Donald Trump’s shrug towards Putin
Take a look at this interview, in which Trump practically defines mindless moral relativism. No doubt Trump supporters can figure out a way to justify it; perhaps something like this: “Oh, Trump doesn’t want to offend Putin, because if he’s president some day he might have to work a deal with him.” Yeah, right. And speaking of cynicism, dealing with Putin requires making a moral equivalence between US and Russian killing?:
Scarborough pointed to Putin’s status as a notorious strongman.
“Well, I mean, it’s also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?” Scarborough asked.
“He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader,” Trump replied. “Unlike what we have in this country.”
“But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him,” Scarborough said.
The Republican presidential front-runner said there was “a lot of killing going on” around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.
“I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know,” Trump replied. “There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is. But you didn’t ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that’s fine.”
A whole lot of killing going on.
Which reminds me—to change the subject almost entirely—of this, of all things. Interestingly enough, they called this guy the Killer, back in the day. And he’s got quite a hair thing going on, too, although not exactly a Trumpian coif. This was pretty risque in 1957, with enough energy to light up a small city:
Lewis also had an “interesting” private life—so Byzantine that I can’t even summarize it without starting a whole new post (see this and this). Of Lewis’ piano playing, Elvis said that “if he could play the piano like Lewis, he would quit singing.”
Jerry Lee is still around. Maybe Trump could enlist him for the tour. He’s still got the semi-Trumpian hair (at 80 years of age), and there’s still some shakin’ goin’ on, although it’s a bit shaky, as is the voice (I’ve cued this video up to start at the beginning of the song):
One would think that even the densest Trump apologist would see the light eventually. Yes, I am aware that I am not playing nice; but, my frustration meter red- lined awhile back.
Really, all the Donald needs in a little bit of…. ah…. polish.
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/really_all_the_donald_nee.php
My take was Trump very adroitly flipped a typical MSM ‘gotcha!’ question right back at Scarborough.
We’re losing the country, folks. The optimum candidate is nowhere to be found. No one likes Trump’s financial braggadocio but we love his combative, take-it-to-the-streets offense. We NEED someone to stand up and put an end to this over-the-freakin-top political correctness before we lose an entire generation of mush-minded kids.
We NEED an opposition, even if he’s a party of one.
mike in ga:
Sure, Trump very “adroitly flipped a typical MSM ‘gotcha!’ question right back at Scarborough” by dissing the US and equating what we do with Putin killing journalists.
What a clever, clever man, who will put an end to the political correctness of being able to distinguish between one sort of killing and another, and who will equate what the US does with what Russia does.
In case you missed it, let me once again call attention to the sentence I’m referring to: ““I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe.”
On the Fox News Twitter feed an hour ago: Katrina Pierson: “What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?” #OReillyFactor
Pierson is the Trump campaign’s national spokeswoman. What a brain trust he has working for him. Not.
vanderleun:
That is absolutely hysterical.
Off topic, but the Jerry Lee Lewis video reminded me of a piece by Nick Tosches which is included in the excellent anthology “Roy Blount’s Book of Southern Humor.”
The following paragraph made a lasting impression.
“Writers have not had much success interviewing Jerry Lee. One night in Brooklyn in 1973, an editor of Country Music asked Jerry Lee a question. The interviewee responded by leaping across the table, breaking off the butt of his pint-bottle of Heaven Hill, and sticking the interviewer in the neck with it.”
I do not love his braggadocio, take-it-to- the streets offense. I do not love his simplistic solutions to complex problems. I do not want a President whose response to every critical question is a sand box level attack on the questioner.
The country deserves and needs better than that.
I know the Trumpista’s will roll their eyes, but I can name a few men–and at least one woman–with the kind of toughness, intellect, judgement, and, yes, the maturity we need. In recent memory there was Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush (the youngest Naval Aviator in WW2, speaking of a tough gentleman of the establishment), and G. W. Bush. Sadly, I think Romney would have fit the mold very well. Those types are still around. There are three or four who could meet the standard–including Carly.
Oh, I know they are all “establishment”, whatever that is supposed to mean. So, I guess Trump does his deals and socializes with anti-establishment types. Really? That mantra is so inane. I gnash my teeth when I hear folks like Limbaugh rail against the establishment. Who, do you play golf with Rush? Who travels on your private jet? Who comes to dinner in your huge mansion? It ain’t “Joe Bagga Donuts”. (The Navy has an earthier sobriquet for the type).
Anyone who runs for President is going to be part of the establishment. The only question is, “which one?”.
Huge character flaw by Trump re his admiration of Vlad.
A New York thing where a legit business person could say, “Yeah, I have a lot of respect for John Gotti.”
That will not play in Iowa. The right answer is Gotti is a criminal and belongs in jail.
“Our country does a lot of killing too.”
Right out of “The Godfather.”
Michael to Kay, “You don’t think politicians order people to their deaths?” (Paraphrased).
Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?
Putin is a virtual dictator, though, according to the head of one of the top foreign policy think tanks, somewhat vulnerable on the domestic front because the Ukraine adventure is not working out well, and his economy is suffering because of low oil and gas prices. But it is clear that Putin looks out for Russian interests and his power first and foremost. He is respected by his adversaries and his people.
By contrast. Obama has acted against US interests on almost every occasion when he has had a chance to do it. His threats are hollow; he has betrayed allies, such as Israel and Egypt, and tried to befriend enemies such as Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt that Obama is respected by our adversaries and our allies.
What Trump is doing is contrasting our weak leader with Russia’s strong leader.
That is laying the foundations for attacking Hillary as the second Obama.
Off-topic, but we met our favorite employee at the local grocery store. She hugs us and chats with us. She asked “What do you think of Trump?”. We said he’d be a good candidate. Her face lit up and she said “I’ve always voted Democrat but I’m going to vote for him!”.
PatD:
Of course he’s talking about strong leaders, and comparing Putin as strong leader to Obama as weak. That’s not the issue. The quote you offered is not the one I’m objecting to or referring to. I think I made it clear in the post what my focus and my objection is—Trump’s making a moral equivalence between the “killing” the US does and the “killing” Putin does by kllling a journalist.
I also re-explained in this comment.
@neo-neocon
Trump opposed the Iraq war and the slaughter that ensued. I think that’s the US killing he is referring too.
I don’t think he meant to make a moral equivalence. You can make that inference if you parse his words the way you want and ignore the broader context.
PatD:
Of course he made a moral equivalence. What Trump did there was to bring up US “killing” in response to a direct question about Putin killing journalists. The war in Iraq was not even remotely being discussed, and there was absolutely no reason to bring it up in that context. None.
Look at the actual dialogue. You are making excuses for Trump, who was doing what a leftist does in terms of moral equivalence.
And by the way, I have written in the past about what Trump said about the Iraq War. He did not merely object to it or oppose it. He demonized President Bush in lefty terms. Here, this will refresh your memory:
If “Bush is evil” isn’t enough, there’s this from Trump:
So, we have Trump mouthing all the standard leftist memes on George W. Bush and the Iraq War: he’s evil, he should be impeached, he lied about WMDs. Then there’s this from 2007:
Yes, very consistent.
Trump knows real estate and business deals. He has a basic philosophy and advanced knowledge of those fields. He does not have a basic political philosophy. He is like a lot of people in this country. He hears an idea or sees something that sounds good to him. He will grab onto it. Or he will observe that some policies aren’t working. He will be against those. He has accepted the liberal narrative that OIF was a bad idea. He has not, I don’t think, ever sat down and thought hard about what should be done about Islamic terrorism. He knows it’s a problem, and in his mind, no one has been “tough” enough. He thinks he knows how to be tough. He also thinks he can sit down with the Joint Chiefs and develop a successful operation to solve the problem. He works with engineers, architects, contractors, lawyers, and politicians to develop big real estate projects. I think he believes that skill can carry over to government and diplomatic problems. That’s why he doesn’t provide many details – he believes the details will be worked out with all the other experts when the time comes. And he wants to keep his options open.
He has never had to watch what he said too carefully in the past. His utterances were often newsworthy, but had no effect on the success and security of the nation. He’s trying to step onto a bigger platform where every word, every nuance, is studied for intent. That’s why most politicians talk the way they do – mostly politically correct and in oh so proper words and phrases. Trump often sounds to me like a journeyman electrician or plumber – not smooth and well modulated. More in your face and very pushy. He is not a politician, he’s a rough-around-the-edges citizen candidate. I’ve heard him compared to Andrew Jackson, another rough, plain-spoken, pushy citizen candidate who mortified most establishment types of the day.
The fact that he has no settled political leaning, or basic foundation is disturbing. He would be very unpredictable. We do know he would work hard at the job. He is a very hard worker. We do know he is ultra competitive – he wants to WIN. He might do some very good things, (cut the corruption, build the military, unleash our economic engine) but also some very bad things (keep our allies and enemies guessing as to his intentions, unknowingly insult heads of state, get into head butting contests with Congress).
All that said, he would make a far, far better President than HRC. Heck, I would be a better President than HRC.
Thank you J.J. for confirming that Trump is a loose cannon.
Looks my response disappeared into the bit-bucket in the cloud.
It is too late,
To recreate,
Better to sleep,
Than wail and weep.
I was listening to Morning Joe when I first heard about that revolting exchange of mutual admiration between Trump and Putin.
Then to have Trump tell Scarborough that “our country does a lot of killing too,” well, once I picked my jaw up off the floor my first thought was that he sounded EXACTLY like a lefty Democrat.
Good grief, this is a nightmare. If, after 8 years of Obama, I am forced to choose between the Donald and Hillary at the polls, I don’t think I’ll be able to do it. I have never sat out an election and have always felt obligated to hold my nose and choose the lesser evil. Still…
Well, I, for one, have more respect for Putin than I do for Obama. At least Putin seems to be acting in what he perceives to be in the best interests of his country.
I never thought I’d say anything like that about an American President, but there you go.
As for killing journalists, I………….. have no comment.
CV: You could always write in Cthulhu.
“Cthulhu 2016: Why choose the lesser evil?”
neo, that vid you put up in your response to PatD – I didn’t play it, but I notice that the starting display frame is of His Majesty with that placard “Office of the President-Elect”. Did he really have that as a going thing in 2008-9? I don’t remember that, but it would certainly have been in character.
Reflecting a bit about Trump, I still don’t favor him, but if it had to be a choice between him and HRC, I guess I could live with this guy for a few years – perhaps. I’d try to view it as a transitional phase which would hopefully give the Republic some time to get her feet back under her. On the other hand, I worry that he could turn out to be another Sulla or Caesar.
The more we swing back and forth between extremes at the leadership level, the more likely it is that fairly soon, the whole edifice will fall over. But as you say, Trump is unpredictable.
If Trump gets a voice coach, he’s golden.
Want to know why Trump is doing so well in the polls? This is why.
Philip Says:
December 19th, 2015 at 9:15 am
Yes, he most certainly did. I remember it very clearly.
Some people suggested that we should dispense with the whole “inauguration on January 20” thing and let Obama take over right away.
I also remember Valerie Jarrett saying, “He’ll be ready to rule from Day 1” and catching flack from people who pointed out that the President is an executive, not a “ruler”.
Turns out she meant exactly what she said.
I’m absolutely trumped out. Right now, I prefer reading about what individuals and volunterr groups and organizations in my home town are doing for others this Christmas. This is the bottom up country I love.
Hot Air has a video of a Ben Sasse speech you should all watch about the legislature giving up its power. It’s so much easier to vote on a 5-page bill than deal with the thousands of regulations it enables.
OMT, Jim Hoft is now giving space to groups rising up against Ryan. No matter what you think about the omnibus, Ryan seems more interested in changing the way the House does business. I think it is worth giving him more than 2 months before looking fo a new Christine O’Donnell. He at least seems to want to talk with legislators and pass overseeable laws. Two months is not much time to overcome Obama and prevvent a Christmas shutdown.
It is so much easier to protest and raise hell than to solve problems.
The teenage Bob Dylan was a big fan of Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard.
While he played guitar for most of his career, nowadays he mostly plays piano and organ in his concerts, or just stands at the microphone and sings, like Frank Sinatra. He hardly ever plays guitar any more. In his book a few years ago, he mentioned a hand injury. I suspect he might also be suffering from arthritis or some other ailment that makes it difficult or painful to play a guitar.
Here’s a recent example of him on organ. Pay particular attention to the last couple of minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpcKmhgwYvk
rickl, thanks (or maybe I should say “thanks”, as the memory brings me no joy) for confirming that. I was directly affected by his coronation tour in 2009 in the sense that it caused me some personal inconvenience and extra expense, and I well remember the general tenor of the personality cult that he had going at the time.
Well, in order not to hijack the thread too much, let me close the loop and put this question: is it possible that Trump could, if he were to become the official GOP candidate – or even more so, if he were to fail to do so and as a consequence run third-party instead – have some kind of similar personality cult coalesce around him? I don’t know. It seems unlikely, but given my wonderings above about whether we’re seeing the history of the late Roman Republic being recapitulated, could it completely be ruled out?
Maybe in Trump’s case, it could take the form of a sort of leadership fetish, for lack of a better phrase. Kind of like “he made the trains run on time” without any specific ideological baggage.
I think that Trump’s political philosophy is that he is an openly pro-American partisan and that the rest is details. I fear that a President Trump would get a whole lot of things wrong, but I don’t think that he would ever even be tempted to put the interests and well-being of other nations above the interests and well-being of the United States. Furthermore, I don’t see that in any other candidate, which is a sad thing to have to say about the rest of the field. The siren song of politics these days is internationalism. Barack Obama clearly sees his role as balancing the interests of the United States against the interests of the rest of the world, and for the most part the other candidates on both sides seem to follow this philosophy to one degree or another. Some more, some less. Putin openly advances the interests of Russia, period. My read on Trump is that he would similarly openly and vigorously advance the interests of America. Mutual self-interest is a good foundation for diplomatic relations. Nationalism is not a bad word.
Now with regards to what just happened, I think that Putin just basically said that he thinks that Trump is going to be the next President and that he wants to be on good terms with him. Putin just offered Trump a reset button of sorts, which is, well, interesting. Even a little astonishing. Putin made a personal overture — gave a personal complement. Trump acknowledged the overture and returned the personal complement, which is what everyone’s upset about today. Trump’s response seems less important to me than the fact that that exchange actually just happened.
Yes, given Putin’s record, especially his human rights record, Trump’s response is galling. The alternative would have been for Trump to respond with the back of his hand. To criticize and attack Putin for all the things he so richly deserves to be criticized and attacked for.
The other candidates certainly did that. In the last debate, when asked about Putin, Kasich said that he wanted to punch Russia in the nose, Fiorina wanted to threaten Putin with a military buildup along Russia’s borders, and Christie was ready and seemed actually eager to start shooting down planes.
How did they look? Did those candidates look like they were operating from a position of strength? Or did they look like they were in a state of near panic? Who is better positioned to open diplomatic relations with Russia? The guy who just exchanged mutual personal regards with Putin, or the guys who just threatened him with war if elected?
And looking at the article, I see this exchange:
Trump said a lot of mush. Deliberately, I think, but his clearest and least ambiguous statement is exactly correct.
And yes there are good reasons to open diplomatic relations with Russia. I think that there’s a mutual self-interest between Russia and the United States in stabilizing the middle-east and destroying ISIS. Trump seems ready to pull the trigger and actually do it, and Putin seems tired of bleeding out his troops in a war that Obama basically started with his fecklessness and incompetence. If Trump is successful in opening diplomatic relations with Russia, all those other things we don’t like about the Putin regime can be brought to the table. But that can’t happen if the next President continues the failed Obama Russian foreign policy, strategy. If we even have one.
In short, Trump’s strength is supposed to be his negotiating skills and toughness and I’m inclined to let him lay the groundwork for his diplomatic relationship with Putin on his own terms. If Trump’s approach is detrimental to the overall interests of the United States, that will become apparent in short order, but that’s not how I read it at this point.
An expert negotiator would be good for our foreign policy at this point. It would be a damn sight better than the “we can all get along if we just understand one another” Ivy League faculty lounge idiocy we have now.
Ironically, there will be less loss of human life with Putin’s anti-terrorist policies than with Obama’s anti-native policies, and whereas the former will prevent a global humanitarian crisis, the latter succeeds in sustaining a transcontinental “refugee crisis”.
Anyway, this is not about Putin, or Trump, really; but about Obama and the progressive disaster of social justice activism throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The policies enacted under the quasi-religious pro-choice doctrine have been a failure for human and civil rights in America and globally.
Iowa’s Women Could Be Donald Trump’s Undoing
Fingers crossed.
It is so very easy to pile onto the anti-Trump bandwagon. And very hard to even find the pro-Trump wagon, though it is out there.
Piling onto Trump resembles the anti-ISIS fervor. Everybody is on board. Mention of Iran, the Great Evil, has almost disappeared. Now we have anti-Trump chatter, and Obama’s acts? Yawn.
I am not referring to Neo’s blog, but to the bigger voices out there.
So, OK, what should Trump’s response have been?
Why have we not heard from the White House, where foreign policy dwells, about Putin’s comment?
Just out from the Kasich campaign:
Ann Says:
December 19th, 2015 at 1:45 pm
That’s cute. We’re supposed to take Kasich seriously why?
In response to Putin’s praise, all Trump had to say is, “strength recognizes strength when it sees it. The difference between us is in our respect for the concept of “consent of the governed”.
Trump is easily intelligent enough to formulate such a reply. He didn’t because his egotism rules him and egotism springs from insecurity deeply buried.
Geoffrey Britain:
Now, THAT is a good response.
But one of which Trump is incapable, because he doesn’t think that way.
Frog:
For the answer to your question of what Trump’s response should have been, I hope you took a look at Geoffrey Britain’s answer.
However, I believe you could/should have realized yourself what Trump’s answer should have been. Anything that acknowledged the lack of strength and leadership here but did not feel the need to bash America with moral equivalence. In answer to Scarborough’s specific question about Putin killing journalists, Trump didn’t need to say anything about US killing at all, and he had a number of choices for a response instead. Just as one example, he could have just said that, despite Obama’s lack of strength, we still in this country have freedom of the press.
But Trump’s knee-jerk response was to answer in the same way a leftist Chomskyite would have. That should give you pause, but I doubt it does.
neo do you honestly think that OBomba has not killed to maintain the presidency?
Like Bill Clinton — it’s dangerous to be around Barry.
Absolutely I think Barry is as amoral as Putin.
Given half-a-chance either one would engage in genetic macro manipulation.
Genocide for one, ethnic cleansing for another, the Curley effect for another.
Barry can’t achieve the infamy of Adolf. Instead, he’s working to the SAME script — S L O W M O T I ON style.
Flip over to Geller’s site for the astounding creep of the barbarians.
STOP thinking at surface logic.
Follow Scott Adams — and think in terms of irrational effects.
Sevenwheel:
If you don’t see some of the other candidates putting the interests of the US first, then you’re simply not looking.
And Trump’s condemning Putin—when Scarborough practically forces him to—does not impress me. Prior to that, he gratuitously bashed the US and equated its “killing” with Putin’s. He didn’t have to do it, but he did it.
Philip:
I not only think Trump could have such a cult coalesce around him, I think he already has.
CV:
You are expressing what I feel, pretty much. I have said on this blog I don’t even want to contemplate facing that choice.
I like Geoffrey Britain’s response, too.
Not a Trump apologist/supporter, however, as the post prior to this one laments: Americans have become so cynical that not even the unnecessary deaths caused by Obama (Benghazi, F&F, Iraq/Afghanistan ROE, etc.) make a political difference. So why would Joe Scarborough or anyone else be shocked when Trump shrugs off Putin killing journalists? After all, what difference does it make, right?
I also find Scarborough’s outrage over Putin killing journalists interesting when our current president has managed to spearhead a drone assassination program for years, with no oversight, in which he has bragged about personally selecting the targets. We don’t know how many he’s killed, but we know that there is a lot of collateral damage (some strikes are spaced apart to kill first responders) and that he’s killed American citizens (bad ones like Alawaki, but imagine if Bush had done it). Not being morally equivalent – a leader who kills his political enemies is never admirable – but I’m just so very tired of the double standards.
I’m so ticked at the GOPe …that I’m kind of operating at the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” level this time ’round.
Which makes Trump less the loose cannon and more the “effectively aimed” artillery piece …so I continue to
tolerateencourage him (and his active supporters) simply for the superb job he’s doing of grinding the establishment candidates to dust.When it comes to Trump, and my near visceral level hatred of the GOPe at this point (I’m looking at you, Paul Ryan and House Republicans with your POS omnibus bill and utter contempt and disdain for the people that elected them), I’m reminded of an old Robert E. Howard/Conan quote, where in answer to the question “what is best in life”, Conan answers …
Back at yez’, elites.
‘Ware Trump the Barbarian …Trump the Destroyer.
Crush them. Grind them. Turn ’em into mutton.
Cruz 2016.
…but I’ll vote, and happily/willingly, for Trump if it comes to that. ‘Cuz I’m a good little dependable base voter. I vote the ticket.
How’s that gonna work out for ya’ this year, GOPe?
Heh.
I still have a problem with Cruz’s Harvard and Goldman Sachs connections. Neither of those institutions should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Their track record is indictment enough.
Having said that, I think Trump/Cruz is the best we can get at this point. I can’t think of any other Republican candidate who is even remotely tolerable. If it’s anyone other than Trump or Cruz, I’m voting Libertarian, even if their candidate is a crazy cat lady.
And, oh, by the way, what makes anybody think this election will be on the up-and-up? We have some 30 million illegals, and it’s racist to ask for ID when voting.
Neo:
G.B. posted a good response to my comment. A very good one.
You, on the other hand, overlook most of my comment in your haste to badmouth me as akin to “a Chomskyite leftist”.
Frog:
It is you who did not read my comment carefully. I did NOT brand YOU as akin to a Chomskyite leftist. I branded Trump’s comment as such: “But Trump’s knee-jerk response was to answer in the same way a leftist Chomskyite would have. That should give you pause, but I doubt it does.”
I don’t think it fails to give you pause because YOU are a Chomskyite leftist. I think it fails to give you pause because you, like most Trump supporters, seem undeterred and unfazed by anything he does or says.
Neo-
I believe I have posted anti-Trump comments here, and elsewhere.
Sorry for my haste; but “you” (meaning moi) next to “Chomskyite leftist” kinda shook my tree.
Frog:
Well, you may be many things, but “Chomskyite leftist” is not one of them 🙂 .
I haven’t noticed anti-Trump comments from you. That doesn’t mean you haven’t made them; I can’t always keep all the comments straight over time, and it’s certainly possible I missed some.
Lizzy Says:
December 19th, 2015 at 2:47 pmI also find Scarborough’s outrage over Putin killing journalists interesting when our current president has managed to spearhead a drone assassination program for years, with no oversight
Visualization:
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Critics of Trump bring up positions he espoused before he entered politics on the other side. They forget that large businesses are forced to contribute to politicians if they want access and favors. When a business person calls a member of a house or senate committee to discuss legislation that might impact their business, the first thing that member does is check how much the business contributed to the member’s campaign. In “Extortion”, Peter Schweizer writes:
Trump knows that this is how the system works. He’s paid his dues to Democrats and Republicans.
Trump is head-quartered in deep blue NYC. So, he wasn’t going to say things that would offend Democrat politicians. He also contributed to both parties. He even held a $1 million fund raiser for Jeb.
Now he is a candidate, instead of a big-money contributor, he can speak his mind. That’s already caused something of a backlash against some of his business interests.
As to the moral equivalence claim, I find it dubious because, when Scarborough tried to validate it, Trump responded correctly. Here’s the video.
Trump appears to be saying that there is a war going on, we’re involved in it, and killing people, and it is all the result of stupidity. When asked to condemn the murder of journalists, Trump did.
Unlike Obama, who always uses a teleprompter, or politicians who rely on talking points and memorized responses, Trump responds off the cuff. He is sometimes inartful, but he is getting his message out. In this case, Obama is weak and stupid, which has led to mass killing. Putin, on the other hand, is a strong leader for Russia.
PatD [in response to your 5:04 PM remarks]:
So Trump’s been a whore for money? Nice.
And please. It’s one thing to pander to Democrats and not offend them. But Trump’s comments went way way beyond the call of duty, and cannot possibly be described that way. Bush is evil, he should be impeached, he lied about WMDs, he is the worst president ever. That’s what Trump said. None of that was needed to placate his Democrat masters, and yet he gratuitously offered those remarks.
That’s your fearless leader for you.
PatD [in response to your 5:05 PM remarks]:
Do you ever get tired of the fancy tap-dancing you have to do to justify what so often comes out of Trump’s mouth?
As I said earlier, there was no reason whatsoever for Trump to bring up American killing as a response to Putin’s killing of journalists. None. But he gratuitously brought it up as some sort of tit for tat equivalence. He had every opportunity to condemn Putin’s killing journalists. But he went on for some time without ever doing so, and instead offered the moral equivalence stuff.
Then Scarborough basically forced his hand and asked a direct question. Then and only then Trump said oh yeah, I condemn it. It was not his instinct to do so, and his kneejerk reaction was to offer the moral equivalence blame-America argument in response.
Now, you can say you don’t care. You can say it doesn’t matter to you. But that’s the way it occurred.
It occurs to me that Scarborough was upset about the killing of journalists, not of Putin’s killing of people in general. Journalists’ lives are particularly precious to other journalists. Scarborough sure kept yammering about dead journalists.
Trump may be seen in this take as shifting to “a death is a death”, whether or not the dead is a journalist. Thus, “there’s a whole lot of killing going on.”
Just a thought, Neo! An anti-Scarborough thought, not a pro-Trump thought.
@neo-neocon
There is a long history of animosity and also support between the Bush clan and Trump. Did you know that Trump hosted a $1 million fund raiser for Jeb Bush’s run for governor in Trump tower?
@neo-neocon: Did you see my post that explained why I can’t support Cruz?
I see Scarborough and Trump at cross-purposes. Scarborough wants to hit Trump on Putin killing journalists. Trump wants to hit Obama for being stupid and weak, in contrast to Putin.
You seem to see it as Trump thinks Putin is a strong guy because he has killed journalists who disagree with him.
I don’t have to tap-dance around what Trump says. If you want to see tap-dancing, watch Ted Cruz on illegal immigration. Trump has been absolutely consistent in his stand on illegal immigration. Cruz has not.
@neo-neocon:
You said:
Trump is in the same position as any large business in America. They are forced to contribute to both parties. If they are all whores, then the pimps are in congress, and the country is screwed.
PatD:
“You seem to see it as Trump thinks Putin is a strong guy because he has killed journalists who disagree with him.”
No. You’re not getting it at all. What Neo (and myself) object to is Trump’s lack of moral judgement, which for me, also rubs off on people who attempt to explain it away as nothing.
Oh, BTW; for the rest of America, Putin endorsing Trump is the kiss of death, yet Trump acts like this is a compliment. Putin would rather face Hillary, the moral weakling he can predict rather than Donald, the moral weakling he cant.
I will refrain from disparging trumpsters, but your main defense of the donald is that he has been a crony capatilist (which ain’t a capitalist, just another one who kow tows to corruption) in order to pursue his business agenda.. And now, you want him in the Oval Office because he will suddenly shed his skin and become as pure as the driven snow ‘conservative’? The clintons are, beneath the populist skin, also crony capitalists. Is it heads you win tails we all lose?
Every Trump thought is routed through his ego. Everything is about him. “Putin likes me, anyone who likes me is good, therefore he is a good guy, therefore I say good things about Putin”
Same think about Iraq. Trump neither knows or cares about the intelligence, the strategic situation, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or anything else relevant. All he know is that he opposed the Iraq war. Since he is good, and he opposed it, therefore anyone who was in favor of it must be bad — simple as that.
There was an interesting op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, by Holman Jenkins, I think. He said that when Trump has to start spending serious money (what he’s spent so far, he took out of petty cash), he will drop out. I hope that’s so.
I also think the Repops can keep most of Trump’s adoring fans by explicitly announcing a Cabinet post as soon as he does drop out. As much as I don’t trust Trump’s thought, I do trust his actions. Put him in charge of border security, there WILL be border security. Put him in charge of negotiating with Iran, the Iranians WILL walk out of the conference room in their underwear and think they got a great deal.
There are lots of jobs like that he could be given that would keep him in the spotlight, — which I think is what he really wants — but away from having any real decision-making power.
Trump’s biggest political burden is dragging Trump Classic along behind him where ever he goes.
I can actually see him winning the nomination and winning the election.
But, the odds are anything but favorable.
The strongest ticket — apparently — is Ted Cruz + balance.
&&&
I’m reading ( Scott Adams ) that Trump’s position on Muslim immigration has caused his star to rise with Latino voters.
As for the Black voters — Barry’s wide open door has meant widespread financial pain.
These are NOT the intellectual stars that you’ll run into on campus, in the blogs, … but there are so many of them.
For them, their vote devolves down to one primary issue.
And, with his plain speaking, Donald connects with them.
Such voters are NOT going to be represented in caucus states.
They even skip primaries.
I would expect them to be severely undercounted in any phone survey// opinion poll.
Here’s an even more recent version with Bob on piano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW_eKtBQ0HY
This is outrageously good. Like fine wine, he just keeps getting better with age. And that band of his is a force of nature.
I don’t think this means what you think it means.
My Tea Party friends have been saying the same sorta of things during 2014, at least (well before Trump). And meaning the same sorts of things – all without being “moral relativists.”
Effective political leadership does not necessarily require a priest, minister, or rabbi because government is only about things we choose to do together – or as the Founders said, the limited things we must do together.
Orson:
Your Tea Party friends have been saying that Putin killing journalists is similar to the killing the US does?
Boy, you must know different Tea Party people than I do.
I struggled how to describe to Americans what Putin’s Russia actually is, until I read excellent essay by Richard Fernandes “A City Hall on Hill”. Resemblance of this American story with my daily experience was astonishing. Yes, Putin’s Russia is Tammany Hall political machine writ large. With some dose of Al Capone added.
I hadn’t heard the video, but the way Trump responded to that question made me wonder if he isn’t talking about something entirely different.
Scarborough says, slowly and deliberately:
“But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him”
Trump completely pauses, then replies, slowly and carefully:
“Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing also, Joe.”
The way he said it made me think of one thing:
Andrew Breitbart.
and now I’m wondering if that wasn’t Donald Trump firing a shot across someone’s bow.
Interpreted that way, everything he says after that makes complete sense. I hear tremendous sadness in Trump’s voice.
“There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world, Joe. A lot of killing, a lot of stupidity, and that’s the way it is.”
“You didn’t ask me the question” [about America killing journalists.]
“You asked me a different question” [about Putin killing journalists.]
“That’s fine.”
Joe: “I’m confused. So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?”
Trump: “Oh sure, absolutely”
Sevenwheel Says:
December 20th, 2015 at 3:24 pm
I hadn’t heard the video, but the way Trump responded to that question made me wonder if he isn’t talking about something entirely different.
Scarborough says, slowly and deliberately:
“But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him”
Trump completely pauses, then replies, slowly and carefully:
“Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing also, Joe.”
The way he said it made me think of one thing:
Andrew Breitbart.
and now I’m wondering if that wasn’t Donald Trump firing a shot across someone’s bow.
&&&
And he’s not the only ‘missing voice.’ Everyone that seems to have real dirt on Barry — meets his maker.
Barry runs around giving the Islamist gang sign –something that ONLY a Muslim would do — it’s not even seen in other circles — crickets from the MSM.
As a Muslim, Barry would not have the slightest reluctance to take out any kafir soul — as he is on jihad.
Brennan is in the same situation.
%%%%%%
I’d say that’s where Donald is coming from.
As for caffinated joe …
The question was not a question — at all.
It was a launching rail to go after his (Trump’l Realpolitik with Putin … and he was carrying HRC’s water.
Donald refused to accept Joe’s FRAME.
So he re–framed the conversation towards capricious killing — of which this government — Barry in particular — takes a ‘hands on approach — almost like “Sam Stone.”
( Ruthless People )
%%%
Trump is playing three-dimensional emotional jiu jitzu.
The anger I see posted WRT Trump — is over the top.
It’s stronger than the bile properly due Barry and Hillary.
As for the facts: obviously Barry and Hillary have caused a full blown international civil war to erupt in the MENA.
The deaths of countless thousands ought not to be conflated with targeted assassinations of finks and scribes.
When it comes to that, Barry is NO SLACKER…
Donald is in no position to expound on the finer points of Barry’s despotism to a half-wit like Joe.
Settling for a re-frame was the only appropriate response.
The anger I see posted WRT Trump – is over the top.
It’s stronger than the bile properly due Barry and Hillary.</I.
THIS THIS THIS.
Well?
rickl:
What does WRT mean?
WRT = With Regard To
WRT = with regard to
Richard Saunders:
“Trump neither knows or cares about the intelligence, the strategic situation, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or anything else relevant.”
Most importantly the controlling law, policy, and precedents of the operative enforcement framework for the Gulf War ceasefire, and determinative fact findings that triggered enforcement with OIF in Saddam’s “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441).