President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

Really? We've resorted to give the man credit for not screwing up a speech? Has the bar been set that low for the President of the United States? "Well, he gave a speech to a handpicked audience and he didn't screw it up...even acknowledged that NATO is important a month after the fact." No Bernie, I'm not giving credit to him for doing a tiny part of his job in a functional manner. There's no bone for that.

Is there a bar, in your mind? When he finally does something that you railed him on for not doing previously, nothing? You could go with something geez he finally did it or it's about time, but instead you don't wanna play, you just wanna bang on your drums all day.

As far as the handshake goes...it DID happen. She breezed right by him to shake the hand of the 1st lady as his hand was already extended. Sure she shook his hand AFTERWARDS, but it was pretty clear that she could have shaken his hand 1st. You want to see it differently, that's your right...

Wait, I have the right to interpret a full length video any way I want? And I don't have to settle for an edited version that is cropped in a way that presses the resistances' narrative? Thanks. Well then, I guess I'll choose to see it for what it was. Good luck with whatever you're seeing.

[Redbirds Fan]

Bearing in mind that Trump had nothing to do with drafting the speech (or we can debate that if you like), I gave him partial credit for the mention of Article 5 due to the context. He did say the words, but it was in the middle of taking credit for dunning the Nations of Europe, supposedly resulting in them coughing up billions and billions, and thereby showing by our words and actions our committment to Article 5. It was in a very Trumpian and self-serving way, but he did at least say the words.

You can't deny what Poland's first lady did, but it's a non-issue. Not 'fake news', because it happened, just not substantial.

Bernie, you accuse Horns of banging the drum. Right now, Trump is tweeting from Germany about Podesta and the DNC server. He claims everyone there is talking about it. Now that's a guy who is banging the drum. Doesn't he have a meeting to get ready for?

To me it was a scary speech. Too much land and blood. Not enough about the democratic ideals that unite us. It was an apocalyptic Bannon/Miller speech with a side order of "the media is evil"...a usable template for any wannabe despot.

And he still won't admit that Russia meddled in the election.

[baldgriff]

You can't deny what Poland's first lady did, but it's a non-issue. Not 'fake news', because it happened, just not substantial.

This is the part that loses me with much of the mainstream media.... The focus frequently appears to be on non-issues. Let stop worrying about the click bait and actually discuss what is going on. These types of news stories just weaken the credibility of the news organizations, because most of us dont give 2 shits about who didnt or did shake his hand.

[chancellor]

I'll defer to Rod Dreher, who I think nails it:

I’m sorry, duckies, but how is this all that controversial? An American president, standing in the capital of a nation that suffered in the last century the domination of two tyrannies — Nazi and Communist — that tried to eradicate its culture, a nation whose Catholic faith kept its spirit alive and led to its rebirth — proclaims that there are things unique and valuable about Western civilization, and that we should remember those things, affirm them, and defend them.

[Hornsby]

Is there a bar, in your mind? When he finally does something that you railed him on for not doing previously, nothing? You could go with something geez he finally did it or it's about time, but instead you don't wanna play, you just wanna bang on your drums all day.



Wait, I have the right to interpret a full length video any way I want? And I don't have to settle for an edited version that is cropped in a way that presses the resistances' narrative? Thanks. Well then, I guess I'll choose to see it for what it was. Good luck with whatever you're seeing.

Of course there's a bar, a minimum threshold that the leader of the free world HAS to be able to meet, and he hasn't come hasn't come close yet, IMO. Reading a prepared speech, written by others, off a teleprompter, certainly isn't it. If that woks for you, well, that's why he's the President. As of this writing, he's done nothing to change my mind...as I said in another post, his next accomplishment will be his first, IMO.

The video was what it was, no editing was necessary. She clearly walked right by Trump's outstretched hand, and shook the hand of the 1st lady. That's a fact, not cropped, not edited. Shortened? Sure...done intentionally to make that point. I'm having no issues with my vision...I'd love to Make America Great Again, just like it was less than a year ago. The fact is we're going backwards in the eyes of the world, and in reality. THAT'S what I'm seeing, and my vision is 20-20.

[chancellor]

I have long been a ardent CNN watcher and their coverage since the election has been over the top terrible. I can't stand watching FOX unfair and imbalanced coverage of anything political and MSNBC is just about as bad in the other direction. I need to find a new source for my news viewing. TBT though, I didn't see the handshake meme on CNN. So maybe they rose up above the pale today. We do need some of the Tim Russert's of the bygone era back.

Just recognize unbiased coverage is a myth, and source your news from a hybrid group that provides different points of view.

[Redbirds Fan]

I'll defer to Rod Dreher, who I think nails it:

Dreher is a smart guy, but he has some blind spots. He misses the white nationalist dog whistles, especially the 'supremacy of the West' theme. It may not sound like that big of a deal to us, but we weren't the only ones listening to the speech.

You can state a strong theme in a speech (or a song), but the overall tone of the performance can be determined by the odd note here or there that you play or don't play.



I'll defer to Rod Dreher, who I think nails it:

I’m sorry, duckies, but how is this all that controversial? An American president, standing in the capital of a nation that suffered in the last century the domination of two tyrannies — Nazi and Communist — that tried to eradicate its culture, a nation whose Catholic faith kept its spirit alive and led to its rebirth — proclaims that there are things unique and valuable about Western civilization, and that we should remember those things, affirm them, and defend them.

And tell him not to call me ducky.

[onejayhawk]

I'm still hoping you will tell me how he has redefined American foreign policy, since he is now in the midst of the foreign policy makers and shakers. Do we have a North Korea policy other than 'we hope that China will make a heavy move'? How about Russia? Someone going to move heavy for us there? It looks to be a battle of wits when Trump goes in against Putin, and I'm afraid our guy is basically unarmed. No plan is a bad plan. Or maybe he just plans to declare victory and explain it to us later via twitter. I heard one trumpette suggest just that. Slug it out in secret, then twitter a big success.

Will he give back the compounds? What will he get in returns? An admission that Putin hacked our elections? A promise not to touch them again?

What will Trump do with Germany?

Will he get around to appointing people to serve South Korea, or just let China take care of that, too.

Come on, trumpies, let's talk foreign policy.

It isn't so much a change of positions so far as a shifting of weight. Dropping the Paris Accords has foreign policy impact. Reaffirming support to Israel has a big impact. Dropping the Pacific trade negotiations and bringing up NAFTA for review is major.

The speech prior to G20 is, obviously, a foreign policy speech. If all he has done is said he is not Barack Obama--which is emphatically the case--then he has done a lot. Concrete differences and specifics will emerge after the fact more than in advance.
Transcript: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...en_134404.html

About G20, this may have the biggest partisan divide yet.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/trump-speech-poland/532866/

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/6/15927590/trump-alt-right-poland-defend-west-civilization-g20

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/06/trump-in-poland-vows-west-will-never-ever-be-broken.html

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/vox-writer-triggered-family-freedom-country-god/

For example, take just these two from RCP

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/07/07/trumps_powerful_speech_in_poland_134405.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/07/07/in_his_puzzling_speech_in_poland_trump_addressed_an_alternative_world_134396.html

This one on Merkel and the problems Trump has made for a quiet summit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-idUSKBN19R345

Don't ask me to defend all this. I am just pointing out the changes. Two things are clear. Trump will tweet victory and that Putin did not hack the election.

As to Putin, I think Trump will take a page from Nixon. Realpolitik has always been the most effective. The Soviets then and the Russians now use coercion extensively in their internal dealings. They understand and respect blunt language and naked force.

I am curious about one thing. Why would you come here to find trumpies? I considered him the lesser evil for the election, but that is a big difference from being a supporter. Trumpies are quite willing to tell me so.

J

[swampdragon]

So

How do we ever find out what was said between Trump and Putin? are there public records?

[Redbirds Fan]

It isn't so much a change of positions so far as a shifting of weight. Dropping the Paris Accords has foreign policy impact. Reaffirming support to Israel has a big impact. Dropping the Pacific trade negotiations and bringing up NAFTA for review is major.

The speech prior to G20 is, obviously, a foreign policy speech. If all he has done is said he is not Barack Obama--which is emphatically the case--then he has done a lot. Concrete differences and specifics will emerge after the fact more than in advance.
Transcript: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...en_134404.html

About G20, this may have the biggest partisan divide yet.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/trump-speech-poland/532866/

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/6/15927590/trump-alt-right-poland-defend-west-civilization-g20

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/06/trump-in-poland-vows-west-will-never-ever-be-broken.html

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/vox-writer-triggered-family-freedom-country-god/

For example, take just these two from RCP

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/07/07/trumps_powerful_speech_in_poland_134405.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/07/07/in_his_puzzling_speech_in_poland_trump_addressed_an_alternative_world_134396.html

This one on Merkel and the problems Trump has made for a quiet summit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-idUSKBN19R345

Don't ask me to defend all this. I am just pointing out the changes. Two things are clear. Trump will tweet victory and that Putin did not hack the election.

As to Putin, I think Trump will take a page from Nixon. Realpolitik has always been the most effective. The Soviets then and the Russians now use coercion extensively in their internal dealings. They understand and respect blunt language and naked force.

I am curious about one thing. Why would you come here to find trumpies? I considered him the lesser evil for the election, but that is a big difference from being a supporter. Trumpies are quite willing to tell me so.

J

You are one who said he "redefined" foreign policy. If redefinition doesn't mean a change of positions, what in the world does it mean? Trump and Nixon have zero in common when it comes to how they approach the Russians. Trump has been a wimp so far, refusing even to admit that the Russians meddled in our election. Trump and Nixon do have in common that they are insecure individuals.

Context shows you meant redefinition as a brag, but pressed for specifics you have walked it back to 'shifting of weight'. I guess his continuation of Obama's ISIS strategy has been a shifting of weight, rather than a 'secret plan'. This is the type of thing that caused me to call out the trumpies here...the fact that nobody admits to being one, but people keep making apologies for him and pretending he has a foreign policy they cannot articulate.

[Redbirds Fan]

So

How do we ever find out what was said between Trump and Putin? are there public records?

No. We will never know. One side or the other may produce a readout of the meeting, but the two may vary and neither is guaranteed to be accurate.

One issue is that we won't have anyone in the room taking notes, unless you believe that Tillerson will carry a pen and paper. We take at least three other people into the room when we deal with the Russians, one of whom writes down what is said. Nobody is allowed to record the meeting electronically.

If you will remember, the U.S. versions of the readouts of some of the meetings Trump has had so far with Heads of State have been very different from theirs...the foreign versions have been much more detailed. One of ours, if I recall correctly, consisted of a single sentence saying it was a good meeting.

So, we will only know what Trump or Putin decide they want us to know or think was said. That's 'modern day presidential'.

[swampdragon]

No. We will never know. One side or the other may produce a readout of the meeting, but the two may vary and neither is guaranteed to be accurate.

One issue is that we won't have anyone in the room taking notes, unless you believe that Tillerson will carry a pen and paper. We take at least three other people into the room when we deal with the Russians, one of whom writes down what is said. Nobody is allowed to record the meeting electronically.

If you will remember, the U.S. versions of the readouts of some of the meetings Trump has had so far with Heads of State have been very different from theirs...the foreign versions have been much more detailed. One of ours, if I recall correctly, consisted of a single sentence saying it was a good meeting.

So, we will only know what Trump or Putin decide they want us to know or think was said. That's 'modern day presidential'.

And shouldn't this lack of information concerning the entire world. Conservatives and Trump supporters too please speak up

[chancellor]

Dreher is a smart guy, but he has some blind spots. He misses the white nationalist dog whistles, especially the 'supremacy of the West' theme. It may not sound like that big of a deal to us, but we weren't the only ones listening to the speech.

Well, to be blunt, it's probably because Dreher and I both believe "white nationalist dog whistles" in that speech are BS.

And I think you're just ducky.

[chancellor]

And shouldn't this lack of information concerning the entire world. Conservatives and Trump supporters too please speak up

Uh, no. I didn't expect the Obama administration to record meetings with world leaders, either.

[Redbirds Fan]

Uh, no. I didn't expect the Obama administration to record meetings with world leaders, either.

You may not have been aware, but President Obama took with him professionals who had decades of experience in foreign policy, including a guy whose job it was to take notes.

That is protocol. That is what we expect as a minimum.

Trump is there as a representative of the United States and its government, not just the White House or his personal base. We shouldn't have to rely upon what he or 'Order of Friendship' Tillerson choose to tell us.