The US Presidency 2020

[Ostrozac]

Trump now seems to believe that if the Republican Senate won't do what he wants then he'll just go his own way.

:cheers:

The Senate refusing appointees and the President trying to find workarounds has a long history — but it’s usually when the Senate and President are from different parties. The current situation, where a Republican President and Senate openly feud over appointees, doesn’t exactly speak well for party unity in the run up to an election. Especially since this has been going on for 3 and a half years.

Vegas oddsmakers currently have the Democrats favoured to take over the Senate in the November election, so the window for the Republican Party seems to be rapidly closing — you’d think they would try to make the most of the time they have left.

 

[Donald H]

Let's hoist this up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it:

Putin favours Trump. Fact!
What does that say about Trump?
That's not me suggesting anything one way or another. It's a question that goes right to the heart of the matter.

Another question that could be asked is whether or not Xi favours Trump. My wild guess is that Xi does. Just don't ask me why because my case is pretty weak and based on Trump's lack of ability, etc. And that is, considering that Trump's just a figurehead.

Well, in both cases in fact, the US president is just a figurehead on US foreign policy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Putin favours Trump. Fact!"

Suppose for the sake of argument that is true.

"What does that say about Trump?"

Nothing.  Association Fallacy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Well, in both cases in fact, the US president is just a figurehead on US foreign policy."

That's not the way the members of the "interagency" put it when they testified during the impeachment.  They seemed quite indignant that Trump had the temerity to set his own foreign policy, appoint his own people to manage particular files, etc.

 

[Donald H]

"Well, in both cases in fact, the US president is just a figurehead on US foreign policy."

That's not the way the members of the "interagency" put it when they testified during the impeachment.  They seemed quite indignant that Trump had the temerity to set his own foreign policy, appoint his own people to manage particular files, etc.

Yeah Brad but I didn't buy into that and it sounds like you didn't either.
I think you may be confused on the issue of whether or not I would like to see Trump get 4 more years. I'm rather neutral because I see Trump as perhaps being the best bet for world peace, especially as it relates to US/Russia relations. And that is keeping in mind that all US presidents are so far at least, figureheads on foreign relations.

So while I believe he's going to do immense irreparable damage to his country on domestic policy, I see his relationship with Putin/Russia as somewhat positive. The Dems have built such a large damaging case against Putin/Russia now that there's no telling what they will do if they gain the presidency's power to revert back to more harmful sanctions on Russia which Trump has dropped

It all boils down to the question on why Putin is so heavily favourable to Trump, and vice versa. Is it all in the economics on Trump's personal level? Craig Unger wrote a book on the question: House of Trump, House of Putin. It makes some points on Trump's financial issues with Russia.

FWIW I don't buy the story on Russia paying the Taliban to kill US soldiers. You? In any case it's deserving of a more detailed explanation on why.

 

[Remius]

There is an easy explanation why Putin favours Trump.  He knows he can dupe him and outsmart him.  Putin has Trump’s number but Trump has no idea who he is dealing with.  Russia and China want to fill the void the US is leaving behind.  The leadership void on the world stage.  A recent poll showed the Germans trust Russia more than Trump.  That’s telling. 

They know that Trump may only have months left or even better another 4 years.  Both China a Russia will try to make as much headway and cement their gains as much as they can before he’s gone. 

This is the price of a populist leader who has no clue how the world works and isn’t interested in learning about it either.

Putin doesn’t need Trump to collude on anything,  just let him do what he’s doing now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Russia shares a long land border with China in an underdeveloped (hence, potentially lucrative) part of Russia that is hard to defend.  Russia is less powerful than it once was relative to China.  Russia would like China's free exercise of its power to be impeded.  Trump does not make things easy for China; the Democrats - and Biden in particular - are less likely to make things difficult for China.  Plain geopolitics; no conspiracy theories needed.

 

[Donald H]

Trump does not make things easy for China; the Democrats - and Biden in particular - are less likely to make things difficult for China.  Plain geopolitics; no conspiracy theories needed.

Would you care to explain your reasoning on why you think Biden and the Dems would be 'less' likely to make things difficult for China? Plain geopolitics isn't an answer.

As I have said, I'm not arguing the point either way but I 'am' interested in an argument that supports your conclusion.

 

[shawn5o]

The idea that Putin favours Trump is, to me, ridiculous. It makes more sense for Putin to favour Hillary.


Former NSC Chief Of Staff: John Brennan Buried Evidence That Putin Actually Favored Hillary In 2016

DAVID KRAYDEN
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
April 23, 2020

https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/23/fred-fleitz-john-brennan-buried-evidence-putin-favored-hillary/

Former CIA officer and National Security Council Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz said Wednesday that former CIA Director John Brennan ignored intelligence that Russian President Vladimir Putin actually wanted Hillary Clinton to win the the 2016 presidential election.

Fleitz called Brennan “the most politicized intelligence chief in American history” in a Fox News op ed that addressed a report released Tuesday from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That document supports the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election to promote the victory of then-candidate Donald Trump.

The committee released the document in a highly edited form that does not include any reference to recently declassified files that point to a possible Russian disinformation campaign that attempted to malign Trump. (RELATED: Former NSC Chief Of Staff: Schiff ‘Broke’ Rules, ‘Should Recuse Himself’ From Impeachment Inquiry’)

Fleitz notes that the Senate report directly contradicts the March 2018 findings of the House Intelligence Committee, which accused the intelligence community assessment of being tainted by anti-Trump forces.

While recognizing that “the political establishment and anti-Trump journalists gloated about the new Senate Intelligence Committee report as bolstering their biases,” Fleitz contends the committee did not follow proper procedures in their investigation and based their conclusions on too few intelligence sources — and too much on the potentially tainted observations of the CIA.

“The Senate Intelligence Committee report falsely claims that ‘all analytical lines are supported with all-source intelligence’ and that analysts who wrote the intelligence community assessment consistently said they ‘were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.’”

Fleitz says House Intelligence Committee staff members discovered exactly the opposite and told him that there is ample evidence that Russia may have interfered in the 2016 election, but not necessarily on behalf of Trump. (RELATED: Former NSC Chief Of Staff Suggests Whistleblower Had Help From Democrats In Crafting Complaint)

“More gravely, they said that [then-] CIA Director John Brennan suppressed facts or analysis that showed why it was not in Russia’s interests to support Trump and why Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton’s election. They also told me that Brennan suppressed that intelligence over the objections of CIA analysts.”

The former NSC chief of staff further stated that “Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election.”

Fleitz suggested that Brennan relied upon “low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win … ”

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Would you care to explain your reasoning

Past behaviour.  How they (Democrats and Republicans) behaved towards China in the past indicates how they are likely to behave in the future.

 

[Donald H]

>Would you care to explain your reasoning

Past behaviour.  How they (Democrats and Republicans) behaved towards China in the past indicates how they are likely to behave in the future.

I asked you in my last post: "Would you care to explain your reasoning on why you think Biden and the Dems would be 'less' likely to make things difficult for China?

So we can now say that it's your opinion that the Dems have made things less difficult for China in the past . Right?

To be honest, I would agree that the Obama admin was much less concerned about China and it's rise to becoming a competitive world power to the US. And I don't know which US political party will be hawkish and which will be dovish in the future. In my opinion we're going to see another Cold War position by the US, regardless of the party in power.

As a general rule the US was much less concerned about China in the past and that's understandable.

 

[mariomike]

https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/23/fred-fleitz-john-brennan-buried-evidence-putin-favored-hillary/

Regarding Daily Caller,

Overall, we rate the Daily Caller strongly right biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact checked on a per article basis.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller#Ties_to_white_supremacists
The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories.

Ties to white supremacists

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So we can now say that it's your opinion that the Dems have made things less difficult for China in the past . Right?

What we can say is that neither party's politicians ever made things as difficult for China as Trump has.  If Trump's policies weaken the US as well as China (eg. tariffs), so much the better from a Russian perspective.

 

[shawn5o]

Regarding Daily Caller,

Hi mariomike

Regarding mediaBias/fact check, this is their rating of CNN

"Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

But lets look at Wikipedia about MBFC

"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst." The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific." Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications."
https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

However, Wikipedia is a site that a subscriber can contribute (and/or edit) to its content.

 

[mariomike]

I guess it brings us back to this discussion,

Media Bias [Merged]
https://army.ca/forums/threads/18397.1325
56 pages.

 

[observor 69]

I found this one informative and amusing. 

"He Predicted Trump’s Win in 2016. Now He’s Ready to Call 2020.
Most historians just study the past. But Allan Lichtman has successfully predicted the future."

Featuring Allan Lichtman

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/opinion/2020-election-prediction-allan-lichtman.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

 

[Donald H]

I found this one informative and amusing. 

"He Predicted Trump’s Win in 2016. Now He’s Ready to Call 2020.
Most historians just study the past. But Allan Lichtman has successfully predicted the future."

Featuring Allan Lichtman

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/opinion/2020-election-prediction-allan-lichtman.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Very amusing but it's Biden by a whisker. And even more interesting is the reason why he was wrong with Bush v. Gore because of the 'cheating' factor.
The exact same cheating factor that the Dems are screaming bloody murder about right now.

Further to that: Everybody is likely familiar with the phrase, 'A Ham sandwich can beat xxxxxxx. Biden is the Ham sandwich but he's missing his top slice of bread. The Dems have chosen the worst possible candidate to run against Trump. The same as they did in 16 with Hillary. There's no other way a narrcissitic sociopath could have been acceptable as their president.

And then, what's Lichtman's scorecard going to look like a week or two before their election?

 

[mariomike]

There's no other way a narrcissitic sociopath could have been acceptable as their president.

I'm not a brain specialist. So, I can't comment if that diagnosis applies, or doesn't apply.

I always get the two mixed up anyways. 

Sociopath
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=luYqX5HeOobatQbV0IAw&q=trump+sociopath&oq=trump+sociopath&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6CAguELEDEIMBOg4ILhCxAxCDARDHARCjAjoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgsILhCxAxCDARCTAjoFCC4QsQM6AgguOgIIADoECAAQAzoFCAAQsQM6BAgAEAo6BAguEApQyw1Y6FhguHBoAHAAeACAAa0BiAGbDJIBAzcuOJgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiRgZToxYTrAhUGbc0KHVUoAAYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5#spf=1596647079810

Psychopath
https://www.google.com/search?ei=puYqX_3LMr-O9PwPhP2oyAU&q=trump+psychopath&oq=trump+psychopath&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoCCAA6AgguOgUIABCxAzoFCC4QsQM6BAgAEAo6BAgAEAM6CAgAELEDEIMBOgsIABCxAxCDARCRAjoFCC4QkwJQ-J8CWLfaAmC03gJoAHAAeACAAY8BiAHvDpIBBDE0LjaYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj9ttzvxYTrAhU_B50JHYQ-ClkQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1596647126113

 

[Donald H]

I'm not a brain specialist, so I can't comment if that diagnosis applies, or doesn't apply.

But, I always get the two mixed up anyways. 

Sociopath
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=luYqX5HeOobatQbV0IAw&q=trump+sociopath&oq=trump+sociopath&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6CAguELEDEIMBOg4ILhCxAxCDARDHARCjAjoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CAguEMcBEKMCOgsILhCxAxCDARCTAjoFCC4QsQM6AgguOgIIADoECAAQAzoFCAAQsQM6BAgAEAo6BAguEApQyw1Y6FhguHBoAHAAeACAAa0BiAGbDJIBAzcuOJgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiRgZToxYTrAhUGbc0KHVUoAAYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5#spf=1596647079810

Psychopath
https://www.google.com/search?ei=puYqX_3LMr-O9PwPhP2oyAU&q=trump+psychopath&oq=trump+psychopath&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoCCAA6AgguOgUIABCxAzoFCC4QsQM6BAgAEAo6BAgAEAM6CAgAELEDEIMBOgsIABCxAxCDARCRAjoFCC4QkwJQ-J8CWLfaAmC03gJoAHAAeACAAY8BiAHvDpIBBDE0LjaYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj9ttzvxYTrAhU_B50JHYQ-ClkQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1596647126113

I would defer to Mary Trump who has labelled him with both, and she has the credentials because she experienced it, as well as  being the professional. Both as in sociopath and narcissist. Not 'psychopath' as far as I know so far. The major difference is in the psychopath  being born with the illness and the sociopath being made. Right?

That's what makes her opinion so damaging.
But not to say that she doesn't have a personal axe to grind with Donald.

 

[mariomike]

I would defer to Mary Trump who has labelled him with both, and she has the credentials because she experienced it, as well as  being the professional. Both as in sociopath and narcissist. Not 'psychopath' as far as I know so far.

As a layperson, I find this a handy reference.