of backlash from political correctness and identity politics, etc.

Yet this faction [the religious right] did not abandon its faith in liberalism’s capacity to solve problems during the decades of Jim Crow. It did not cry, “To hell with the liberal order!” over mass incarceration. It did not erupt in fury over the shattering of Latino families at the border, or the Trump-made aftermath of the catastrophe in Puerto Rico. It did not question whether liberalism had failed after the first, third, fourth or 15th mass shooting at a school, or because it is typical for Americans to beg strangers on the internet for money to cover their health-care costs or after an untimely death. The state of emergency occurred when, and only when, liberal democracy ceased to guarantee victory in the culture war. The indignity of fighting for one’s rights within a democratic framework is fine for others, but it is beneath them.

Black Americans did not abandon liberal democracy because of slavery, Jim Crow, and the systematic destruction of whatever wealth they managed to accumulate; instead they took up arms in two world wars to defend it. Japanese Americans did not reject liberal democracy because of internment or the racist humiliation of Asian exclusion; they risked life and limb to preserve it. Latinos did not abandon liberal democracy because of “Operation Wetback,” or Proposition 187, or because of a man who won a presidential election on the strength of his hostility toward Latino immigrants. Gay, lesbian, and trans Americans did not abandon liberal democracy over decades of discrimination and abandonment in the face of an epidemic. This is, in part, because doing so would be tantamount to giving the state permission to destroy them, a thought so foreign to these defenders of the supposedly endangered religious right that the possibility has not even occurred to them. But it is also because of a peculiar irony of American history: The American creed has no more devoted adherents than those who have been historically denied its promises, and no more fair-weather friends than those who have taken them for granted.

News Flash ... America is not the version u see on tv. Countries of free citizens do not exist. A president for the people doesn't exist. Trump therefore does not exist, just his character in a silly reality series.

I think the description of anyone critical about Trump as 'haters' is part of Trump's dishonest rhetorics. I mean, this man is threatening world peace, the global economy, the office of the Presidency, the environment, science, Republican party principles, the separation of powers, and so much more. He lies almost every time he speaks, he routinely flouts principles and demeans the office. So when this is pointed out, those making the comment are 'haters' - they 'hate Trump'. And 'hate' is something that demeans the hater. So it defuses any real criticism - 'oh, you're just a hater'. It's part of the way that Trump continually demeans the public discourse. Pity that people fall for it.

Pity that people fall for it. — Wayfarer

I don't think people really "fall for it". Rather, people who have existing views that are in some way not acceptable to current society (be it not scientifically supported or not socially accepted in many circles) use Trump to shield their existing views from criticism. Trump becomes one more way to compartmentalize the world into the people that are right because they agree with me and the people who are just haters/shills or work for the evil agenda of government/banks/mass media/the Jews.

This is also why Trump seems immune to scandals and fact-checking. He isn't really relevant as a person.

I watched the first episode of the acclaimed new Chernobyl. THe opening lines were something along the lines of becoming so surrounded by lies that the concept of truth looses all meaning.

Trump is strange in that he lies about dumb things where other politicians would tell the truth, but he’ll also occasionally tell the truth where others would lie, e.g., cheating on his taxes (“it makes me smart”) & accepting oppo research from a foreign government.

I watched the first episode of the acclaimed new Chernobyl. THe opening lines were something along the lines of becoming so surrounded by lies that the concept of truth looses all meaning. — Wayfarer

Yes, in a way that is how Trump (and by now his entire administration) operates. To his followers though, truth is still important, they just feel that their deeply held truths and their protection is more important than anything else Trump lies about.

The constant lies have two purposes: to reassure his supporters that Trump will never ever admit to being wrong, thereby offering unwavering protection against reality, and to keep his opposition distracted from the last scandal with a new one every week.

Trump is strange in that he lies about dumb things where other politicians would tell the truth, but he’ll also occasionally tell the truth where others would lie, e.g., cheating on his taxes (“it makes me smart”) & accepting oppo research from a foreign government. — Erik

I don't think it's all that strange. Trump is just narcissistic and not very smart. He will tell the most outrageous lies to protect his ego, but he often isn't smart enough to realize what he should and shouldn't say.

Amazing that someone so incredibly dumb that it doesn’t even occur to him that admitting he’d take oppo research from a foreign government—especially given previous accusations of collusion—may look bad. He could even become president of the US despite being such an idiot, when far more intelligent and impressive people—with lots of money and connections—haven’t been able to achieve such a thing.

What does that say about the US electorate? Or maybe even about democracy?

What does that say about the US electorate? Or maybe even about democracy? — Erik

It says "Plato was right".

An alternative perspective that I hear on occasion is that it’s a big mistake to underestimate his practical intelligence. One pundit who hates Trump speculated that his recent comments were designed to goad Dems to proceed with impeachment, which may not be such a great idea according to polls.

Didn’t Machiavelli suggest that when an opponent makes an egregious blunder it’s prudent to assume they’re laying a trap? I don’t know enough to speak on the topic of Trump’s intelligence/strategy with any confidence, but I thought it was an interesting counter-intuitive point.

It says "Plato was right — Benkei

Damn straight he was right.

It says "Plato was right". — Benkei

The mob rules. And democracy is the multi-headed monster.

Trump and one of his heights during his presidency. Netanyahu giving a speech at the celebrations of a new settlement in the Golan Heights:


No better friend for Israel.

yeah Trump loves a good ethno-state

I see the same people who hated Trump's guts yesterday, finding yet one more thing to get hysterical about so they can hate him some more today.
— fishfry

I think the description of anyone critical about Trump as 'haters' is part of Trump's dishonest rhetorics. I mean, this man is threatening world peace, the global economy, the office of the Presidency, the environment, science, Republican party principles, the separation of powers, and so much more. He lies almost every time he speaks, he routinely flouts principles and demeans the office. So when this is pointed out, those making the comment are 'haters' - they 'hate Trump'. And 'hate' is something that demeans the hater. So it defuses any real criticism - 'oh, you're just a hater'. It's part of the way that Trump continually demeans the public discourse. Pity that people fall for it. — Wayfarer

This post so perfectly exemplifies the point I'm making that I have nothing at all to add. Except that claiming I characterized "anyone critical about Trump as 'haters'" is as disingenuous as can be.

noted, and amended.

From the New York Times:

The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively, current and former government officials said.

But Trump is being kept out of the loop:

Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html?module=inline

Is it that Trump cannot be trusted because he cannot keep his mouth shut, or because he thinks it is in his interest to trade secrets? One thing that is clear: the nonpartisan adults tasked with protecting the country must protect it from him, and thus treat him as the child he is.

Chinese tariffs won't hurt US businesses...much. Really?

So Trump is set to launch an attack on Iran but ten minutes before the attack he claims he was told that it would kill 150 people so he called it off. If it is true that he was not aware of the possibility of casualties before ordering the attack he demonstrates his incompetence and inability to control his compulsiveness by his unwillingness to consult with the military ahead of time. If he is lying to cover up his real reasons then he still sends the message the he is incompetent and compulsive.

Perhaps what really happened is that he was forced to back down and now wanting to appear weak he did what he is best at, lie.

ok who taught him the word "obliteration"?

ok who taught him the word "obliteration"? — frank

How many times has the man been divorced? I am pretty sure he learned it from that experience. :razz:

I want half Eddy, half!

who taught him the word "obliteration"? — frank

He thought someone said ‘deliberation.’ He never does that. ;-)

How many times has the man been divorced? I am pretty sure he learned it from that experience. :razz: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

From a lawyer maybe. Hope you're doing well!

He actually shared a Katie Hopkins tweet referring to our capital city as "Londonistan". The president of the United States of America.

I think even Nigel Farage would have more class than that. That is more on the level of pond scum like Tommy Robinson.