TGHusker

What an article. Mass propaganda machine at work. Just think if there was something like this available during WW 2 or the Cold War. This could happen with the left or the right on any topic from climate science to the current Trump messes. If you control the language you control the conversation - the facts be damned. So, the only way to steer free of this 'mind control' I would think is to visit a multiple of websites - those that are opposing each other (and especially those that challenge your own natural bias), fact check as best you can and don't make emotional connections to the 'facts' presented until sufficient time is allowed to bear out the truth. Being willing to go where the facts lead and not one's own bias. This thread could be linked to that thread I believe Knapp started a few weeks ago about why how our bias' are formed.

While the repub party struggles to pass any meaningful legislature, the Dems are still in collapse. Hillary blames everyone including her own party while the party fails to win elections - even against the 'body slammer'. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/fractured-democratic-party-struggles-to-find-footing/

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-legislative-agenda-time/2017/06/04/id/794056/ I wonder about the republican party's ability to govern. They have all the power - yet have accomplished very little.

Trumpsters blame the "DEEP STATE' for their troubles. It is all one big conspiracy against him. Well, when you start your administration being critical of intelligence gathering agencies like the CIA, FBI, you should know that it won't go well Especially if you demand loyalty from the FBI director. If you don't come clean with your taxes, if you don't come clean wt Michael Flynn and Jared's contacts or your own conversations in the Oval Office wt Russian diplomats, questions will be raised and investigations started. However, that does not make for a conspiracy - that makes for the need to get to the facts that if provided willingly by the administration would end this whole issue. If the failure to bring forth everything clearly, the real conspiracy is what may be going on being the Oval Office doors and not the doors of the staffers in these various departments. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336178-the-memo-is-trump-a-victim-of-the-deep-state A few quotes: Is President Trump being undermined by a “deep state” eager to leak damaging information about him? The president’s allies, both within the White House and in friendly media outlets, say yes. Trump himself has complained repeatedly that he is being victimized by underhanded leaks. To Trump’s critics, the talk of a deep state amounts to a conspiracy theory that has been pushed toward the mainstream from the wildest corners of right-wing media. In their telling, the leakers have done the nation a vital service, shining a light onto previously secret communications between Russia and close Trump associates such as former national security adviser Michael Flynn and senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner. The nexus of Russia, leaks, the intelligence services and the deep state will come to the fore again this week, with fired FBI Director James Comey scheduled to testify before Congress — unless he is blocked at the last minute by the White House invoking executive privilege. Beyond the partisan arguments, the question of whether a deep state exists — and whether the leaks about Trump are justified — divides intelligence experts, including those who have served in leading agencies. Gene Coyle, who worked for the CIA for 30 years before becoming a lecturer at Indiana University, Bloomington, was skeptical of the concept of a deep state, in the sense of hordes of government officials working in concert in the shadows. But he said the Trump administration has legitimate grounds for complaint about the number of leaks. “If you are that appalled at the actions of an administration, you should quit, hold a press conference and publicly state your objections,” said Coyle, a former field operations officer. “You can’t run an executive branch if more and more people think, ‘I don’t like the policies of this president, therefore I will leak information to make him look bad.’ ” Coyle also suggested that leakers were working hand-in-hand with news organizations that are too credulous about any kind of anti-Trump information. That idea finds wide currency in the president’s orbit. David Bossie, who served as deputy campaign manager for Trump last year, told The Hill via email: "Call it what you want — leaks, deep state, or the permanent bureaucracy — it is dangerous for government employees to engage in activities that undermine a sitting president. This issue must be addressed immediately and in a bipartisan manner."‎ Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, has reportedly propounded on the existence of a deep state working to delegitimize the president. Breitbart News, where Bannon served as executive chairman before going to work for Trump, has invoked the idea repeatedly. Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Schumer’s argument that the intelligence community could work to take vengeance on an elected president — and the lack of disquiet he or other Democrats expressed at such a prospect — was a sign of the times. Skepticism of the intelligence community has historically been more prevalent on the left than on the right. But that dynamic has reversed as classified information damaging to Trump has come to light. “Everything is viewed through partisan lenses — it is ironic but it doesn't surprise me,” said Ronald Kessler, a journalist and author who has written extensively about the intelligence services. “The Republicans do the same thing: When they liked what Comey was doing, they thought he was great. When they didn’t like what he was doing, they thought he was bad.” Kessler is also among those who argue the terminology of the deep state is excessively conspiratorial — even if he takes a dim view of the leaks themselves. “I don’t seen any point in calling it the deep state,” he said. “Obviously, there are a lot of people in the government who hate Trump. … I don’t think it’s very mysterious.” Others don't see nefarious leakers working against an elected president, but people doing their patriotic duty to get information to the public. “Leaks happen because the machinery of government is broken, and they come from people who — if I’m talking about the CIA or FBI or other members of the intelligence community — know of what they speak and are outraged by the conduct of a president,” said Tim Weiner, the author of an award-winning history of the CIA, "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA." Perhaps the most dramatic example of a leak came when The Washington Post learned that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, during the transition period. The information led to Flynn’s forced resignation after the shortest-ever tenure for a national security adviser. Defenders of leaks point to other examples, too, such as the revelation that Trump disclosed classified information during an Oval Office meeting last month with Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. “Team Trump keeps shooting itself every day,” Weiner said. “Trump himself disclosed classified information to the Russians, unilaterally! He burned one of our oldest intelligence partners since the Cold War, which is the State of Israel and its intelligence services. Now, that’s a leak. You are giving a strategic enemy the most highly classified information from a strategic ally? That’s extraordinary!”

Disinformation/discrediting campaign begins before Comey's house testimony next week. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/kellyanne-conway-doubts-upcoming-james-comey/2017/06/02/id/793782/ And Putin backs up Trump http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/putin-trump-fake-hacking/2017/06/02/id/793812/

Agree wt that part of it - wonk may be incorrect - but that is about as wonkish as Trump's immediate advisors get. Strategy is defining the policy instead of well thought out policy defining strategy.

Could it be any more obvious he's a figurehead? Vox with a takedown asserting Trump quite honestly has no idea about anything he's doing at any given time. An incredibly telling thing Trump said at today’s Paris event wasn’t about climate at all https://www.axios.com/scarborough-steve-bannon-is-the-real-president-2430129219.html Have to agree wt Morning Joe here. Trump is no policy wonk. He's only had to think about policy for 2 years. The primaries exposed his shallowness, but his voters were mesmerized by these 4 words: Make America Great Again. So Steve Bannon is the tail waging the dog. The policy wonk behind the president. Trump gets up to speak and it sounds shallow because he doesn't have the depth of understanding to make it all sound believable. Bannon is the president behind the president.

Could it be any more obvious he's a figurehead? Vox with a takedown asserting Trump quite honestly has no idea about anything he's doing at any given time. An incredibly telling thing Trump said at today’s Paris event wasn’t about climate at all I have to agree wt Morning Joe here - Bannon is the president behind the president. Is Trump a policy wonk - we all know that he isn't. His knowledge of policy is skin deep if that. The primary candidates exposed him for that, yet mesmerized (by a few envy evoking words Make America Great Again), voters nominated him. His policy ideas are evolving because he only had to really learn and thing about policy during the last 2 years. So, he gets up to speak and it sounds shallow. However, the real policy wonk is directing his actions - Steve Bannon. https://www.axios.com/scarborough-steve-bannon-is-the-real-president-2430129219.html

https://www.axios.com/scarborough-steve-bannon-is-the-real-president-2430129219.html Along wt this theme, we have mr propaganda, the Bagdad Bob of the administration, Steve Bannon, as the tail waving the dog. We know that Trump isn't very deep - when it comes to being a policy wonk- he's not. But Bannon is. Who's message is getting out - look at Bannon's polictics and you will find out.

Making America Great again - opps - USA falls to # 114 in most peaceful nation on earth. As the article notes, it measures political unrest and well as rising crime as contributing factors. Iceland is # 1. New Zealand is # 2. We follow -- Rwanda! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/1/us-ranked-the-114th-most-peaceful-nation-on-earth-/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tom-steyer-trumps-paris-exit-a-traitorous-act-of-war/article/2624668 A Traitorous act of war says Tom Steyer.

So Knapp (or anyone else) take us down the 2 divergent paths with your view on how this would play out in Russia's favor: (1) If Trump approves the accord - how does that benefit Russia - who hasn't signed it? (2) If Trump pulls out - how does that benefit Russia? My quick takes: (1) Gives Russia a competitive edge short term on old energy tech - fossil fuels. As we cut back, Russia exploits the pull back and gains more market share for the one economic sector their country has to compete in. (2) If we pull out, we (a) join Russia in a energy partnership, (b) give credibility to their refusal to sign the accord or © maybe the European nations see the cause as hopeless (carbon reduction) and begin to buy more an more of their fossil fuels from Russia. The vast majority of the civilized world sees Trump as a joke. He's literally a punchline to most of them. Russia would win simply by the merits of this sowing further discord between the Europe and the West, who have stood together against Russia since the Cold War. They don't actually need to check other boxes; sometimes chaos and strife is their endgame. I view this decision like I view this any of his moves from his business career. It's essentially another bankrupted casino or Trump University. He makes poor decisions because he's impulsive, short-sighted and thinks he knows what he doesn't know. He hasn't thought out his agenda at all. At this point, the plan is to just stick it to Obama or anyone else who challenged his greatness. I see this as a problem for the broader GOP as well. Good take on it. as well as the other post below it.

I think this is a pretty interesting/revealing quote from the article. Trump again shows weakness and caves. The Kremlin made clear that the compound issue was at the top of its bilateral agenda. Russia repeatedly denounced what it called the “seizure” of the properties as an illegal violation of diplomatic treaties. On May 8, the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, Thomas Shannon, traveled to New York to meet with his Russian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on what the State Department described as “a range of bilateral issues” and what Russia called “irritants” and “grievances.” Ryabkov brought up the compounds, while Shannon raised St. Petersburg and harassment, suggesting that they deal with the operation of their diplomats and facilities in each others’ countries separate from policy issues such as Syria and proposing that they clear the decks with a compromise. Russia refused, saying that the compound issue was a hostile act that deserved no reciprocal action to resolve and had to be dealt with before other diplomatic problems could be addressed. In an interview with Tass, Ryabkov said Moscow was alarmed that Washington “carries on working out certain issues in its traditional manner, particularly concerning Russia’s diplomatic property in the states of Maryland and New York.” Two days later in Washington, Tillerson told Lavrov that the United States would no longer link the compounds to the issue of St. Petersburg. Immediately after their May 10 meeting at the State Department, Tillerson escorted Lavrov and Kislyak to the Oval Office. There, they held a private meeting with Trump. The night before, the president had fired FBI Director James B. Comey, who was then heading an FBI investigation of the Russia ties. Comey, Trump told the Russians, was a “real nut job,” and his removal had “taken off” the ­Russia-related pressure the president was under, the New York Times reported. Later in May, the Justice Department appointed former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel to oversee the federal investigation. In a news conference at the Russian Embassy after his meetings with Tillerson and Trump, Lavrov said of the compound closures, “Everyone, in particular the Trump administration, is aware that those actions were illegal.” The dialogue between Russia and the U.S. is now free from the ideology that characterized it under the Barack Obama administration,” he said.

unbelievable

This guy gets it right. Bluster isn't foreign policy. https://www.yahoo.com/news/forget-trumps-bluster-world-walking-090001198.html some quotes: President Trump woke up incensed Tuesday morning, apparently because after he finally got through lecturing European leaders about how they had to take more responsibility for themselves, Germany’s chancellor had the audacity to suggest that European countries should take more responsibility for themselves. “The times when we could rely on others have passed us by a little bit,” was Angela Merkel’s takeaway from her most recent meeting with Trump. She said European powers “needed to take our fate into our own hands,” which prompted Trump to fire off an angry tweet assailing the trade gap with Germany and vowing to make the country spend more on defense. Because what we really need are fewer BMWs manufactured in South Carolina and more of a German military presence in Europe. That’s always worked out great before. But really, all this focus on Trump’s tweets and the stories about his boorishness abroad should please the White House no end. The more the narrative focuses on Trump’s toughness and bluster with our allies, the less anyone focuses on what’s really been exposed in these opening months of his presidency. Trump is weak, and our rivals have figured it out. They’re walking all over the American president in a way we haven’t seen since at least the days of disco and Space Invaders. You can bet that Erdogan had been watching the way Trump handled Vladimir Putin, after Russian planes and subs showed up to menace the coasts off Alaska and Connecticut. A stronger leader might have politely put the Russians on notice that we take our borders seriously, and the next Russian pilot who wandered into our airspace might not be coming home. Putin was testing Trump, just trying to see how hard he’d be able to push the man whose campaign he so deftly played to his advantage. About as far as you like — that was the answer. Then there’s Kim Jong Un, who’s setting off a new rocket every week now, boasting about his intention to reach American targets. He’s already concluded that Trump will leave that whole Korean headache to the Chinese, as long as no one’s conspiring to hit us with more decent, reasonably priced hatchbacks. Why are Trump’s competitors so confident they can brush him aside? Probably they can see that he doesn’t have much grasp of world affairs, or a ton of interest. Maybe they imagine he’s too preoccupied with controversy back home to get himself into any global standoffs. But the better explanation is that other world leaders can sense something essential about Trump. The one thing they share is probably an innate ability to size people up. You don’t get to the top of any political system, large or small, without a shrewd eye for what drives human behavior. And what they see in Trump is insecurity. The carrying on about his ratings and poll numbers, the impulsive tweets on a sleepless night, the childlike boasts and pleading diatribes — all of it betrays a need to be loved, rather than feared. But the pressing danger here isn’t that Trump — and, by extension, American leadership — gets eclipsed. It’s that Trump’s passivity in the face of petty aggression almost certainly invites a more consequential variety. It’s one thing for the Russians to have poked our border patrol with no response. But what happens when their troops are crossing the border of a Baltic nation instead, because Putin figures no one will stop him? What happens when North Korea finally gets a rocket to Guam — because, you know, why not? Indifference toward aggression has never spared America from war. And irate tweets have never ended one.

So Knapp (or anyone else) take us down the 2 divergent paths with your view on how this would play out in Russia's favor: (1) If Trump approves the accord - how does that benefit Russia - who hasn't signed it? (2) If Trump pulls out - how does that benefit Russia? My quick takes: (1) Gives Russia a competitive edge short term on old energy tech - fossil fuels. As we cut back, Russia exploits the pull back and gains more market share for the one economic sector their country has to compete in. (2) If we pull out, we (a) join Russia in a energy partnership, (b) give credibility to their refusal to sign the accord or © maybe the European nations see the cause as hopeless (carbon reduction) and begin to buy more an more of their fossil fuels from Russia.

I think you are right about the ego boosting angle also. However, it will back fire like the Comey firing did. He thought the Dems and Repubs would both like it for their various polar opposite reasons. If he comes out in favor of the Paris accord, he will be seen as a man who can't be trusted (yet another time) and one who caves to public pressure (going opposite of his previously stated goals on the issue), and finally a very shallow politician who didn't understand the accord as a candidate. Basically reinforcing about everything many believe about him already.

There was a Denver Post article back in Feb in which Hickenlooper states he will not run.

agreed. Time for new faces from that side. Maybe they can start changing the tone. It would nice to see both parties find consensus makers instead of dividers. Willing to work wt the other side for once. It seem that the only non-partisan time during the last 17 years was shortly after 911. Since then, the extremes have taken over - maybe not in actual policy in many cases but in action & words.

Seriously???? Oh...that's priceless. #wherestheoutrage? Pretty unbelievable but then again not. Trump campaigns for the 'common man' and talks tough but as usual he gets played by the other party. Previously it was China (now not a currency manipulator) and now by Carrier.

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Economy/US-Trump-Climate-Economy/2017/06/01/id/793507/ This article notes that Trump's bet that pulling out of the accord will increase jobs here will fail. Saving coal jobs for example will result is un not creating new jobs in new energy and falling behind China and others in those technologies. We can choose to be a part of the future and grow, or we can remain in horse and buggy days and fall behind. A gut hunch here: I may be totally wrong - in spite of the news elsewhere and based on Trump's breaking of campaign pledges (withdrawing from Paris is one pledge) - I thing Trump might surprise us and decided not to pull out. I don't say this because he all of a sudden got enlightened but rather because of his streak of breaking campaign pledges and because he will be boxed in the corner to do so by the law itself as noted in the posts above. But I won't be surprised if he does the stupid and pulls out either. With his character issues he could break his campaign pledge or pull out because he ignorantly and arrogantly thinks it is the right thing to do. His only predictability is his unpredictability.

Exactly right. However, Trump was a fan of Flynn, his son-in-law appears to have done some things that makes the collaboration wt Russia more likely - So Trump has skin in the game - trying to keep a friend and a son-in-law who happens to be a SR advisor from being soiled by the investigation. And if Flynn and Jared were involved, you can bet that Trump is the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain directing their steps.

Thanks Zoogs - LET ME OFFICIALLY CONDEMN NUGENT FOR WHAT HE HAS SAID AND DONE. He is a dirt bag also. Birds of a feather - I guess that is why Trump invited him to the WH.

Sounds like a legislative fix is needed. I would agree wt the 9th in their reasoning. It seems unjust and a overreach by the police involved - excessive force. But, as Zoogs mentioned the SC it appears ruled on the strict interpretation of the law.

First the Trump admin is full of naivete. They have proven it. However, on this subject, it seems highly doubtful - esp for the worlds best deal maker. Russia you help me get elected and I'll help you later. Now that the heat is on, Trump has shown less love towards Russia and Putin than what he did during the election. If he survives this investigation, look for him to warm up to Putin again.