Trump Consciousness

https://apnews.com/14b14afc5d8647858489a2cf5385c28d
38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department has completed its internal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of private email and found violations by 38 people, some of whom may face disciplinary action.

The investigation, launched more than three years ago, determined that those 38 people were “culpable” in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton’s personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley this week and released on Friday. The 38 are current and former State Department officials but were not identified.

Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.
...
The department said it found a total of 588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified but could not assign fault in 497 cases.

For current and former officials, culpability means the violations will be noted in their files and will be considered when they apply for or go to renew security clearances. For current officials, there could also be some kind of disciplinary action. But it was not immediately clear what that would be.
 
I expect we'll see some more positive moves, such as pulling troops from Syria, seeing them arrive home in full fan fare makes for good propaganda The fact the empire started the whole mess and also armed the terrorists will be again drowned out. There's going to be an election of course. Then we'll be back to business as usual. You gotta throw a few bones to get favor, they know the public has a short attention span and use it to brilliant advantage.

Well I disagree - I think Trump has had to battle hawks on one side and a Democratic party that would grab at any excuse to attack him. If we get President Trump unleashed for another four years, I expect great things - but OK, he isn't a Pagan!

In recent years I have also come to see Israel in a slightly different light. Europe let in a large number of mainly Muslim refugees as a result of the Syrian war and other reasons. Some of them have used that opportunity to attack us. For example, about 20 teenage kids at a pop concert were slaughtered in Manchester UK by a suicide gunman with a bomb in a rucksack.

This has lead me to realise that Israel literally cannot form peace with Hamas, because Hamas simply wants to fight for total victory - rather like ISIS (though I think they belong to the other branch of Islam, but I am not sure. The best Israel can do right now is to stop the wall being breached, because the aim of Hamas is to infiltrate Israel in order to perform further bomb attacks.

Saudi Arabia is another matter, and I am not privy to Trumps real views on that state, but one thing is certain - making the US independent in oil and gas, will give them the option to turn the screws on that horrid regime - but not, please not, another regime change war!

I think we both want an end to war, do let's not fight about this!

David
 
Well I disagree - I think Trump has had to battle hawks on one side and a Democratic party that would grab at any excuse to attack him. If we get President Trump unleashed for another four years, I expect great things - but OK, he isn't a Pagan!

In recent years I have also come to see Israel in a slightly different light. Europe let in a large number of mainly Muslim refugees as a result of the Syrian war and other reasons. Some of them have used that opportunity to attack us. For example, about 20 teenage kids at a pop concert were slaughtered in Manchester UK by a suicide gunman with a bomb in a rucksack.

This has lead me to realise that Israel literally cannot form peace with Hamas, because Hamas simply wants to fight for total victory - rather like ISIS (though I think they belong to the other branch of Islam, but I am not sure. The best Israel can do right now is to stop the wall being breached, because the aim of Hamas is to infiltrate Israel in order to perform further bomb attacks.

Saudi Arabia is another matter, and I am not privy to Trumps real views on that state, but one thing is certain - making the US independent in oil and gas, will give them the option to turn the screws on that horrid regime - but not, please not, another regime change war!

I think we both want an end to war, do let's not fight about this!

David

Fair Enough, The Israel issue is crucial I think but leads beyond the scope of the thread. So I'll leave it rest. But careful of the propaganda machine things are not always as they seem especially when it comes to Israel. Poke an animal enough times don't be surprised if it bites back. I suggest you check out a documentary Occupation 101, and see what the media is not telling you. And this....

This would have been the man....what a shame.

To add, this is speculative but Hamas is a useful tool for Israel, an enemy to justify attacking Palestinians, if not for them much of the genocide could not be hidden or defended. Good Strategy. They are blowback plain and simple. I don't agree with their methods but one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
 
Last edited:
For me, with regards to politics, I always root for the best worst choice, and being that the nature of the beast, politics, only provides the worst as the only choices, I have this approach.
 
And your point is..Jim?
Can you provide any examples that show how Trump has actually benefitted the black community? Because despite what this one star-struck individual has to say (and we must allow for stockholm syndrome) I suggest that the majority of Americans would disagree.
Trump's assertion that they have "nothing to lose, because the do-nothing Democrats have done nothing for the black community" does not amount to a Republican promise to actually do something for them. As we know, Trump makes many false, misleading or unverifiable claims, insults people from different ethnic backgrounds and takes credit for "doing more for African-Americans than any other president has been able to do" Quote Philip Bump Washington Post journalist "Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson were not available for comment"
Here's a broad view of the outcome of Trump's perceived perspective on 'People of Colour'

The question you have to ask yourself, is what the hell does it mean to say "X is a racist"? I mean, it makes sense to say X did this racist thing, or X expressed this racist view, but used without a specific reason, it is daft.

There is no obvious thing that he has done which is racist, unless you call anyone who wants closed border a racist. The Left seem to use these kind of attacks when they don't have anything more meaningful to say.

Given that, polling people on their view on the question is equally meaningless. Vague rhetoric seems to have become a speciality of the Left.

David
 
Above all, he insisted that he was a man of peace. I never hunkered down to listen to the collected speeches of Donald Trump on Youtube(!!), but I discovered that Fox News showed clips of the most relevant parts of his speeches, in some sort of context.

And, David, herein lies the problem. What Fox edits out is the batshit crazy stuff the rest of us see and here. I do not have a problem with folk who are Pro Trump. I have a problem with their arguments that are base only upon the edited bits that Fox shows. Now I know about this in some considerable detail because I share a house with a person who has become a Trump fan. Its a cohabitation I would like to terminate precisely because of the Trump issue. She relies on YouTube, mostly Fox for her information about Trump.

So far this year I have listened to 23 audiobooks on Trump and a further 15 on pertinent political history. Aside from that I have listened to, read and watched god knows how many podcasts, articles and YouTube video clips. I openly confess a left of centre bias, and I admit my sources are so aligned. But the accusation that all other news and opinion outlets other than Fox and a handful of rightwing internet sites are part of a socialist conspiracy to defeat Heroic Trump is a step too far.

This is not mere disagreement between two people with opposing political POVs. This is, I am told, a case of a vast conspiracy against a heroic figure who is irrationally hated by pawns and dupes of an awful left wing conspiracy. The alleged Democrat and left wing conspirators include former intelligence, FBI and Dept of Justice prosecutors, lawyers and law academics, mental health specialists, political scientists, historians and senior members of the US Military [now retired] - an so on. That list includes current and former Republicans.

In fact the people who ardently oppose Trump as POTUS represent a substantial component of credible senior members of the US public and military service. The proposition that these people are part of, or dupes in, a sinister socialist/Democrat plot is ludicrous.

Its one thing to be pro Trump, but another to buy into the insane notion that those who oppose him belong to a sinister plot to destroy America. I am not suggesting you belong to that resistance. However, if you are not fully aware of it you risk being tarred by the same brush that coats the looney fringe faithful in the colour they deserve.

The reality is that while polls show the general population marginally in favour of impeachment and removal the attitudes among the US civil servants and the military is likely closer 90%. Of course that can't be measured. I base my assessment on being a long term civil servant in Australia and knowing the language I hear. Plus I have read a number of books on just how catastrophic Trump has been public services. One book is entitled 'Its Even Worse Than You Think'. That book made sense to me because I have worked in a sufficient variety of agencies to get a vert good grasp on public policy over what I have just realised is 50 years.

Trump may have identified issues about US policy, foreign and domestic, that resonate. I agree with many. But you don't have to be a genius to know there's a problem. Figuring the solution is where the talent is required. Trump does not have that talent, as any examination of his business management and deal making history will show.

My friend demands I tell her why, if Trump is so hopeless, he is so rich. He has a certain genius for self promotion and self enrichment. I am in awe of the ability. It is stunning. But it is always at the cost of others. There is a reason why no US banks will lend him money., They got screwed often enough over his failed businesses.

The Russian interference in the 2016 elections was confirmed in a bipartisan report from a Senate committee [dominated by Republicans] and yet Trump persists in denying it happened. This whole Ukraine mess is partly driven by an effort to prove that it was the Ukraine and not Russia that meddled in the 2016 election. That ship has sailed and yet Trump cannot let it go.

Likewise the Biden allegations. Trump has been told that they are BS and he persists, because they are his best hope of beating Biden, who will not, it seems, be his opponent - if he survives, which is less and less likely as each week advances.

There is no doubt Trump saw some things that needed fixing, and that he was more forthright in expressing opinion. He has had a consistent political line since the late 1980s. But the fact that people see problems others do not does not mean they are best placed to solve them. There's a reason we go to doctors when we feel sick. Trump did not say "I see these problems and I will engage the best people to address them.' He said, and continues to say, that he knows how to fix things by consulting himself.

I agree withTrump on some things and deeply disagree with him on others. But I do not think he is fit to be POTUS on any score. He has had no prior experience in the public sector. He has a history of failed businesses while enriching himself.

George Conway - husband on Kellyanne Conway, a prime Trump enabler - wrote an article in The Atlantic {https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/] arguing that Trump was unfit for office. Conway was a co-signiatry to a letter of [I think] 19 prominent US lawyers urging the Democrats to get on with impeachment.

You have to ask yourself, when 51% of the US is in favour of impeachment and removal from office at this early stage stage of proceedings that are likely to start around the end of November and go through to Christmas [Mitch McConnell's estimate] whether there's no a serious cause for concern.

The question is whether Trump is up to being POTUS. Even those who like him have to be honest and say he is not. Its not a question of politics or policy, just management capacity and character - and nobody who knows anything on this subject would say he is up to the job. In the assessment of many he is actually a danger to national security and should be removed as soon as possible.

That, David, is the current state of play outside Trumpworld.
 
The Russian interference in the 2016 elections was confirmed in a bipartisan report from a Senate committee [dominated by Republicans] and yet Trump persists in denying it happened. This whole Ukraine mess is partly driven by an effort to prove that it was the Ukraine and not Russia that meddled in the 2016 election. That ship has sailed and yet Trump cannot let it go.
Well actually the Mueller report took 3 years and found no evidence of collusion. You can probably download it somewhere if you really want to!
There is no doubt Trump saw some things that needed fixing, and that he was more forthright in expressing opinion. He has had a consistent political line since the late 1980s. But the fact that people see problems others do not does not mean they are best placed to solve them. There's a reason we go to doctors when we feel sick. Trump did not say "I see these problems and I will engage the best people to address them.' He said, and continues to say, that he knows how to fix things by consulting himself.
Well he certainly seems to have made a massive improvement to unemployment figures - including the figures for blacks and other minorities.

Start with the fact that Hillary Clinton promised to revamp the Syrian war when she got elected. Think about that, and tell me why the Democrats wanted that policy.

I think some facts will come to light soon that will shake your opinion to the core.

David
 
And, David, herein lies the problem. What Fox edits out is the batshit crazy stuff the rest of us see and here. I do not have a problem with folk who are Pro Trump. I have a problem with their arguments that are base only upon the edited bits that Fox shows. Now I know about this in some considerable detail because I share a house with a person who has become a Trump fan. Its a cohabitation I would like to terminate precisely because of the Trump issue. She relies on YouTube, mostly Fox for her information about Trump.
If she is nice in other ways, I would advise you to hang on a month or two, you wouldn't want to give up on this girlfriend, only to discover that she knew more about the truth than you did.

David
 
Some things many folks know about polls but especially Trump polls - they are skewed by the way the questions are asked and skewed by imbalanced polling which is asking unrepresentative portions of the population questions.

Also, in the environment of today, people lie on polls. They say what they think is the wisest thing to say with regards to what then might happen to them after they answer based on how they answer. Many don't want to have their answers added to the profling many believe is being done by many types of organizations from social media to government agencies and the like.

Polls mean little these days... just like almost all mainstream media means little these days. Too many folks have been fooled by this sort of crap for too many years now.
This is the issue, isn't it. Who tells the Truth?
Is the selection of public representation in surveys truly random? Are the participants honest? Do we believe the selection of the 12 members of a jury is a true cross-section of society? And how much coercion goes on within it?
But what else is there? How can we get to the whole truth from any one person, and especially politicians, who has a position to hold and feels a need to defend?
A Poll is the option of a collective truth by truth-pooling, so long as there are no invested interests in the outcome, with a strong adherence to open-minded principles of good and a desire to know, not prove. So long as these are the motives -behind a survey, referendum or decision by the public- we would do well not to erode, or dismiss the significance of what little influence we have.
 
The question you have to ask yourself, is what the hell does it mean to say "X is a racist"? I mean, it makes sense to say X did this racist thing, or X expressed this racist view, but used without a specific reason, it is daft.

There is no obvious thing that he has done which is racist, unless you call anyone who wants closed border a racist. The Left seem to use these kind of attacks when they don't have anything more meaningful to say.

Given that, polling people on their view on the question is equally meaningless. Vague rhetoric seems to have become a speciality of the Left.

David
It seems reasonable to say 'X has demonstrated racist vales by their commentary and behaviour' as observed by a representation of the greater population (especially those who are affected by it) in view of Trump's claim that he has done "more for the black community than any other president". Obviously a poll by Republicans would have it said that he is not racist, so we must believe them and his altruistic claims, despite evidence to the contrary, and with none in actual support of it? According to the Quinnipiac University Poll, more than half the population would disagree with that, so you choose to deny the validity of polls because they don't support your preferred view?

It is more likely that Trump is just interested in garnering votes from the black community, now there's an election looming.

It is just as daft to simply 'placard' the opinion of one (besotted) individual, as if that 'proved' whatever Jim was trying to imply with his post. I simply wished to clarify this, because loading up a lot of propagandist links and biased videos is not a balanced presentation of the truth, any more than one graph is to the contrary. But airing a lot of unsubstantiated claims seems to be a speciality of the Right.
 
It seems reasonable to say 'X has demonstrated racist vales by their commentary and behaviour' as observed by a representation of the greater population (especially those who are affected by it) in view of Trump's claim that he has done "more for the black community than any other president". Obviously a poll by Republicans would have it said that he is not racist, so we must believe them and his altruistic claims, despite evidence to the contrary, and with none in actual support of it? According to the Quinnipiac University Poll, more than half the population would disagree with that, so you choose to deny the validity of polls because they don't support your preferred view?

It is more likely that Trump is just interested in garnering votes from the black community, now there's an election looming.

It is just as daft to simply 'placard' the opinion of one (besotted) individual, as if that 'proved' whatever Jim was trying to imply with his post. I simply wished to clarify this, because loading up a lot of propagandist links and biased videos is not a balanced presentation of the truth, any more than one graph is to the contrary. But airing a lot of unsubstantiated claims seems to be a speciality of the Right.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www....9-a5c6-1e74f7ec4a93_story.html?outputType=amp
 
The question you have to ask yourself, is what the hell does it mean to say "X is a racist"? I mean, it makes sense to say X did this racist thing, or X expressed this racist view, but used without a specific reason, it is daft.

David, this is silly. Let's apply it to a related concept: on your reasoning, we can't say that "X is athletic", all we can say is that X performed this athletic feat or won that particular race.

So, can't we call anybody athletic, or thrifty, or funny, or sensitive? Do we have to say instead, "X often saves money, or cracks jokes, or listens intently to those who are in pain"? Please.

These words indicate a pattern. Donald Trump conforms to that pattern when it comes to racism. There is plenty of evidence for this, but your eyes are blind to it and your ears won't hear it, because you are a fanboy, and you won't allow it to exist in your world.
 
David, this is silly. Let's apply it to a related concept: on your reasoning, we can't say that "X is athletic", all we can say is that X performed this athletic feat or won that particular race.
Yes, but say you were picking someone for a team, I think you would more likely say "I think X is athletic because he got the best time in the last 6 races he ran."
So, can't we call anybody athletic, or thrifty, or funny, or sensitive? Do we have to say instead, "X often saves money, or cracks jokes, or listens intently to those who are in pain"? Please.
The reason they don't qualify the word 'racist' with an example, is that none of their examples fit all that well.

For example, if they said "Trump is a racist because he tries to limit the flow of immigrants into the country", others would point out that Obama also limited the numbers of people coming in by various means.
These words indicate a pattern. Donald Trump conforms to that pattern when it comes to racism. There is plenty of evidence
Fine - well why not supply some - or even one.

David
 
Last edited:
It seems reasonable to say 'X has demonstrated racist vales by their commentary and behaviour' as observed by a representation of the greater population (especially those who are affected by it) in view of Trump's claim that he has done "more for the black community than any other president". Obviously a poll by Republicans would have it said that he is not racist, so we must believe them and his altruistic claims, despite evidence to the contrary, and with none in actual support of it? According to the Quinnipiac University Poll, more than half the population would disagree with that, so you choose to deny the validity of polls because they don't support your preferred view?

It is more likely that Trump is just interested in garnering votes from the black community, now there's an election looming.

It is just as daft to simply 'placard' the opinion of one (besotted) individual, as if that 'proved' whatever Jim was trying to imply with his post. I simply wished to clarify this, because loading up a lot of propagandist links and biased videos is not a balanced presentation of the truth, any more than one graph is to the contrary. But airing a lot of unsubstantiated claims seems to be a speciality of the Right.
As I said to Laird, without a concrete example, the charge is absurdly vague. I don't think that vagueness is accidental, it is because few if any specific allegations would actually stick.

David
 
This is the issue, isn't it. Who tells the Truth?
Is the selection of public representation in surveys truly random? Are the participants honest? Do we believe the selection of the 12 members of a jury is a true cross-section of society? And how much coercion goes on within it?
But what else is there? How can we get to the whole truth from any one person, and especially politicians, who has a position to hold and feels a need to defend?
A Poll is the option of a collective truth by truth-pooling, so long as there are no invested interests in the outcome, with a strong adherence to open-minded principles of good and a desire to know, not prove. So long as these are the motives -behind a survey, referendum or decision by the public- we would do well not to erode, or dismiss the significance of what little influence we have.

I think most folks are sidestepping the underlying issue - the collapse of any semblance of integrity in almost all human beings. An example of this is the turning of the blind eye towards subversion of rights, laws and fair ethics when they believe the potential result satisfies their desire. And don't think I claim to be some saint. My deep dive into my own being has revealed plenty to work on, to change.

But when culture abandons striving for personal integrity, to be fair, to establish fair laws and to apply those laws equally, none of any of the issues debated, for example, in this thread, matter.

There's the actual truth we have almost completely abandoned and I don't need a poll to tell me this. I just need to be honest most importantly with myself.
 
The Russian interference in the 2016 elections was confirmed in a bipartisan report from a Senate committee [dominated by Republicans] and yet Trump persists in denying it happened. This whole Ukraine mess is partly driven by an effort to prove that it was the Ukraine and not Russia that meddled in the 2016 election. That ship has sailed and yet Trump cannot let it go.

Well actually the Mueller report took 3 years and found no evidence of collusion.

Excuse me for interposing, but it might save Michael some time: David, you are confusing two issues here.

The first is whether Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. And it seems to have been established that they did, which is (the first part of) Michael's point.

The second is whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia in that interference. And it seems not to have been established that he did, which you are correct about, but which does not contradict (the rest of) Michael's point as you seem to think it does: that Trump denies that the first issue has been established.
 
Back
Top