President Trump

[DoctorGamgee]

Z,

While I agree with much that you say, Trump's welcome to D.C. is a lot of what greeted Obama. (Our Job is to make him a 1 term president, Birthers, etc.). Though I will give you that B.O. had the assistance of much of the press.

And while I was not a fan of his policies, Obama was not the Spinning Twitter Queen we currently have. He complains about the hole...but he keeps digging.

For what it is worth.

Doc

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hashi, why are polls relevant when they don't support removing Trump from office, and then become irrelevant when they do? I am confused.

Polls are never relevant and are almost always wrong. Remember: virtually every poll, including ones taken the day before Election Day in 2016, had Hillary winning big.

The Republicans were correct to storm Schiff's secret Star Chamber hearings. The citizens are not invited. Members of Congress who are not on the committee are not invited--apparently not all Members of Congress are equal. The press is not invited...and yet, strangely, they somehow receive leaks of what goes on in there from time to time, which means that Schiff's committee is leaking to the press, which gives them the ability to control the narrative, which is the real goal of all this, not impeachment. The person being interviewed today was from the Defense Department and yet Republican members of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees cannot attend? Bullshit.

[Skyweir]

True .. polls are of little value, but wasnt it Z that led the charge that the polls show only minuscule support for impeachment and less for removal?

Twas the only reason that was countered.

Wow Z Im beyond impressed, you have an exceptional memory. And yes I was indeed reticent about RealClear as their established known bias was indeed pro right and pro Trump. So naturally I found your many moons ago reporting questionable.

Hence to see the same bias demonstrating a swing in the polls against Trump rather more compelling.

But I agree with Hashi that polls are of limited value in the grand scheme of things.

The point surely is that support for Trump impeachment and removal is a lot greater than you suppose.

Or perhaps more accurately, Trump is losing ground even with Republicans.

Sure they wont maybe ... vote against him for fear of advantaging Warren or whoever else is at the top of the Dems pack now ... that he has effectively removed Biden. But if it werent fight or die ... theyd dump him like a hot spud. I think the party is starting to see that Trump is a liability... as evidenced by his own words, actions and overspent Twitter usage.

[Gaius Octavius]

The GOP dumping Trump would be political suicide. End of story. Also, before Trump was elected president, the GOP was at a similar position as the Democrats are at currently. They were a weakened party that could only put up token opposition against Obama.

In a way, Trump saved the GOP and brought a lot of voters into the Republican fold.

[Skyweir]

Hahaha

I agree to a point ... I think there is that fear at the heart of where the GOP positions itself ... for that very reason. It could indeed be political suicide. Its doubtful the GOP will commit political suicide but they are becoming more wary of Trump I think. Some have even come forward to distance themselves from Trump. And THAT is a very bad sign imv.

And I think the writing is on the wall for Trump. It is becoming more difficult to support this POTUS given his MO.

[Gaius Octavius]

I still think he will pull through two terms. He's been pretty resilient thus far, and his behavior hasn't really been different. The Democrats wanted him gone from office since day 0.

You'll see people like Mitch McConnell complain about the withdrawal from Syria, but it likely won't go beyond that. People like Rush Limbaugh are anti-Trump/Never Trumper GOP, but that guy hasn't been relevant the past five years or so. Mitt Romney, too, but he is a has-been and people don't care about him as much.

Ted Cruz learned very quickly to suck from Trump's warm teat and reap the benefits.

[Skyweir]

Any clearances held by those Representatives may well be revoked. Unauthorized entry to a SCIF, much less carrying prohibited electronics into one, is a pretty serious violation. Not particularly well thought out.

Some of the House Republicans who barged into the secure room where testimony is heard took video and tweeted from inside. No electronic devices are allowed into a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility).

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.was ... utType=amp

[Gaius Octavius]

The NSA already has 1020p HD video and audio of the entire thing already.

The NSA knows everything. You could pray to them at night before going to sleep.

[Skyweir]

and your point?

Every one of those Republican senators should KNOW what they did was a flagrant security breach. Everyone should face censure at the very least and should forfeit their security clearances.

If YOU had done anything remotely like that ... your job would be on the line.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Every one of those Republican senators should KNOW what they did was a flagrant security breach. Everyone should face censure at the very least and should forfeit their security clearances.

Their potential security breaches are insignificant when compared to the secret impeachment hearings which are closed to the public and the media, except for the carefully-crafted leaks which Schiff's committee is releasing. As I have said, everyone in the Administration should ignore any subpoenas issued by the committee and the House should impeach Trump now, if it thinks it can.

[wayfriend]

except for the carefully-crafted leaks which Schiff's committee is releasing.

The Republicans are equally as free to "leak" information as the Democrats. That they have nothing to leak that looks good for them is not anyone's fault but theirs.

"The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats," Trump tweeted Thursday. "Watch out for them, they are human scum!" [link]

Our esteemed President.

Trump apparently wants to pull the U.S. from the Open Skies Treaty, and nobody knows why

On Monday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) released a letter to National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien expressing his deep concern about "reports that the Trump administration is withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty" and urging the administration to abandon "such a reckless action." [link]

Wha?!?!

(Opinion) Trump is about to give Putin another gift

Another critical legacy of the post-Cold War era may be on the verge of biting the dust now that President Donald Trump's administration is planning to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies, which allows member states to conduct unarmed surveillance over one another's territories and helps verify arms control agreements.

[...] An American withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty would give Putin more leeway to make forays into areas like eastern Ukraine, where he'd love to keep his actions concealed from western scrutiny. As Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote in a letter to National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien, "Withdrawal risks dividing the transatlantic alliance and would further undermine America's reliability as a stable and predictable partner when it comes to European security."

By withdrawing from the Open Skies treaty, the United States would fulfill Putin's goals by effectively "driving another wedge into the NATO alliance," Reif says. President Barack Obama's deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes may have put it best in a recent tweet: "Sometimes the only way to explain/predict Trump's foreign policy is to think 'what would Putin want the US to do?'" [link]

American Exceptionalism now means "except America". As in, the world is standing up to Putin's aggression ... except America.

[Zarathustra]

(Opinion) Trump is about to give Putin another gift

Another critical legacy of the post-Cold War era may be on the verge of biting the dust now that President Donald Trump's administration is planning to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies, which allows member states to conduct unarmed surveillance over one another's territories and helps verify arms control agreements.

[...] An American withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty would give Putin more leeway to make forays into areas like eastern Ukraine, where he'd love to keep his actions concealed from western scrutiny. As Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote in a letter to National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien, "Withdrawal risks dividing the transatlantic alliance and would further undermine America's reliability as a stable and predictable partner when it comes to European security."

By withdrawing from the Open Skies treaty, the United States would fulfill Putin's goals by effectively "driving another wedge into the NATO alliance," Reif says. President Barack Obama's deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes may have put it best in a recent tweet: "Sometimes the only way to explain/predict Trump's foreign policy is to think 'what would Putin want the US to do?'"
[link]

American Exceptionalism now means "except America". As in, the world is standing up to Putin's aggression ... except America.

So allowing Putin unfettered access to fly over our airspace is "standing up to Putin?" Did you even ask yourself if that made sense??

Trump apparently wants to pull the U.S. from the Open Skies Treaty, and nobody knows why

"Nobody knows why"??? That's funny. The fucking Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems to have a good idea why:

"We have long had concerns about Russia's implementation of the Open Skies Treaty," a U.S. State Department official said in a statement provided to AIN on September 27. "After repeated, unsuccessful attempts to engage Moscow diplomatically, we have elected to take some reasonable and comparable steps in response to Russia's non-compliance."

The official added: "We hope this will change Russia's calculus and encourage Russia to engage with us about our concerns more constructively. We're ready to reverse these measures at any time, should Russia come back into compliance with its Open Skies Treaty obligations."

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 26, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. declared Russia in violation of the treaty in June.

"We believe that on balance it would be best if the treaty continued to be in place," Dunford said in response to questions from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas). "But we don't believe the treaty should be in place if the Russians aren't complying and so there is a decidedly aggressive diplomatic effort right now to bring the Russians back into compliance, which we think would be the best outcome."

link

This is from 2017. Apparently, the debate has been going on for years. But it's only a story that registers in our public consciousness now because the mainstream media wants to use it to beat up on Trump--pretending that no one has a clue why he'd want to "help Putin" by restricting our airspace!!! Jesus. That's some sloppy reporting you have quoted, Wayfriend.

[wayfriend]

So allowing Putin unfettered access to fly over our airspace is "standing up to Putin?" Did you even ask yourself if that made sense??

Allowing us to fly over Putin's airspace keeps Putin in check. Ask anyone.

The Treaty on Open Skies increases transparency, communication, and cooperation between its members by allowing states to use unarmed aircraft to conduct observational flights over the territory of other states parties. In theory, increased openness between militaries will reduce tensions between states and limit the probability of conflict. In addition, the Treaty on Open Skies provides additional means of verifying states' compliance with other arms control agreements

.

An American withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty would give Putin more leeway to make forays into areas like eastern Ukraine, where he'd love to keep his actions concealed from western scrutiny. As Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote in a letter to National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien, "Withdrawal risks dividing the transatlantic alliance and would further undermine America's reliability as a stable and predictable partner when it comes to European security."

Apparently, the debate has been going on for years.

But only now has it seemed like a distinct possibility.

And don't blame me if concerns are inflamed because Trump has a reputation for helping Putin. See: Syria. See: NATO. See: Russian Interference in Elections

[Zarathustra]

So allowing Putin unfettered access to fly over our airspace is "standing up to Putin?" Did you even ask yourself if that made sense??

Allowing us to fly over Putin's airspace keeps Putin in check. Ask anyone.

Yeah, it totally stopped that whole Crimea thing, didn't it? Worked like a charm!

I don't have to "ask anyone." I quoted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who gave a perfectly legitimate reason for not honoring a treaty with Russia: they are not in compliance.

An American withdrawal from the Open Skies treaty would give Putin more leeway to make forays into areas like eastern Ukraine, where he'd love to keep his actions concealed from western scrutiny.

I didn't miss it. It makes no sense. Why do we need an agreement with Russia to keep an eye on Ukraine? If Ukraine agrees to continue letting us (an ally) fly over it, how exactly is this giving Putin more leeway? Keeping Russia out of our air space is not mutually exclusive with keeping Russia out of Ukraine's airspace.

And don't blame me if concerns are inflamed because Trump has a reputation for helping Putin. See: Syria. See: NATO. See: Russian Interference in Elections

I blamed you only for quoting sloppy journalism. Either the reporters you quote count on you being an unquestioning idiot, or they are unquestioning idiots themselves. In other words, either they are lying about this "no one knows why" business, or you are making the mistake of choosing dumbass news sources. THIS is why "fake news" is such a rallying cry. Are journalists nowadays really so uninterested in the truth that they don't even bother Googling before they write an article to see if what they're saying is idiotic nonsense? Or are they so biased that they are purposely trying to fool people like you (who apparently didn't Google, either, to see if what they're saying is idiotic nonsense).

Trump only has a reputation for "helping Putin" because of a Democratic myth and a biased media. If this bias were not present, Obama would look much more complicit re: Russia. Russians seized Crimea on Obama's watch, with no push back. Russians tried to interfere in our elections on Obama's watch, and he ordered his Cyber Chief to stand down. Obama did little to help Ukraine. Obama removed missile defenses from Eastern Europe. Obama promised Putin "more flexibility." Obama allowed a Russian company to buy 1/5th of our uranium. Obama is the one who made fun of Romney for suggesting that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe, while his State Department under Hillary took the stance of "let's be friends" with Russia.

The biggest hit to Russia has been economic, after America has asserted its dominance in tapping into its fossil fuels, which Obama and Dems opposed, whereas Trump supports.

[Zarathustra]

Z,

While I agree with much that you say, Trump's welcome to D.C. is a lot of what greeted Obama. (Our Job is to make him a 1 term president, Birthers, etc.). Though I will give you that B.O. had the assistance of much of the press.

And while I was not a fan of his policies, Obama was not the Spinning Twitter Queen we currently have. He complains about the hole...but he keeps digging.

For what it is worth.

Doc

The Birther conspiracy theory never rose to the level of the Russia hoax, which had its own Special Counsel investigation. And the 90% negative news coverage of Trump is exactly what I'm talking about, the unprecedented level of animosity towards our President. I know that all politicians face opposition, but never like this.

[Zarathustra]

Wow Z Im beyond impressed, you have an exceptional memory. And yes I was indeed reticent about RealClear as their established known bias was indeed pro right and pro Trump. So naturally I found your many moons ago reporting questionable.

Hence to see the same bias demonstrating a swing in the polls against Trump rather more compelling.

You have just demonstrated my point: you only question sources if they go against your politics. The moment they align with your bias, not only do you stop questioning, you think this counts in favor of their legitimacy. Thus, your gauge for legitimacy in journalism is entirely political, separate from its truth value.

The point surely is that support for Trump impeachment and removal is a lot greater than you suppose.

The NBC poll I referenced was an older poll. I acknowledge that support has increased. But at the time the Dems decided to adjust their timetable was probably based on older polls, and the fact that America didn't immediately turn on Trump once they thought they had their "smoking gun." I think they were completely caught off guard that Trump released the transcript of his phone call, and it didn't show what they claimed it would show.

Or perhaps more accurately, Trump is losing ground even with Republicans.

This is what the media wants you to believe. Have you dug into the polling data to see the numbers for Republicans? They stand behind the President at 70-80 percent, right up there with his historic approval numbers among Republicans. This incident hasn't significantly altered their support. You are basing your opinion, it seems, on the mainstream news narrative and not the facts.

[SoulBiter]

This is what the media wants you to believe. Have you dug into the polling data to see the numbers for Republicans? They stand behind the President at 70-80 percent, right up there with his historic approval numbers among Republicans. This incident hasn't significantly altered their support. You are basing your opinion, it seems, on the mainstream news narrative and not the facts.

Damn right! Reps and Conservatives are so pissed ar what the Dems are doing, they will turn out in droves to upend the Democrats.

[Skyweir]

Yeah but lets think about that ... do you suggest another storming into secure areas with electronics to report outcomes ... as THAT was a foolish move on the part of the pubs.

All this talk about breaching security protocols and to do THAT was not well thought through.

I get that the pubs are angry and to them it may well seem like Trump is the victim here ... but thats not whats being investigated. It is I understood an investigation into the Ukraine matter ... and now Ukraine Russian issues as well.

I accept that 80 percent of GOP support Trump .. guess youd definitely want that to be the case, no?

But how many of those will be prepared to lie and cover for Trump? A few have to date ... and how desperate do you have to be to do that?

As for the open skies treaty what is lost is transparency

California Representative Ro Khanna, a leading progressive foreign policy voice on Capitol Hill, also criticized the move. "The fact that the president made this decision without consulting Congress is yet another example of his administration's disrespect for our constitution," Khanna told me.

"Instead of withdrawing from landmark multilateral arms control agreements," said Khanna "the United States should get back into the INF Treaty, extend New START before it expires, and stay in the Open Skies Treaty to avoid a new, costly, and dangerous arms race with Russia. We have to foster a diplomacy rooted in dialogue and diplomacy."

This is pretty concerning youd think

Arms control expert Alexandra Bell, who worked on the Open Skies Treaty and served as the senior adviser in the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, told me that it is not even clear that "the president has a good idea of what the treaty is and why it is important," and that the move has been met with confusion and alarm among our closest allies.

[Gaius Octavius]

I actually feel proud about the two dozen Republicans who stormed the Schitt meeting.

[Skyweir]

To my mind it was poor form ... and I hope they get hauled over the coals for their security breaching.

I see no valour in a bully parade.