Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

looksee

From my - admittedly limited - discussions with Texans, Republicans honestly believe that charity based hospital care is the appropriate and desirable form of health care for the lower orders. Not, I think, because it is 'good enough' for them, but because it is in someway Christian and charitable for the better off to gain holy kudos for contributing to this system. Unlike evil socialism which gives the lower orders a 'right' to health care, which is bad for them, makes them unappreciative of their place in society. Or something. If Europe went back about 100 years you would find a similar outlook.

Itssoeasy

Former CIA director John brennan has had his security clearance revoked by Donald Trump. Well this is a very serious step IMO. It sets a serious and dangerous precedent. This could stop the current intelligence chiefs from speaking out on issues of importance. It's a clearly political decision and a petty one.

Thargor

Revoking the security clearance of his critics:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/reporters-grill-sarah-sanders-on-targeting-security-clearances-of-trumps-political-enemies/

Seriously where is this all heading? We're barely 50% of the way through (maybe barely 25% :eek:)

Imagine if a US bank or some other institution had a Lehman Brothers moment tomorrow and triggered a second Global Financial Crisis, imagine watching these utter incompetents handling it...

Water John

Hope this will stick.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BmdohBRllRI/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_loading_state_control

Sorry, but it says it all.

derb12

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Former CIA director John brennan has had his security clearance revoked by Donald Trump. Well this is a very serious step IMO. It sets a serious and dangerous precedent. This could stop the current intelligence chiefs from speaking out on issues of importance. It's a clearly political decision and a petty one.

From the whitehouse :"Mr. Brennan's lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets."

They obviously don’t see the irony ... I mean who comes to mind when you think of lying and frenzied commentary ... hmmmm? What was is a few days ago? About 40 tweets over a 2-day period?

Trent Houseboat

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Former CIA director John brennan has had his security clearance revoked by Donald Trump. Well this is a very serious step IMO. It sets a serious and dangerous precedent. This could stop the current intelligence chiefs from speaking out on issues of importance. It's a clearly political decision and a petty one.

A pretty action no doubt, but I don't know that it's serious, dangerous or wrong. A spiteful clock is right twice a day.

I honestly have no idea why these people retain their security clearances once they've left their jobs. The only reason I can think of is that it puts up one's price when getting a job as lobbyist or pundit once returning to the private sector.

Do people really think the current roster of very best people should get to keep their clearances(if they ever get one) once they've left?

derb12

Apparently they do it to build up a depth of security knowledge. The new guys can’t be experts on day 1 so the pool of people with clearance can continue to advise. With the round of revocations a few weeks ago SHS declared smugly that the current Whitehouse had no intention of calling on the likes of Susan rice et al so why keep their clearance - totally missing the point that future whitehouses might need it. Petty.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Former CIA director John brennan has had his security clearance revoked by Donald Trump. Well this is a very serious step IMO. It sets a serious and dangerous precedent. This could stop the current intelligence chiefs from speaking out on issues of importance. It's a clearly political decision and a petty one.

Plus it means they can't even consult him on intelligence matters or shoot the breeze with him. So could Don be trying, by extension, to limit evidence-giving by him to congress?

StringerBell

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

A pretty action no doubt, but I don't know that it's serious, dangerous or wrong. A spiteful clock is right twice a day.

I honestly have no idea why these people retain their security clearances once they've left their jobs. The only reason I can think of is that it puts up one's price when getting a job as lobbyist or pundit once returning to the private sector.

Do people really think the current roster of very best people should get to keep their clearances(if they ever get one) once they've left?

Some of them keep their clearance so their wealth of knowledge through experience can be used on current matters. They are a resource.

Removing the clearance actually does not real damage to them tbh. Just another step down a dangerous path of attempting to silence ones critics and the usual being a 70 odd year man having an actual strop.

Outlaw Pete

UsedToWait wrote: »

Can you please take each of the above characterizations, and demonstrate how they are false, rather than passing them off as 'CNN tripe'?

How about you take each of the above characterizations and demonstrate how they are true, rather than passing them off as such.

Surely the onus is on the ones throwing around these terms like confetti to justify it but so far all we have is rubbish like him saying some countries are shitholes or some black guy is dumb or that he called Mexican rapists, Mexican.

Truth is there is ample evidence that Trump is not a racist or a misogynist, but if you have proof positive that he hates women or is racist, lets see it. Now of course I mean racist or a misogynist using the kind of criteria which a centrist might feel was necessary, not merely what a liberal leftist would.

BabyCheeses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How about you take each of the above characterizations and demonstrate how they are true, rather than passing them off as such.

Surely the onus is on the ones throwing around these terms like confetti to justify it but so far all we have is rubbish like him saying some countries are shitholes or some black guy is dumb or that he called Mexican rapists, Mexican.

Truth is there is ample evidence that Trump is not a racist or a misogynist, but if you have proof positive that he hates women or is racist, lets see it. Now of course I mean racist or a misogynist using the kind of criteria which a centrist might feel was necessary, not merely what a liberal leftist would.

I know not providing the same treatment to a black person as you would to a white person probably doesn't meet the racism requirements for a "centrist" like yourself but for others it does.


https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067


There is unlikely to be any videos of Trump leading a lynching so meeting those "centrist" requirements for you will be tough.

Whats the evidence for him not being a racist? Please tell me it's he has a black friend.

jooksavage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I know not providing the same treatment to a black person as you would to a white person probably doesn't meet the racism requirements for a "centrist" like yourself but for others it does.


https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067


There is unlikely to be any videos of Trump leading a lynching so meeting those "centrist" requirements for you will be tough.

Whats the evidence for him not being a racist? Please tell me it's he has a black friend.

Lets not forget his treatment of the Central Park Five. His obsessive pursuit of the death penalty for those innocent men had a certain "lynchy" quality to it.

Obviously wont convince the centrists here though... Honestly if theres anyhthibg more inffuriating than being called a "leftist", its the raving right wing trying to claim the mantle of centrist.

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Truth is there is ample evidence that Trump is not a racist or a misogynist.

OK, please please please post that.

It's hard to prove racism to your standard unless people are actually caught on tape or something, but not a misogynist?

That's just trolling.

UsedToWait

300 newspapers publish 'we are not the enemy of the people' editorials..

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45204397

Including what must now switch into the column 'fake news' outlets such as the New York Post..

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Truth is there is ample evidence that Trump is not a racist or a misogynist, but if you have proof positive that he hates women or is racist, lets see it. Now of course I mean racist or a misogynist using the kind of criteria which a centrist might feel was necessary, not merely what a liberal leftist would.

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Whats the evidence for him not being a racist? Please tell me it's he has a black friend.

hold my beer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, what a racist!!


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026546879289425920

https://twitter.com/FOX2News/status/1027028952450125826

everlast75

A very valid and true point raised on twitter.

As another poster pointed out earlier, the "behaviour" excuse for revoking clearance is clearly hypocritical, but here is another reason why it is so..



https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/1029807826938425344

looksee

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Truth is there is ample evidence that Trump is not a racist or a misogynist, but if you have proof positive that he hates women or is racist, lets see it. Now of course I mean racist or a misogynist using the kind of criteria which a centrist might feel was necessary, not merely what a liberal leftist would.

What does this even mean? Racist is racist. If a person holds another person as inferior or in some way contemptible solely on the basis of their skin colour (and it does work both ways) then they are racist. How can you put degrees of racism on that?

Having said that I would argue that Trump holds so many people contemptible (or threatening) for so many reasons that picking out racism or misogynism is a bit pointless. He despises everyone who is not more powerful than him, and only tolerates, while still despising, those who are syncophantic towards him or useful to him.

ancapailldorcha

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Truth is there is ample evidence that Trump is not a racist or a misogynist, but if you have proof positive that he hates women or is racist, lets see it. Now of course I mean racist or a misogynist using the kind of criteria which a centrist might feel was necessary, not merely what a liberal leftist would.

Would you like to share some of this ample evidence?

pixelburp

everlast75 wrote: »

A very valid and true point raised on twitter.

As another poster pointed out earlier, the "behaviour" excuse for revoking clearance is clearly hypocritical, but here is another reason why it is so..

Meanwhile, White House journalists are too spineless to call Sanders & co. out on this dissonance. For all the puffing out of chests with their #EnemyOfNone, news outlets have been utterly cowardly in calling out this obvious disparity, for fear of losing their own access to the White House; it's quite pathetic really.

I was meaning to check out of Kushner still had clearance, yet in my naivety I'd genuinely assumed it was revoked too. That surely this WH wasn't that tone deaf or incompetent to NOT remove his clearance. Nope.

This is the political form, there's a demand for a certain maturity of reflection and I get that - but this Administration consists of a pack of idiots, their flailing around hilarious if it wasn't so tragic, and almost comically petty. They're reaching for autocracy yet clearly don't have the competency to make a good show of it.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

Meanwhile, White House journalists are too spineless to call Sanders & co. out on this dissonance. For all the puffing out of chests with their #EnemyOfNone, news outlets have been utterly cowardly in calling out this obvious disparity, for fear of losing their own access to the White House; it's quite pathetic really.

I was meaning to check out of Kushner still had clearance, yet in my naivety I'd genuinely assumed it was revoked too. That surely this WH wasn't that tone deaf or incompetent to NOT remove his clearance. Nope.

This is the political form, there's a demand for a certain maturity of reflection and I get that - but this Administration consists of a pack of idiots, their flailing around hilarious if it wasn't so tragic, and almost comically petty. They're reaching for autocracy yet clearly don't have the competency to make a good show of it.

Sure they forgot to change the date of the memo to yesterday when it was released. It was originally drafted in July and they left that date in, which might raise the question as to why it is being released now - is this a distraction from Manafort trial, Omarosa troubles, or any other shytestorms currently self inflicted on this Admin.

Leroy42

This highlights, yet again, the problem with Trump. As soon as his supporters and the WH give some explanation of his latest action, in this case the removal of the security clearance, it serves only to open up a myriad of other questions.

Why the sudden change in policy that has seemingly worked so well in the past?
Why this person in particular?
What grounds was he chosen? I have not seen any evidence that he gave away state secrets or put in jeopardy national security? So what is the reason?
Is this the new norm? Is Trump looking to change to policy for everyone going forward? Will include ex POTUS?
Why is his son-in-law, who along with Ivanka is breaking the nepotism law by working in the WH, allowed to continue to work in the WH without clearance?

There is no rational answer to the above, because this was done purely because Trump didn't like being criticised and this is his way of getting back control. There is no policy behind this, no grand ideology. Just a one off action by a man that needs to control everything.

Quin_Dub

This is the actual text of the statement from Trump about revoking Brennans access..


This section in particular is incredible for the sheer level of cognitive dissonance required.

Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations – wild outbursts on the internet and television

Seriously??

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the actual text of the statement from Trump about revoking Brennans access..


This section in particular is incredible for the sheer level of cognitive dissonance required.



Seriously??

Don knows that that is BS and enjoys getting headlines about it. He is a WUM with a massive ego and personality issues. What'll kill him will be the day that he's dumped from office and he's given the "Don who?" treatment afterwards by the world, not even a footnote in history. Being fired from office wouldn't bother him as he'd say it was the "swamp" got him, not his own behaviour.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Don knows that that is BS and enjoys getting headlines about it. He is a WUM with a massive ego and personality issues. What'll kill him will be the day that he's dumped from office and he's given the "Don who?" treatment afterwards by the world, not even a footnote in history. Being fired from office wouldn't bother him as he'd say it was the "swamp" got him, not his own behaviour.

I think that however he leaves office, we will not stop hearing from him. He will be all over fox news, (they will probably give him his own show!) and tweeting nonstop about how much better he is at presidenting than whoever replaces him.

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that however he leaves office, we will not stop hearing from him. He will be all over fox news, (they will probably give him his own show!) and tweeting nonstop about how much better he is at presidenting than whoever replaces him.

Thankfully we can "not watch" Fox and block his tweets when he is gone.

As POTUS, unfortunately, its not that easy

pixelburp

It has been a longstanding rumour that Trumps Presidential run was an attempt to build himself an even larger media presence; it's not like he wasn't already floating in the wings as chief agitator for the whole Birther conspiracy disgrace (still waiting on that bombshell reveal he had apparently come across!). He saw a hungry demographic that lapped up his shared insecure hatred for Obama and ran with it, the narcissist within him loving the attention.

He spent his business life making his very name a brand, and anything he could sell with 'Trump' slapped on the front he did. In the era of politics-as-celebrity this was the next logical step for anyone obsessed with legacy. The idea was probably to run a campaign, make some noise, and either lose in the Primaries or be runner-up in November and live off the notoriety as the 'robbed' candidate - presumably while Hillary (or Ted Cruz, snicker) resided in the White House and further angered red-staters. Even when he won he couldn't resist making himself the victim, those 3 million illegal votes Kris Kobach failed to invent.

Between the reported tears from Melania, and the utter absence of an actual Transition Plan, winning the election never seemed to be on the cards; and what candid photos of the man in the White House there are, shows an utterly miserable, deflated individual.

Leroy42

I agree with most of the premise but not the last part.

I think he is having a great time. If one is a narcisist, what better job that POTUS. Add to that he has a totally loyal support, totally accepting party, is shaping the tax laws to suit himself and his family, and is shaping the SCOTUS for a generation.

The only thing that is getting in the way is the pesky Mueller probe. But he has pretty successfully managed to get his supporters on his side. The pressure is coming from whether it will lead to anything, or better to say will it lead to anything that people will take notice off.

He has been able to ride over all the massive issues raised so far, issues such as Flynn, Comey, DeVos, Pruitt, the Carrier deal, the $12bn for farmers, the peetake over the budget etc etc. Aided and abetted by a GOP totally in thrall of him and the power he has for voters. So I'm betting that he feels pretty good that whatever happens he will be able to ride it out. His supporters has shown time and time again that they will accept anything, things they would never dream of accepting from anyone else, so why would that change now?

everlast75

I think he is only happy when onstage in front of his adoring crowds, or swanning around with his entourage.

I think at any other time, he is merely acting happy.

The pressure he is under is incredible. He knows what he has done. Think "Crime and Punishment". He cannot stop Mueller. He cannot stop the SDNY. He cannot stop Avenatti. He cannot stop Zervos. He cannot stop all of the emolument cases. He cannot stop Omarosa. All he can do is tweet about it being a witch hunt and hope November isn't as bad as they forecast.

I think any normal person would have cracked (even more so) than he has. His mental imbalances are the only thing that are barely keeping him afloat and anything at all could make him buckle completely

Water John

I believe there is a risk of him mentally crashing. Besides saying how will we know the difference, are there any check systems? By this I mean, heads of security etc, basically taking the critical decision process, out of his hands.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

I believe there is a risk of him mentally crashing. Besides saying how will we know the difference, are there any check systems? By this I mean, heads of security etc, basically taking the critical decision process, out of his hands.

I think the one big lesson in all of this is the famed equal powers and "checks and balances" is a myth. They are easily overcome.

There are powers that POTUS has that are too easily manipulated for themselves. SCOTUS (although this is not primarily a Trump issues) needs to be taken away from Congress.

POTUS should be forced to deal with all media outlets the same (so a call to Fox News must be followed by equal time on other netwroks, there would be a listing to create levels).

Tax returns should be made public by law when running for POTUS. Divestment in company should be made law. POTUS should not be able to gain directly by any payments when in office (so foreign delegations staying in Trump hotel, POTUS staying in Trump golf course etc).