Trump's America

[Frelga]

It is reasonable for a party not to primary an incumbent. It says that they stand behind their guy, support his policies, and believe they can win with him.

Which is the problem I have with the GOP.

[narya]

This is the same Mark Sanford who told the Media he was on the Appalachian Trail, but took a wrong turn somehow and ended up in Argentina with his girlfriend.

He joins Joe Walsh and Bill Weld in the fray. I can't think of anything nice to say about conservative talk show host Joe Walsh, so I won't.

As for Weld, I don't like his agenda and his Libertarian roots, but I do like his tactics: Concentrate on the 20 states where unenrolled voters and independent voters can choose to vote in the Republican primary ballot, and convince them to vote for an "anyone but Trump" choice like himself. What would happen if there was a mass rush of Democrats moving to declare independent, then voting for Weld? This would be a way to root out Trump at the primary level. Weld will try the tactic first in New Hampshire. This, by the way, is why the other 30 states have closed ballots.

[River]

CO opens its newly instated primaries to independents. The ones I know are struggling with that, narya. Do they vote for one of Trump's opponents? Or do they pick a Democrat they like? They can only fill out one ballot.

[RoseMorninStar]

Follow the money. Turnberry or Turn-a-profit. At taxpayers expense, of course.

[Cerin]

CO opens its newly instated primaries to independents. The ones I know are struggling with that, narya. Do they vote for one of Trump's opponents? Or do they pick a Democrat they like? They can only fill out one ballot.

What are the chances of actually 'rooting out' Trump in the primaries? If those chances are slim to none, then it seems to me voting for a Democrat would be the more instructive choice.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, I (and many others) thought there was no chance that Trump could win the primaries in 2016, so I suppose anything is possible. But it certainly seems to me that the chances of "rooting out" Trump are some place between zero and none. I do worry that these types of open primaries will distort the results of the Democratic Party nomination process for no good reason.

[RoseMorninStar]

Rule by fear and intimidation is not a Democracy. The emperor cannot be wrong (ever!) or criticized. I think it's safe to say this is business as usual in this administration.

[yovargas]

It should have been rather obvious to anyone paying attention that NOAA's strange tweets was only posted because somebody somewhere was being threatened. The implications of that are profoundly depressing. And yes, I still hold that it is a startling sign of a man losing his grip on reality.

[RoseMorninStar]

It should have been rather obvious to anyone paying attention that NOAA's strange tweets was only posted because somebody somewhere was being threatened. The implications of that are profoundly depressing. And yes, I still hold that it is a startling sign of a man losing his grip on reality.

Agreed yov. However I'd say this is business as usual. Rule by fear & intimidation like a mob boss. Or mob Don.

[River]

It should have been rather obvious to anyone paying attention that NOAA's strange tweets was only posted because somebody somewhere was being threatened. The implications of that are profoundly depressing.

Indeed. And the threats were likely made by someone else who had been threatened.

The fish rots from the head.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It should have been rather obvious to anyone paying attention that NOAA's strange tweets was only posted because somebody somewhere was being threatened. The implications of that are profoundly depressing. And yes, I still hold that it is a startling sign of a man losing his grip on reality.

A man with the codes to the largest collection of nuclear weapons in the world losing his grip on reality.

[RoseMorninStar]

Trump has always operated with threats and a disregard for the truth, it's not new or because he's losing his grip on reality (although there is that too). It's why he is surrounded surrounded by sycophants willing to say/do as they are told, not what is reality.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The latest is that he has apparently fired John Bolton, citing many disagreements that he and others in the administration have had with Bolton's policy positions. But Bolton's policy positions were probably more well known than just about any one when Trump hired him. So why did he hire him in the first place?

So he will soon have a fourth National Security Adviser in less than 3 years, not including the actings in between.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

I think hiring Bolton was one of the steps the Trump Admin took to break out of the Iran nuclear deal because reasons. Thing is, Bolton likes wars in the Mideast more than anyone else currently in the White House so, having removed one of the obstacles to having a war, he was pushing for an attack. And no one else wanted to do that.

Of course, since this is the Trump Administration, we need to be careful. We may be looking for something resembling a coherent plan where there is none.

[RoseMorninStar]

Chaos is a ladder. He breaks down trust in our institutions (as he did with the weather of all things!!) and gets some people to believe they can trust only him.. no matter what he says. Up is down. It is really dangerous.

[Frelga]

CNN:

John Bolton was fired, and the price of oil instantly fell

[RoseMorninStar]

CNN:

John Bolton was fired, and the price of oil instantly fell

Oil price spikes expected after attacks on Saudi facilities
There. Fixed it.

[elengil]

[RoseMorninStar]

I read a couple of articles that made a valid point, Saudi Arabia ranks THIRD (after USA & China) in defense spending (at $295 BILLION) yet cannot defend it's oil field against this type of attack? I know little to nothing about defense, but that seems fishy. Why should the US be 'locked and loaded' to defend the commodity of a country that should defend its own source of wealth, especially given all it's human rights violations. Why should Americans put themselves at risk for this? What am I missing? It almost seems a provocation to get America involved to fight (and pay and die for) some one else's commodity.


CNBC: Saudi Arabia has ‘a great deal of explaining to do’ on how its oil assets were attacked, says former US diplomat

Bloomberg: Saudi Wealth and Weaponry Still Can’t Guarantee Oil’s Protection

[Túrin Turambar]

There’s been quite a bit of coverage here of the Trump Administration’s second state dinner, being for the Australian Prime Minister (the first was for President Macron of France).

From looking at the list of U.S. State Dinners, you can see that President Trump is less fond of entertaining foreign heads of government or heads of state than most of his predecessors. But there’s some other interesting trends as well.

New presidents usually start with ‘easy’ options – the first five dinners of most presidencies are frequently combinations of Germany, Japan, South Korea, the U.K., Australia and Israel. President Obama is an exception – he started with India, Mexico and China before moving onto the safer and more traditional Germany. Countries like Australia and South Korea have the advantage of being close U.S. allies with few competing interests of their own, making it hard for a new president to make some damaging faux pas, while being far enough away geographically to let the new president show off his global reach and world leadership to the domestic electorate. The U.K., France and Germany are more powerful and significant in their own right, so the risk is a bit higher. But Australia and the U.K. also have the advantage of no language barrier (that said, President Macron speaks English, albeit not fluently, so President Trump didn’t have this problem with his state dinner). Interestingly, Canada rarely appears early on in the list – perhaps the U.S.-Canada relationship is complex enough to need more finesse.