Trump letter to Erdogan

Whut? :rofl:

Somehow, I find the letter almost endearing. At least it's an initiative for peace, if one that sounds like it was written by a schoolboy.

Three amigos. Hmm.

For those following the impeachment proceedings - Mick Mulvaney, Trump's acting Chief of Staff, just said in a room full of reporters that *of course* Trump did what he has been accused of doing, and that everyone should just "get over it". This caused another massive s***storm in the White House, and Mulvaney then tried to eat his words - but alas, too late. Again the legendary incompetence surrounding everything to do with the Trump Presidency explodes into view.

That's not what Mulvaney said. He said money is held in abeyance all the time for political reasons and people should get over it that politics will influence foreign policy. That a change from Obama to Trump should mean a difference in foreign policy and that's right.

Sometimes anti Trump people really stop listening and live in their own reality. Just like Trump himself.

That's not what Mulvaney said. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you're objecting to - I've just watched the exchange in question.

The reporter said: "let's be clear, what you described is a quid pro quo".

Mulvaney replied: "we do that all the time with foreign policy"

Isn't this precisely what Trump's being accused of doing?

No, we should not tolerate the intolerant. — NOS4A2

That is the epitome of being intolerant.

I'm objecting to inaccurate reporting. There's enough Fox News out there that we don't need other networks add to the noise.

Mulvaney is making the case that a quid pro quo in foreign policy isn't abnormal; and it isn't. He didn't say "get over it" with regard to the specific case of Trump asking for an investigation in the Democratic server in return for money but to "get over" the fact that (national) politics will affect foreign policy. He referred to McKinney who was "really upset about the political influence on foreign policy". I think there's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se.

Let's say Congress had allocated money to Turkey to be paid out in a certain moment and yet Erdogan had a US national locked up. Should Trump spend the money or hold it until the US national is released? I'd hope he'd do the latter. It's about what the quid pro quo is used for, some goals are acceptable, others aren't.

Mulvaney did admit quid pro quo with regard to the investigation of the Democratic server. I don't think that's the impeachable offence though; the impeachable one is asking them to investigate a possible opposing Presidential candidate (at least his son).

Mulvaney is making the case that a quid pro quo in foreign policy isn't abnormal; and it isn't. — Benkei

What’s abnormal about it in this case it its motivation, which is personal benefit and political gain, not furtherance of the interests of the state. It’s plainly illegal, there’s no question about that. The only question is whether the machinery of government can actually rein in Trump’s aberrant behaviour. I'm hoping, and expecting, that it will.

He didn't say "get over it" with regard to the specific case of Trump asking for an investigation in the Democratic server in return for money — Benkei

It seems clear to me that he did. From the same exchange:

Mulvaney: "Did he mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. That's why we held up the money."

Smoking gun, bleeding corpse. No question. The only question is how effectively the deluge of bullshit can conceal the crime.

What’s abnormal about it in this case it its motivation, which is personal benefit and political gain, not furtherance of the interests of the state. It’s plainly illegal, there’s no question about that. The only question is whether the machinery of government can actually rein in Trump’s aberrant behaviour. I'm hoping, and expecting, that it will. — Wayfarer

Of course, I never said it wasn't. But CCN is misrepresenting what Mulvaney said.

It seems clear to me that he did. From the same exchange:

Mulvaney: "Did he mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. That's why we held up the money." — ChrisH

If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say yesterday? Well, McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. — Mulvaney

The "get over it" comment refers to McKinney's reason to be upset. I don't see how you can hear and read this any other way. What do you think "it" refers to in that sentence?

What do you think "it" refers to in that sentence? — Benkei

He's saying McKinney should not be upset by the kind of quid pro quo that's the subject of the impeachment investigation because it's commonplace.

That's not what "it" refers to. That's a specific interpretation that isn't a necessary conclusion from what he said. So you shouldn't jump to that conclusion.

Look, Trump's quid pro quo was unacceptable but we don't need to "prove" it by reading things into what people say that they in fact didn't say.

I'm afraid the subtlety of your objection is lost on me.

OK. Never mind then. :up:

Mulvaney did admit quid pro quo with regard to the investigation of the Democratic server. I don't think that's the impeachable offence though; the impeachable one is asking them to investigate a possible opposing Presidential candidate (at least his son). — Benkei

The WH message had previously been that there was no quid pro quo. Trump already confirmed that he asked Ukraine to investigate the Biden's, so Mulvaney's message didn't mean much.

There isnt a coherent message coming from the WH. Trump is just daring congress to do anything about his actions. He's able to do that because of the fierce allegiance of his base.

This vaguely ties back to the "deplorable" thread. Trump's base is holding the country hostage and forcing us all to choke on Trump's corruption.

Why? I guess there are probably a lot of individual reasons for it. Anger, mistrust, malice looking for a legitimate target. Whatever.

Mulvaney never said it was a quid pro quo, nor admitted such. You guys are twisting his words and quote-mining for political gain.

These are the reasons the administration held back the money.

Mick Mulvaney: (19:31)
Sure. Let’s deal with the second one first, which is, look, it should come as no surprise to anybody. The last time I was up here … I haven’t done this since I was chief of staff. Right? Last time I was up here, some of you folks remember it was for the budget briefings. Right? And one of the questions you all always ask me about the budget is what are you all doing to the foreign aid budget? Because we absolutely gutted it. President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid. Never has been. Still isn’t. Doesn’t like spending money overseas, especially when it’s poorly spent. And that is exactly what drove this decision. I’ve been in the office a couple times with him talking about this and he said, “Look Mick, this is a corrupt place.” Everybody knows it’s a corrupt place.

Mick Mulvaney: (20:12)
By the way, put this in context. This is on the heels of what happened in Puerto Rico when we took a lot of heat for not wanting to give a bunch of aid to Puerto Rico because we thought that place was corrupt. And by the way it turns out we were right. All right. So put that as your context. He’s like, “Look, this is a corrupt place. I don’t want to send them a bunch of money and have them waste it, have them spend it, have them use it to line their own pockets.” Plus I’m not sure that the other European countries are helping them out either. So we actually looked at that during that time before. When we cut the money off, before the money actually flowed, because the money flowed by the end of the fiscal year, we actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing in terms of supporting Ukraine. And what we found out was that, and I can’t remember if it’s zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid. You’ve heard the president say this, that we give them tanks and the other countries give them pillows. That’s absolutely right that as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. And they weren’t helping Ukraine and still to this day are not.

Mick Mulvaney: (21:09)
And the president did not like that. I know [inaudible 00:21:11] long answer your question, but I’m still going. So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in the past, the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money

"He doesn't have to say, 'Go lie for me,' to be a crime. He doesn't have to say, 'Let's obstruct justice,' for it to be a crime. You judge people on their conduct, not a magic phrase,"

-Lindsey Graham. 1998

I'm objecting to inaccurate reporting. There's enough Fox News out there that we don't need other networks add to the noise.

:up:

Lindsey basically became Trump's gimp-slave as soon as he got the nomination IIRC. He thinks of himself as principled, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes him to turn hypocrite yet again this go-round. (AFAIK, Lindsey as been speaking out against Trump since the Erdogan call revelations)

I don't know if I've ever read anything quite so absurd as this letter...

AFAIK, Lindsey has been speaking out against Trump since the Erdogan call revelations) — VagabondSpectre

It was interesting to see Trump direct Graham's attention to his constituents as he asserted his authority.

I appreciate the attempt to talk about the more important matters here.

I was just thinking about the oddity of Trump's behaviour and policies towards Ukraine and Russia. Adam Shiff basically called Trump a traitor without using the term. The behaviour he described fits the definition of treason.

Here's a question...

Are their any Trump actions, words, and/or policies that are clearly counter to Putin? There are plenty which could be construed and/or misconstrued as being directly out of the 'Putin playbook'.

It was a fairly easy choice between Clinton and Trump. Conservatives and evangelicals understood the Clinton agenda fairly well and gladly voted against it. Sanctity of life and economic superiority were perhaps critical issues. Promises to clean the governmental quagmire of excessive regulation were appealing, and those regarding trade deals were perhaps attractive as well.

Now, supporters are faced with the reality exposed by this administration. There have been policy decisions consistent with accepted principle and values ... some but by no means all. There has been behavior that would normally be considered unacceptable, and supporters have struggled to balance their own opinions.

Many are at a loss when considering the thousands of tweets and statements to the media.

For an objective view, it's perhaps insightful to consider an external perspective. Someone on Quora asked “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Here's one somewhat humorous response ...
________________________

"A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

... He makes Nixon look trustworthy ...."

That's how it looks from the outside for at least one observer.
__________________________________

It appears that our traditional values of honesty and truth, of respect for others, of kindness and compassion and integrity, all are sidelined. His supporters are left with a choice between loyalty to the individual or a good conscience.

Can we reach some measure of objectivity?

A separate issue on the near horizon, of course, is the 2020 election and the direction we will take as a nation. We will again be faced with a choice between two ....

Tthe White House’s real new motto comes from Tacitus, a celebrated historian in ancient Rome: “Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity.”

https://nyti.ms/2J69xTt

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, — Old Brian

There's an argument that Trumpism has some of the characteristics of a cult, and that cult followers are generally immune to persuasion.

Syria critic Lindsey Graham reverses stance, says Trump's policy could succeed

Right on schedule...

He's an excellent gimp-slave.

Are their any Trump actions, words, and/or policies that are clearly counter to Putin? There are plenty which could be construed and/or misconstrued as being directly out of the 'Putin playbook'.

The administration’s policies, sanctions and arms deals are contra Putin.

On the Record

I’d be weary of the growing neo-McCarthyism now plaguing the political scene. I think I was accused of being Russian (among other things) in this very thread. The spectre of a Russian influence in American politics is increasingly dangerous and pernicious. Democratic primary candidates, such as Tulsi Gabbard, are now being accused of being Russian assets.

Everyone is a Russian Asset

Clinton needs to be run over by a bus, ASAP.

Our president went off the cuff this morning, speaking candidly about everything dominating Washington news. It really is a sight to behold.