Orange Duce

[youthathletics]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/worl ... ember.html

Gruesome details from Turkey while Pompeo and Trump play dumb for MBS

it’s starting look like the guy had ties all the way up to ole’ OBL and even more shady jihad groups. It may turn out to be a “Play stupid games win stupid prizes” kind of story.

[seacoaster]

Frank Bruni's thoughts on Trump:

"Watching Donald Trump on “60 Minutes” on Sunday, I had many reactions. He’s so wrong, I told myself. So conceited. So delusional.
And so utterly, fabulously transparent. A viewer didn’t have to look all that closely or listen all that hard to discern his values, his reasoning, his rot. Although he is given to artifice and deception, he also gives himself away.

I’ve noticed — and written about — this before. Here’s a column from last January, in which I noted “how much truth he unwittingly tells.” He can hide his federal income taxes, but he’s neither disciplined nor artful enough to hide his nature. Recent days and weeks have provided fresh examples of that.

For one thing, he’s been talk-talk-talking more than at any point since his inauguration: on the sidelines of public appearances, in press conferences, at rallies, in interviews. The midterms cometh, and Trump’s cup runneth over. Vanity and visibility — ego and accessibility — go hand in hand.

In a smart post for Axios last Friday, Mike Allen noted, “President Trump is finally fully merging his presidency with television, relishing the mounting amount of time that he’s devoting to filling the airwaves.” Trump keeps calling in to Fox News. He staged that bizarre show in the Oval Office for New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi.

But it’s not just the volume of Trump that leaves him exposed. It’s the volubility. He can claim that he’s not a misogynist who objectifies women, but then, at a rally, he does an extended stretch of grotesque stand-up about Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. In a tweet on Tuesday, he went after Stormy Daniels for her looks. “Horseface,” he called her.

And his monstrous arrogance is naked. There’s never any cloaking of that, not even so much as a thong. In an interview with the Associated Press published Tuesday night, he insisted that any poor Republican performance in the midterms won’t be his fault and that he’s lifting all the candidates. “I don’t believe anybody’s ever had this kind of an impact,” he immodestly said.

But the “60 Minutes” interview was in a transparent league of its own. When Lesley Stahl pressed him on his denial of man-made climate change, he said, “I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.” Indisputable translation: Today’s economy takes precedence over tomorrow’s earth.

Pressed about punishing the Saudis for Jamal Khashoggi’s apparent murder, he stressed that they were ordering military equipment from us and that he didn’t want to lose any of the money or jobs. Indisputable translation: dollars before decency.

He conceded that Vladimir Putin is probably involved in assassinating opponents but shrugged. “It’s not in our country,” he said. He explained his recent profession of love for the brutal North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un by telling Stahl, “I get along with him, okay?” And there you have it, the Trump Doctrine: Act as you please, just say nice things to and about me.

Trump tells lies galore. But he also lets us in on plenty of truth."

[old salt]

Ah, there it is. It's clearly Obama's fault that the Saudis killed that guy, and Trump will never be as bad as he was. Can't criticize
the Republican...you might pull a calf muscle or something, and that just won't do.

Have a great week, RR. Let me know when you're ready to tell me that Trump has done just one thing wrong overseas. We can invite Hanson to the party, and make a day of it.

Obama had nothing to do with this Saudi mess. You're the one who keeps injecting Obama into the discussion & insisting that he be addressed.
MbS didn't ascend to power until a little over a year ago.

Given the differences in Trump's & Obama's policies, it's not surprising that VDH (& I) approve of Trump's policies & did not like Obama's policies.

[a fan]

Obama had nothing to do with this Saudi mess. You're the one who keeps injecting Obama into the discussion & insisting that he be addressed.

Did you pick up one of my bottles or something?

Here's what you wrote

As punishment. Trump will send the House of Saud a gold plated dvd of Obama's Cairo speech & a lifetime membership in the Muslim Bro'hood.

YOU brought up Obama as it relates to the Saudi incident. Not me. I merely responded to your Obama mention.

Given the differences in Trump's & Obama's policies, it's not surprising that VDH (& I) approve of Trump's policies & did not like Obama's policies.

Bullcookies, and you know it. Here's what I'm saying, and you know it.

Given some of the differences in Trump's & Obama's policies, it's not surprising that VDH (& I) approve of some of Trump's policies & did not like some of Obama's policies.

My entire point regarding VDH, and it's starting to apply to you. It's impossible that everything Obama did was wrong. It's impossible that everything Trump does is right. And yet 18 freaking pieces from VDH since Trump took office, and not only isn't there a single----not one----word of criticism of Trump, he took the time to hammer Obama multiple times, even though he's out of office.

You're playing dumb here. Why read VDH? Because you know exactly what his foreign policy analysis will be regardless of Trump's choices. He'll either love every choice.....or if he doesn't, he won't talk about it. So why bother reading his bootstrapping BS? Meaning that he will start with "Trump's awesome", and then work backwards using a bunch of erudite-sounding references that makes it sound like he really thought about what Trump is doing.

Steak dinner says that VDH doesn't utter one word of criticism toward Trump over the next two years. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a man of VDH's supposed intelligence to not come up with one single foreign policy mistake made by a sitting President for four freaking years. And when you see that happen, it's silly to take him seriously.

Here's another prediction, and hopefully this forum will be around for this. If we elect a Democrat for President in 2020, VDH won't like his foreign policies at all, and everything that President does overseas will be wrong.

There. Now you don't have to read VDH anymore. All he does is say "Republicans good, Democrats bad" with some references to Tolkien. This is something that any Junior High School kid who plays Dungeons and Dragons can do.

[old salt]

Obama had nothing to do with this Saudi mess. You're the one who keeps injecting Obama into the discussion & insisting that he be addressed.

Did you pick up one of my bottles or something?

Here's what you wrote

As punishment. Trump will send the House of Saud a gold plated dvd of Obama's Cairo speech & a lifetime membership in the Muslim Bro'hood.

YOU brought up Obama as it relates to the Saudi incident. Not me. I merely responded to your Obama mention.

Given the differences in Trump's & Obama's policies, it's not surprising that VDH (& I) approve of Trump's policies & did not like Obama's policies.

Bullcookies, and you know it. Here's what I'm saying, and you know it.

Given some of the differences in Trump's & Obama's policies, it's not surprising that VDH (& I) approve of some of Trump's policies & did not like some of Obama's policies.

My entire point regarding VDH, and it's starting to apply to you. It's impossible that everything Obama did was wrong. It's impossible that everything Trump does is right. And yet 18 freaking pieces from VDH since Trump took office, and not only isn't there a single----not one----word of criticism of Trump, he took the time to hammer Obama multiple times, even though he's out of office.

You're playing dumb here. Why read VDH? Because you know exactly what his foreign policy analysis will be regardless of Trump's choices. He'll either love every choice.....or if he doesn't, he won't talk about it. So why bother reading his bootstrapping BS? Meaning that he will start with "Trump's awesome", and then work backwards using a bunch of erudite-sounding references that makes it sound like he really thought about what Trump is doing.

Steak dinner says that VDH doesn't utter one word of criticism toward Trump over the next two years. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a man of VDH's supposed intelligence to not come up with one single foreign policy mistake made by a sitting President for four freaking years. And when you see that happen, it's silly to take him seriously.

Here's another prediction, and hopefully this forum will be around for this. If we elect a Democrat for President in 2020, VDH won't like his foreign policies at all, and everything that President does overseas will be wrong.

There. Now you don't have to read VDH anymore. All he does is say "Republicans good, Democrats bad" with some references to Tolkien. This is something that any Junior High School kid who plays Dungeons and Dragons can do.

Here was your insertion of Obama into the discussion in your immediate, reflexive response to my Deep State definition quote by VDH.
The only quote I excerpted & posted was VDH's Deep State definition. The link was for attribution purposes to the source article.
You took the bait & went into your reflexive (R) vs (D), Trump vs Obama rant, & trashed the entire article & VDH's entire body of work.
thus deflecting from my quotation of his accurate definition of the Deep State. Deflect & rant, rather than confront my (& VDH's) definition of the Deep State.
Quoting VDH to you is like showing a bull a red flag.
...you went crazy, just as I predicted you would. ..

No, by my standard, I trust rank and file employees like your friends at NSA about 1,000 times more than political appointees. You seem to think the Deep State did it.

Here ya go afan. Your fav classics prof gives a succinct summary of the Deep State's efforts :

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/ ... eme-court/

...dozens of the careerists and progressive appointees at the Washington FBI, DOJ, CIA, and National Security Council took all sorts of risks to insure a Clinton blowout. They variously sought to warp the FISA court, subvert the Trump campaign, collude with Fusion GPS and its Russian sources, and weaponize the FBI to ensure the Clinton victory — on the premise that their unethical and often illegal behavior would soon be rewarded by the Clintons...

...now go crazy.

Why? You and I both know this is a rambling pile of steaming poo that bears zero resemblance to reality. Obama's a divider? Stagnating economy? These are the lopsided words of a sophomore, not a erudite, evenhanded teacher.

What I'm waiting for is one single word of criticism from him towards Trump's foreign policies. What a total, complete coincidence! After hammering Obama for everything and anything.....Trump is filled with magic beans, and can do no wrong. Gee, I can't square why.

It renders his opinions useless. He can't hold an honest magnifying glass if everything Dems do is wrong, and everything the R's do is either right, or passes with no criticism. There are no Dems or Republicans in other countries. VDH would do well to remember that when evaluating foreign policy.

Not to mention that Hanson thinks he's a conservative when he works at a Commie Government Owned University. Can't the guy who makes fun of socialism find a job in the free market at a private school? Oh, right: it's not socialism if a Republican "sez it isn't". You think Hanson will give me back my tax dollars back that pays his salary? Yeah, I'd suppose not, too.

[MDlaxfan76]

So, you successfully 'trolled' him Randy?

Bottomline, Hanson's lack of credibility beyond the classics has been discussed ad nauseum.

[Trinity]

Khashoggi was with the mujahadeen when we were. You think that’s why the Prince had him beheaded?

[old salt]

So, you successfully 'trolled' him Randy?

Bottomline, Hanson's lack of credibility beyond the classics has been discussed ad nauseum.

I posted someone else who made my point more eloquently than I could (& has a wide readership).

Stop whining, just because you disagree.
Quoting/linking VDH is no more trolling than dis's agitprop daily clipping service. (emptywheel & TPM).
...or anyone on the NYT or WP op-ed pages. Max Boot is credible but VDH is not ? confused2

[old salt]

Khashoggi was with the mujahadeen when we were. You think that’s why the Prince had him beheaded?

So was OBL. ....maybe that will be the excuse, along with his Muslim Brotherhood sympathies.

Khashoggi was working on a plot to promote OBL's son to power ???

WP's David Ignatius somehow knows the content of MsB's phone con with Jared last wkend. about the need to identify a culprit.
...no Deep State intercept leaking there, no sir.

[a fan]

Here was your insertion of Obama into the discussion in your immediate, reflexive response to my Deep State definition quote by VDH.
The only quote I posted was VDH's Deep State definition. The link was for attribution purposes to the source article.
You took the bait & went into your reflexive (R) vs (D), Trump vs Obama rant, & trashed the entire article & VDH's entire body of work.
thus deflecting from my quotation of his accurate definition of the Deep State. Deflect & rant, rather than confront my (& VDH's) definition of the Deep State.
...you went crazy, just as I predicted you would. ..

Oh, yeah. His "accurate" definition of the Deep State. I skipped over it, thinking that you couldn't possibly be serious in using him as a cite on what you think the Deep State is.

But sure, let's go right ahead and look at his "correct definition"

Indeed, dozens of the careerists and progressive appointees at the Washington FBI, DOJ, CIA, and National Security Council took all sorts of risks to insure a Clinton blowout. They variously sought to warp the FISA court, subvert the Trump campaign, collude with Fusion GPS and its Russian sources, and weaponize the FBI to ensure the Clinton victory — on the premise that their unethical and often illegal behavior would soon be rewarded by the Clintons, who for decades had proven far less ethical than 2016’s miscreant minions.

There is NO WAY you believe this. Tinfoil hat nonsense with zero evidence.

The idea that the FBI, DoJ, CIA, and NSA are filled with pot smoking, bomb throwing liberals biding their time, waiting, in many cases, 20 years of their spotless careers to commit illegal acts in the name of progressive ideals is the single dumbest thing I've ever read on the Water Cooler.

What's more, Trump is a freaking liberal! He's just a loudmouthed moron. Something that law and order types don't normally cotton to...

So VDH thinks that Strozk didn't break a single law, or do anything to stop Bush's conservative policies----and waited until Trump came along to break dozens of laws, throw his career in the trash, and all to (snicker) use the power of the FBI to make sure he doesn't get elected. In an election that no one expected Trump to win.

Now you need to add in that VDH thinks that DOZENS (his words) of career CIA, FBI, DoJ, and NSA agents did the exact same thing: waited until 2016 to break dozens of laws after having solid careers at four freaking separate agencies.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Want my retort?

[Trinity]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jared-kushne ... 16674.html

Jared deeply involved in response to killing.

[old salt]

afan : Want my retort ?

Save it for the DoJ IG, ...& maybe a Grand Jury.

[a fan]

Stop whining, just because you disagree.
Quoting/linking VDH is no more trolling than dis's agitprop daily clipping service. (emptywheel & TPM).
...or anyone on the NYT or WP op-ed pages.

Disagreement doesn't enter into the equation, RR. You know better than this. In fact, I agree with quite a few things that VDH has written....or parts of certain pieces. But so what?

You're playing dumb again. You gave me 18 pieces from VDH. Not one single word of criticism of Trump's policies.

It would be like being on your ship or at my distillery and having a "yes" man, and looking to him/her for counsel. You're not going to get a helpful answer to a question, now are you? While it would be true that like a stopped clock being right twice a day, sometimes the "yes" man will be right in his evaluations. But after a while, you'd figure out that talking to the "yes" man is a waste of your time, yes?

So if I know that no matter what Trump does, VDH is going to talk about how it's right, what's the point in reading it if I'm looking to understand US foreign policy?

Find a better cite. Surely you have better sources...I've seen them in the past.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Hayseeds will believe anything

When I heard $110b and job losses I knew the guy was lying. Just not how a lot of big government defense contracts are executed..... hayseeds won't know any better.....

just buzz words like "national security" "law and order" "protect american jobs".....

[jhu72]

Hayseeds will believe anything

When I heard $110b and job losses I knew the guy was lying. Just not how a lot of big government defense contracts are executed..... hayseeds won't know any better.....

just buzz words like "national security" "law and order" "protect american jobs".....

Chocolate cows.

[jhu72]

To review the bidding. President or not, he is not going to be able to just walk away from all of this -- nor will his devil spawn. There is no statute of limitations on civil suits.

[Typical Lax Dad]

To review the bidding. President or not, he is not going to be able to just walk away from all of this -- nor will his devil spawn. There is no statute of limitations on civil suits.

No different than Bernie Maddof or a whole host of NYC grifters. R.I.C.O

[MDlaxfan76]

So, you successfully 'trolled' him Randy?

Bottomline, Hanson's lack of credibility beyond the classics has been discussed ad nauseum.

I posted someone else who made my point more eloquently than I could (& has a wide readership).

Stop whining, just because you disagree.
Quoting/linking VDH is no more trolling than dis's agitprop daily clipping service. (emptywheel & TPM).
...or anyone on the NYT or WP op-ed pages. Max Boot is credible but VDH is not ? confused2

nah, you predicted that we'd "go crazy" and you were chortling about it just above when a fellow poster went through all the hoops in response, making clear, yet again, that Hanson is never critical of Trump's foreign policies and was always critical of Obama's. Not just "some" but all the time, consistently, predictably. And with no "basis" other than his personal opinion. You offer no sincere or compelling refutation of that contention of his consistent toadying.

That's the only 'trolling' aspect; you were predicting the response, and you got it. But I don't take issue with you 'trolling' for a response; makes for a conversation. It's just that when anyone does it, you, dis, etc and the intent is just get someone's goat, I'm not so sure that serves much of a purpose other than maybe breast-for-tat. That's ok with me too, as long as it doesn't include true stupidity, profanity, etc. EDIT: the auto correct seems to want to substitute "breast"...funny; let's see if some hyphens help.

Now, as to "whining", I'm not simply disagreeing, I'm saying he's an empty suit. Erudite, sure, but credible, no.
You're free to disagree. BTW, you're plenty eloquent on your own.

[MDlaxfan76]

Here was your insertion of Obama into the discussion in your immediate, reflexive response to my Deep State definition quote by VDH.
The only quote I posted was VDH's Deep State definition. The link was for attribution purposes to the source article.
You took the bait & went into your reflexive (R) vs (D), Trump vs Obama rant, & trashed the entire article & VDH's entire body of work.
thus deflecting from my quotation of his accurate definition of the Deep State. Deflect & rant, rather than confront my (& VDH's) definition of the Deep State.
...you went crazy, just as I predicted you would. ..

Oh, yeah. His "accurate" definition of the Deep State. I skipped over it, thinking that you couldn't possibly be serious in using him as a cite on what you think the Deep State is.

But sure, let's go right ahead and look at his "correct definition"

Indeed, dozens of the careerists and progressive appointees at the Washington FBI, DOJ, CIA, and National Security Council took all sorts of risks to insure a Clinton blowout. They variously sought to warp the FISA court, subvert the Trump campaign, collude with Fusion GPS and its Russian sources, and weaponize the FBI to ensure the Clinton victory — on the premise that their unethical and often illegal behavior would soon be rewarded by the Clintons, who for decades had proven far less ethical than 2016’s miscreant minions.

There is NO WAY you believe this. Tinfoil hat nonsense with zero evidence.

The idea that the FBI, DoJ, CIA, and NSA are filled with pot smoking, bomb throwing liberals biding their time, waiting, in many cases, 20 years of their spotless careers to commit illegal acts in the name of progressive ideals is the single dumbest thing I've ever read on the Water Cooler.

What's more, Trump is a freaking liberal! He's just a loudmouthed moron. Something that law and order types don't normally cotton to...

So VDH thinks that Strozk didn't break a single law, or do anything to stop Bush's conservative policies----and waited until Trump came along to break dozens of laws, throw his career in the trash, and all to (snicker) use the power of the FBI to make sure he doesn't get elected. In an election that no one expected Trump to win.

Now you need to add in that VDH thinks that DOZENS (his words) of career CIA, FBI, DoJ, and NSA agents did the exact same thing: waited until 2016 to break dozens of laws after having solid careers at four freaking separate agencies.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Want my retort?

It's not the "loudmouthed moron" aspect which "law and order types don't normally cotton to".
But loudmouthed morons do draw attention they might otherwise escape.

The fraudulent tax avoidance schemes would have most likely gone forever unrecognized had the "loudmouthed moron" never promised, (what dozens of times, including on TV?), to release his tax returns only to refuse once elected.

That's one election promise not kept.
Yet.

[dislaxxic]

Committee Chair Nadler will get the tax returns...if the donkeys don’t screw the pooch again...never a clear bet...

..