President Donald J. Trump

[Yorkshire pud]

As you learned recently the PKK (and associated sub-groups) is a proscribed terrorist organization by your Home Office and by our State Dept, without this changing and considering that Turkey is a NATO member it makes it very problematic, maybe illegal, to arm those Kurdish groups. Until that changes things have to be handled very carefully. Actually, according to some of the draconian laws these days, your support of the PKK possibly could be actionable. 

But none of that was the reason the arrangement was pulled (since gone ahead with McMasters oversight). It was pulled because the Turkish dictator paid Flynn as their agent to work on behalf of Turkey's interests. He even penned an article for Turkey in 'The Hill'.  And still he was made the NSA by Trump, who knew all this.

I don't agree with full Turkish NATO membership(especially with this latest "crack down" and them sending invading hordes of "refugees" to Europe and threatening to send more) or the status of the PKK even and think the Kurds deserve their own country or at least a real autonomous district. But also don't like car bombs or attacks on civilians (by anyone, any side.)

I agree with that. But I'm inclined to believe the spooks and the military top brass (Trump knew more than the same Generals that remain after he took office- the best generals in decades......) took a calculated risk and knew if anyone could defeat ISIS with the incentive to do so, it was the Kurds.

[albrecht]

But none of that was the reason the arrangement was pulled (since gone ahead with McMasters oversight). It was pulled because the Turkish dictator paid Flynn as their agent to work on behalf of Turkey's interests. He even penned an article for Turkey in 'The Hill'.  And still he was made the NSA by Trump, who knew all this.

I agree with that. But I'm inclined to believe the spooks and the military top brass (Trump knew more than the same Generals that remain after he took office- the best generals in decades......) took a calculated risk and knew if anyone could defeat ISIS with the incentive to do so, it was the Kurds.

Yeah, questionable, especially because it would seem he supported, at least tacitly, the Gulen types (or at least the secular "deep state" in Turkey) and then became a Erdogan fan. The secular, military "deep state" in Turkey is the one deep state I would rather have than the radical Muslims or the weird Gulen cult guys though. I don't think necessarily illegal- Turkey is a NATO and supposed ally so why an American taking money or working for them is a problem, legally I mean? Apparently he registered as a foreign agent. Likewise he was interviewed by RT (formerly Russia Today) which is 'state supported' so is BBC, NPR, VOA, DW, etc, etc. So nobody can be interviewed or be paid as an expert there?

As Obama/McCain found (and as we all have over centuries) you have to be careful for support for "rebels," even at the time that seem to have a good cause,Like with Obama/McCain's ISIS and the Europe "refugee" situation that Kaddaffi/Quaddafi/etc predicted if he was taken out- sometimes destabilizing and playing off sides can cause a backlash. Then again there are also groups that benefit from destabilization in markets/regions and war- so that could be a goal in of itself. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah, questionable, especially because it would seem he supported, at least tacitly, the Gulen types (or at least the secular "deep state" in Turkey) and then became a Erdogan fan. The secular, military "deep state" in Turkey is the one deep state I would rather have than the radical Muslims or the weird Gulen cult guys though. I don't think necessarily illegal- Turkey is a NATO and supposed ally so why an American taking money or working for them is a problem? Apparently he registered as a foreign agent. Likewise he was interviewed by RT (formerly Russia Today) which is 'state supported' so is BBC, NPR, VOA, DW, etc, etc. So nobody can be interviewed or be paid as an expert there?

As Obama/McCain found (and as we all have over centuries) you have to be careful for support for "rebels," even at the time that seem to have a good cause,Like with Obama/McCain's ISIS and the Europe "refugee" situation that Kaddaffi/Quaddafi/etc predicted if he was taken out- sometimes destabilizing and playing off sides can cause a backlash. Then again there are also groups that benefit from destabilization in markets/regions and war- so that could be a goal in of itself. 

Well not really. He didn't declare it on his security application before being made NSA, and only retrospectively declared he was a Turkish agent after the Washington Post published his story. That was when he was fired. He'd had access to highly classified information for over two weeks after Yates told the WH counsel he was a blackmail threat with his Russian connections. Even now, Trump says he wishes he hadn't fired him. Why? Blind loyalty or he knows what Flynn has? After all Flynn's lawyer says he has a story to tell, and wants immunity; something he said implied guilt when anyone else requested it.

All this is another aspect to Trump firing Comey, no-one in the WH has the same story!

[albrecht]

Well not really. He didn't declare it on his security application before being made NSA, and only retrospectively declared he was a Turkish agent after the Washington Post published his story. That was when he was fired. He'd had access to highly classified information for over two weeks after Yates told the WH counsel he was a blackmail threat with his Russian connections. Even now, Trump says he wishes he hadn't fired him. Why? Blind loyalty or he knows what Flynn has? After all Flynn's lawyer says he has a story to tell, and wants immunity; something he said implied guilt when anyone else requested it.

All this is another aspect to Trump firing Comey, no-one in the WH has the same story!

Yes, a lot of enemies inside the gates and establishment. I'm not sure if any President faced so many before, though it has always been a problem throughout history. Flynn, if he is smart, should not answer any questions and get some kind of immunity (transactional would be best but at least testimonial/use immunity-what he says in the hearing cannot be used in court later) before saying anything. Everybody smart does that, if he is able. The administration should ignore or have a single mouth-piece or just issue press releases. I would even stop daily press conferences, maybe weekly and a daily press release. And limited tweets- not shooting from the hip- although some are admittedly funny.

Focus on policy and appointments and not constantly react towards the distractions and let the investigation(s) continue into Clinton, Huma/Weiner, Russia, Turkey, Flynn, etc. I think, if anything, they might be able to get a lot of these people on a 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is pretty easy. Would they? I don't know, the establishment "looks after their own" and a precedent of even more "gotcha" would carry over to the future. Sometimes it is better to let the political crooks wither away if they no longer are a player and rehashes of the past interferes with current goals or future elections. I could even see a Presidential Pardon, though controversial, as a way to try to end it though this would no doubt harm future elections and the "Party" wouldn't like.

[=Schlyder=]

that Trump impeachment should happen any day now...reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[PaulAtreides]

I have a lot of problems with the Saudis but still this was nice:
No Muslim garb for Melania. No bow or apologizing from Trump. I'm sick of winning.

What about that little curtsy Trump did?  I've never seen a man do that. 

[Spy]

The man on the left called the man on the right a "nut job."

[albrecht]

What about that little curtsy Trump did?  I've never seen a man do that.

Trump, a small bow at best, mainly so the short "royal" could place whatever "award" on him. Whereas Obama bowed so much to show supplication, apology, and maybe, in some case, even allegiance in a common faith?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hee0rDOTJ78
Ps: this is an example of a real curtsy; not the stuff the the Brit and European do to royalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlBSd5LEvZs

[Spy]

What about that little curtsy Trump did?  I've never seen a man do that.

I believe our curtsying president, the man in the swan chair, will be gone by Christmas. His own party will convince him to resign.

[albrecht]

I believe our curtsying president, the man in the swan chair, will be gone by Christmas. His own party will convince him to resign.

I don't know. Obviously many, if not most, in the Republican Party (at least at the national level) don't like Trump and would rather have Pence some of the "changes" in Trump's positions might make him more favorable to the establishment, in general,  and his Party, specifically, (the big arms deals, some of his appointees, backing off "the wall" or criticism of Islam/Saudis, and the apparent war platform.) I think it will be interesting to see how his energy policy matches his former rhetoric and how that plays out. I'm not sure why the Democrats, especially the progressive left, seem to want Pence as President because he is far more conservative on their precious "social issues" and it would likely be easier to get legislation through a Republican Congress with him in office because less "tweeting" and Hollywood-style antics.

[Dr. MD MD]

I believe our curtsying president, the man in the swan chair, will be gone by Christmas. His own party will convince him to resign.

Yes, I too am starting to pray for civil war. We need a serious thinning of your ranks. 

[Yorkshire pud]

that Trump impeachment should happen any day now...reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Why? How long for Bill Clinton?

[Spy]

Donald Trump blamed the Saudis for 9/11 and said the following to Hillary during the third debate: "These are people that kill women and treat women horribly and yet you take their money."

Now Donald is over there doing the sabre dance with them and taking their money.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't know. Obviously many, if not most, in the Republican Party (at least at the national level) don't like Trump and would rather have Pence some of the "changes" in Trump's positions might make him more favorable to the establishment, in general,  and his Party, specifically, (the big arms deals, some of his appointees, backing off "the wall" or criticism of Islam/Saudis, and the apparent war platform.) I think it will be interesting to see how his energy policy matches his former rhetoric and how that plays out. I'm not sure why the Democrats, especially the progressive left, seem to want Pence as President because he is far more conservative on their precious "social issues" and it would likely be easier to get legislation through a Republican Congress with him in office because less "tweeting" and Hollywood-style antics.

Just because they want Trump out, doesn't mean they want Pence in. And if the DEEP STATEâ,,¢ and such as me who are spreading propaganda to the masses of the USA (All 320 million, via Bellgab; praise MV) manage to pull this one off (we installed Merkel, Cameron, Turnbull, Trudeau, Mandella, Mugabe (not our finest hour)) we will rightly control the solar system again. We want Tom Hanks as POTUS (In his role as Chesley Sullenberger) , or at a pinch we'll go for Britney Spears.

[Dr. MD MD]

Now Donald is over there doing the sabre dance with them and taking their money.

So, were you complaining when Obama did that? 

[Yorkshire pud]

Donald Trump blamed the Saudis for 9/11 and said the following to Hillary during the third debate: "These are people that kill women and treat women horribly and yet you take their money."

Now Donald is over there doing the sabre dance with them and taking their money.

Yeah but no but yeah but no but, that was last year!!!!

[Yorkshire pud]

So, were you complaining when Obama did that? 

I for one did. As I do with British politicians. Yet Trump rightly (had to happen eventually) made a good point, now its all forgotten because, surprise surprise, money is involved and political expediency.

[Dr. MD MD]

I for one did. As I do with British politicians. Yet Trump rightly (had to happen eventually) made a good point, now its all forgotten because, surprise surprise, money is involved and political expediency.

I agree. This is bullshit and just more of the same. I'm also pretty sure that some of that 1.9 billion dollars worth of arms will wind up in the hands of jihadi terrorists. It seems like the deep state's getting just what they wanted.  :

[albrecht]

Just because they want Trump out, doesn't mean they want Pence in. And if the DEEP STATEâ,,¢ and such as me who are spreading propaganda to the masses of the USA (All 320 million, via Bellgab; praise MV) manage to pull this one off (we installed Merkel, Cameron, Turnbull, Trudeau, Mandella, Mugabe (not our finest hour)) we will rightly control the solar system again. We want Tom Hanks as POTUS (In his role as Chesley Sullenberger) , or at a pinch we'll go for Britney Spears.

What is funny is that the "deep state" stuff was originally more of a leftie term. I'm sure you don' t know (you didn't even know your PKK was a proscribed terrorist organization by your Home Office) but Canadian turned Berkley poetry professor-cum-antiwar activist Peter Dale Scott used to be the biggest champion of the theory. Using Turkey (where, at least until recently, the military and shadowy groups like the 'Gray Wolves" welded power in secret, was a text book example but there are others.) Oddly even just years ago it was the Left, and Democrats, who bitched about wars, intelligence agency abuses, civil rights violations, deep state, corporately owned media, etc and now they are the champions of the corporately owned media and intelligence agencies and seem to desire conflict with Russia even! And the "right," or at least "far-right" are complaining about it. It is a funny thing.

[albrecht]

I for one did. As I do with British politicians. Yet Trump rightly (had to happen eventually) made a good point, now its all forgotten because, surprise surprise, money is involved and political expediency.

A sword dance is nothing. What about swallowing sheep's eyeballs to get a deal? 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/05/dick-evans-bae-arms-deal
I also recall some royals getting involved in some kick-back schemes once?

[Spy]

So, were you complaining when Obama did that? 

Yes.

I agree. This is bullshit and just more of the same.

Right again.

[Dr. MD MD]

Yes.

Right again.

Yeah and I notice that everyone here is avoiding the fucking elephant in the room: WE JUST SOLD SA 1.9 BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF ARMS! Doesn't anyone have any thoughts about that? 

[Spy]

Yeah and I notice that everyone here is avoiding the fucking elephant in the room: WE JUST SOLD SA 1.9 BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF ARMS! Doesn't anyone have any thoughts about that? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU

[Yorkshire pud]

What is funny is that the "deep state" stuff was originally more of a leftie term. I'm sure you don' t know (you didn't even know your PKK was a proscribed terrorist organization by your Home Office) but Canadian turned Berkley poetry professor-cum-antiwar activist Peter Dale Scott used to be the biggest champion of the theory. Using Turkey (where, at least until recently, the military and shadowy groups like the 'Gray Wolves" welded power in secret, was a text book example but there are others.) Oddly even just years ago it was the Left, and Democrats, who bitched about wars, intelligence agency abuses, civil rights violations, deep state, corporately owned media, etc and now they are the champions of the corporately owned media and intelligence agencies and seem to desire conflict with Russia even! And the "right," or at least "far-right" are complaining about it. It is a funny thing.

No sane person wants conflict with Russia, and post felling of the Berlin wall it looked possible things had thawed. But Putin isn't a man of Glasnost. He's old school KGB Soviet Union, but with money. Lots of money. Russia has a GDP that is lower than Italy's yet has billionaires by the hundred. Putin is not a good person or someone to trust. Yet Trump thinks he's a great guy. Why?

[Yorkshire pud]

A sword dance is nothing. What about swallowing sheep's eyeballs to get a deal? 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/05/dick-evans-bae-arms-deal
I also recall some royals getting involved in some kick-back schemes once?

The BEA thing was a scandal. But Blair was complicit in making sure that it was stamped on and nothing and no-one was answerable, despite the press trying to uncover it. Some did but had the story spiked due to the machine of arms deals warning the press not to publish.

[albrecht]

No sane person wants conflict with Russia, and post felling of the Berlin wall it looked possible things had thawed. But Putin isn't a man of Glasnost. He's old school KGB Soviet Union, but with money. Lots of money. Russia has a GDP that is lower than Italy's yet has billionaires by the hundred. Putin is not a good person or someone to trust. Yet Trump thinks he's a great guy. Why?

I'm not sure if he thinks he is a "great guy." But, taking a helicopter view or Devil's Advocate or Machiavellian view it could be argued, in an amoral historical position, that Putin was one of the better leaders of this era. In terms of holding a vast, corrupt, and diverse country together coming from decades of Communism and facing threats on all sides, and internal. Much of it caused by our mismanagement and advantage taking post-Soviet collapse (throwing money at it, expanding NATO, re-playing the "great game," and then using things like innocuous laws about homosexuals to escalate tensions.) And managed, despite economic hardship, to even retain a higher approval ratings than most of our politicians (actually I think bad approval ratings are a good thing for a society.) But he got some of the Ukraine, got Crimea (which was really Russian anyway,) various disputed areas in the Ossetias/Georgia etc, expanded influence in the Arctic, still has his warm-water ports, still is able (to a degree) play games with Europe with gas supply, has a base (maybe) in Norway, dealt with (mainly) the Muslims in Chechnya, and now- supposedly- has his President, or at least- supposedly- exploited the weakness in the system(s) to not have elected a President.  And has formed better relations with China and Turkey (historically an enemy.) And hasn't lost territory but even expanded influence. While at the same time as a bad economy for most and managing to deal with the various mafiyas and biznessmen oligarch dynamics, foreign attacks/hacks, internal 'diversity' problems, and naked protesting chicks.

[WOTR]

Yeah and I notice that everyone here is avoiding the fucking elephant in the room: WE JUST SOLD SA 1.9 BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF ARMS! Doesn't anyone have any thoughts about that? 

I'm thrilled to hear that there will be more weapons in the middle east.  I hope we sold some nuclear technology as well. 

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm not sure if he thinks he is a "great guy." But, taking a helicopter view or Devil's Advocate or Machiavellian view it could be argued, in an amoral historical position, that Putin was one of the better leaders of this era. In terms of holding a vast, corrupt, and diverse country together coming from decades of Communism and facing threats on all sides, and internal. Much of it caused by our mismanagement and advantage taking post-Soviet collapse (throwing money at it, expanding NATO, re-playing the "great game," and then using things like innocuous laws about homosexuals to escalate tensions.) And managed, despite economic hardship, to even retain a higher approval ratings than most of our politicians (actually I think bad approval ratings are a good thing for a society.) But he got some of the Ukraine, got Crimea (which was really Russian anyway,) various disputed areas in the Ossetias/Georgia etc, expanded influence in the Arctic, still has his warm-water ports, still is able (to a degree) play games with Europe with gas supply, has a base (maybe) in Norway, dealt with (mainly) the Muslims in Chechnya, and now- supposedly- has his President, or at least- supposedly- exploited the weakness in the system(s) to not have elected a President.  And has formed better relations with China and Turkey (historically an enemy.) And hasn't lost territory but even expanded influence. While at the same time as a bad economy for most and managing to deal with the various mafiyas and biznessmen oligarch dynamics, foreign attacks/hacks, internal 'diversity' problems, and naked protesting chicks.

Putin is the corrupt one. Go from there and the rest of your alternative facts about modern day Russia fall apart somewhat.

[WOTR]

Oddly even just years ago it was the Left, and Democrats, who bitched about wars, intelligence agency abuses, civil rights violations, deep state, corporately owned media, etc and now they are the champions of the corporately owned media...

Very fair observation... And kind of sad.  All hail the NSA overlords.

[albrecht]

Putin is the corrupt one. Go from there and the rest of your alternative facts about modern day Russia fall apart somewhat.

Again with the name-calling. Sure. Putin is corrupt. As corrupt as other historical Russian or Soviet leaders? I don't know, could be argued? As corrupt as other leaders, current or historical, anywhere? Could be argued. But from a amoral, historical perspective what has he accomplished? Heck, by a Clinton or mainstream politician or royal perspective he would be admired for amassing such vast wealth from his position. I'm using the Left's arguments about ends justifying the means and "everything is relative," "if it feels good, do it." What has Putin done that is bad from this perspective: he has more influence than any European leader. Has expanded his country and influence, when at the same time most of Europe accepts losing it and even accepts being invaded by "refugees." And he has gotten crazy rich doing so. I'm not saying this is "good" but like when TIME gave Hitler "Man of the Year," and you lot wanted to appease him.  Nobody can say not influential or successful. Now, if he turns out to be like Hitler and Stalin etc blows the success by crazy wars, pogroms, genocides, etc then history will judge him differently. But, if stands, I think non-partisan historians will say he was a success considering the chaos he took over, the vast/diverse country, and the bad/corrupt economy.