I'm uninterested in the sentiment because I already know that.
You know what? You know Trump thinks that people from countries experiencing some form of hardship are unwelcome here?
I don't know if he actually said shithole or not.
Why does the vocabulary matter?
Is it really your sole interest to defend Trump...
There you go again! Good day, sir.
You're quote mining. I didn't ask if it is really your sole interest to defend Trump. What I said was, "Is it really your sole interest to defend Trump against the claim that he uses salty language?"
That being said, aren't you a Trump supporter interested in defending him against spurious and outlandish charges?
Oh, well, pardon me, how could I have ever concluded you're a Trump supporter after you agreed with so many of his positions on things like guns and healthcare, and after you agreed with his racist comments about Charlottesville and all the "very fine people" marching for Nazis?
This is fucking ridiculous, I'm just gonna stop talking.
quote:In that vein, it’s remarkable that two U.S. senators are claiming on the record that the president did not use a profanity — and a Cabinet secretary even under oath that she did not hear" it a profanity that multiple other people in the room — members of both political parties - assert flat out that he used.
Click on the "under oath" link in the above quote and you'll see that the Cabinet secretary was John Kelly's replacement at Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, who in a stunning and amazingly convenient attack of amnesia cannot remember what the leader of the free world said about El Salvador, Haiti and Africa. She could not even say something perfectly believable like, "I cannot remember President Trump's exact words, there were many expletives flying around from all sides, but he did speak in strongly disparaging and profane terms about immigration from those countries."
Then there was this wonderful exchange between Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Kirstjen Nielsen:
quote:"Being from Norway is not a skill," Leahy said. "And with the standard of living in Norway better than ours, what does he mean when he says he wants more immigrants from Norway?"
"I don't believe he said that specifically," responded Nielsen, adding, "What he was specifically referring to is the prime minister telling him that the people of Norway work very hard. And so what he was referencing is from a merit-based perspective, we like to have those with skills who can assimilate to the United States."
"Norway is a predominantly white country, isn't it?" followed Leahy.
"I actually do not know that, sir," Nielsen said. "But I imagine that is the case."
She doesn't know that Norway is a predominately white country? Yet another knowledgable Trump appointee.
quote:Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said take them out. Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings - unfortunately, no trust!
I think we can pretty much follow the rule that if Trump is Tweeting he's either lying or he's just typing in (often verbatim) what he just saw on Fox News, where we can follow the rule that if they're broadcasting then they're acting like Trump's private network.
quote:President Trump lamented s---hole countries during immigration negotiations on Thursday with lawmakers in the Oval Office, Fox News has confirmed.
Why are we having all these people from s---hole countries come here? the president said, in comments first reported by The Washington Post.
The president was referring to people from Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and African countries in the temporary protected status program, a source in the meeting told Fox News.
About a dozen people, both Republicans and Democrats, were in the room at the time, including South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin.
Trump made the comments as Durbin was reading a list of temporary protected status countries.
The president also suggested the United States should admit more people from countries like Norway instead, the Post said. Trump had met with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg and held a news conference with her Wednesday.
In a statement, the White House did not deny Trump made the comments.
So what she actually said was 'I cannot remember what my boss said at a meeting at which I was present." I am often present at meetings at which I pay little attention to what my boss is saying.
Gee, that must be embarrassing when your boss says, "Caffeine, what's your opinion on this?", and you have no idea what he's been talking about.
I'm retired now, but I must say that in my entire career I never had a meeting in which my boss was present (or my boss's boss or my boss's boss's boss) where I did not listen to every word said and be able to remember those words (not verbatim, of course) for days and even weeks, depending upon the subject matter. And especially in a meeting where my boss was present and expletives were being thrown around with abandon (which never in my entire career ever happened) I would remember (and cringe) at many of the words and all of the sentiments of the people involved. Even now all these years later, of the significant meetings I still remember verbatim some of the words said and many of the sentiments expressed.
So given my different experience, and given that our government, we hope, is staffed with the best and brightest, I definitely share Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) incredulousness that Cabinet secretary Kirstjen Nielsen could remember neither the words nor sentiments of the president from just a few days before. She is, as many articles have described, carefully maneuvering, trying to retain Trump's favor while not perjuring herself. But of course she already has perjured herself. Saying you don't recall when you do is lying. The reason she's taking this course, the most common course taken of those hiding something, is because no one can prove what's really inside your head. Maybe she really *does* have the memory of a nematode, but few believe that.
AbE: [sarcasm]Isn't it strange that those on Trump's staff and in his complicit Republican party have faulty memories while Democrats and anonymous staff (anonymous because they work in the White House and want to keep their jobs) both remember and agree on what was said. And isn't it strange that what they remember Trump saying is precisely the kind of thing that everyone knows Trump would say.[/sarcasm]
I have to except Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) from the above. Even though a Republican, he confirmed that reports of what Trump said were accurate, and he has gone on record as chastising the president during the meeting, saying (in effect), "America is a country of ideals, not people."
Trump's medical report gave his height and weight as 6'3" and 239 pounds. Here's what 6'3" and 240 pounds actually looks like:
And here's what 6'3" and 250 pounds looks like:
Here's what Trump looks like. Fat is about 15% less dense than muscle, so that could explain some of the difference, but I'm 5' 10" and 200 pounds and would look like a toothpick standing next to the president. If I added 40 pounds I would probably take on the same shape as the president with the protruding stomach and buttocks, but I'm 5 inches shorter, so his supposed height/weight seems way off to me.
Who was this doctor? Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson, M.D. I guess we have to trust him, but still...
That link is to the Washington Post, which is behind a paywall unless you turn off JavaScript, so I'm going to do something I'm almost always very reluctant to do, cut-n-paste the entire text of the speech here. He is saying things that are that important:
quote:Mr. President, near the beginning of the document that made us free, our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident.... So, from our very beginnings, our freedom has been predicated on truth. The founders were visionary in this regard, understanding well that good faith and shared facts between the governed and the government would be the very basis of this ongoing idea of America.
As the distinguished former member of this body, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, famously said: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. During the past year, I am alarmed to say that Senator Moynihan’s proposition has likely been tested more severely than at any time in our history.
It is for that reason that I rise today, to talk about the truth, and its relationship to democracy. For without truth, and a principled fidelity to truth and to shared facts, Mr. President, our democracy will not last.
2017 was a year which saw the truth objective, empirical, evidence-based truth more battered and abused than any other in the history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our government. It was a year which saw the White House enshrine alternative facts into the American lexicon, as justification for what used to be known simply as good old-fashioned falsehoods. It was the year in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally-protected free press was launched by that same White House, an assault that is as unprecedented as it is unwarranted. The enemy of the people, was what the president of the United States called the free press in 2017.
Mr. President, it is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Josef Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase enemy of the people, that even Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of annihilating such individuals who disagreed with the supreme leader.
This alone should be a source of great shame for us in this body, especially for those of us in the president’s party. For they are shameful, repulsive statements. And, of course, the president has it precisely backward — despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him fake news, it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.
I dare say that anyone who has the privilege and awesome responsibility to serve in this chamber knows that these reflexive slurs of fake news are dubious, at best. Those of us who travel overseas, especially to war zones and other troubled areas around the globe, encounter members of U.S. based media who risk their lives, and sometimes lose their lives, reporting on the truth. To dismiss their work as fake news is an affront to their commitment and their sacrifice.
According to the International Federation of Journalists, 80 journalists were killed in 2017, and a new report from the Committee to Protect Journalists documents that the number of journalists imprisoned around the world has reached 262, which is a new record. This total includes 21 reporters who are being held on false news charges.
Mr. President, so powerful is the presidency that the damage done by the sustained attack on the truth will not be confined to the president’s time in office. Here in America, we do not pay obeisance to the powerful — in fact, we question the powerful most ardently — to do so is our birthright and a requirement of our citizenship -- and so, we know well that no matter how powerful, no president will ever have dominion over objective reality.
No politician will ever get to tell us what the truth is and is not. And anyone who presumes to try to attack or manipulate the truth to his own purposes should be made to realize the mistake and be held to account. That is our job here. And that is just as Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would have it. Of course, a major difference between politicians and the free press is that the press usually corrects itself when it gets something wrong. Politicians don’t.
No longer can we compound attacks on truth with our silent acquiescence. No longer can we turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to these assaults on our institutions. And Mr. President, an American president who cannot take criticism — who must constantly deflect and distort and distract — who must find someone else to blame -- is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the president adds to the danger.
Now, we are told via Twitter that today the president intends to announce his choice for the most corrupt and dishonest media awards. It beggars belief that an American president would engage in such a spectacle. But here we are.
And so, 2018 must be the year in which the truth takes a stand against power that would weaken it. In this effort, the choice is quite simple. And in this effort, the truth needs as many allies as possible. Together, my colleagues, we are powerful. Together, we have it within us to turn back these attacks, right these wrongs, repair this damage, restore reverence for our institutions, and prevent further moral vandalism.
Together, united in the purpose to do our jobs under the Constitution, without regard to party or party loyalty, let us resolve to be allies of the truth -- and not partners in its destruction.
It is not my purpose here to inventory all of the official untruths of the past year. But a brief survey is in order. Some untruths are trivial — such as the bizarre contention regarding the crowd size at last year’s inaugural.
But many untruths are not at all trivial — such as the seminal untruth of the president’s political career - the oft-repeated conspiracy about the birthplace of President Obama. Also not trivial are the equally pernicious fantasies about rigged elections and massive voter fraud, which are as destructive as they are inaccurate — to the effort to undermine confidence in the federal courts, federal law enforcement, the intelligence community and the free press, to perhaps the most vexing untruth of all — the supposed hoax at the heart of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
To be very clear, to call the Russia matter a hoax — as the president has many times — is a falsehood. We know that the attacks orchestrated by the Russian government during the election were real and constitute a grave threat to both American sovereignty and to our national security. It is in the interest of every American to get to the bottom of this matter, wherever the investigation leads.
Ignoring or denying the truth about hostile Russian intentions toward the United States leaves us vulnerable to further attacks. We are told by our intelligence agencies that those attacks are ongoing, yet it has recently been reported that there has not been a single cabinet-level meeting regarding Russian interference and how to defend America against these attacks. Not one. What might seem like a casual and routine untruth — so casual and routine that it has by now become the white noise of Washington - is in fact a serious lapse in the defense of our country.
Mr. President, let us be clear. The impulses underlying the dissemination of such untruths are not benign. They have the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. The destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy cannot be overstated.
Mr. President, every word that a president utters projects American values around the world. The values of free expression and a reverence for the free press have been our global hallmark, for it is our ability to freely air the truth that keeps our government honest and keeps a people free. Between the mighty and the modest, truth is the great leveler. And so, respect for freedom of the press has always been one of our most important exports.
But a recent report published in our free press should raise an alarm. Reading from the story: In FebruarySyrian President Bashar Assad brushed off an Amnesty International report that some 13,000 people had been killed at one of his military prisons by saying, You can forge anything these days, we are living in a fake news era.
In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has complained of being demonized by fake news. Last month, the report continues, with our President, quote laughing by his side Duterte called reporters spies.
In July, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro complained to the Russian propaganda outlet, that the world media had spread lots of false versions, lots of lies about his country, adding, This is what we call 'fake news' today, isn't it? There are more:
A state official in Myanmar recently said, There is no such thing as Rohingya. It is fake news, referring to the persecuted ethnic group.
Leaders in Singapore, a country known for restricting free speech, have promised fake news legislation in the new year.
And on and on. This feedback loop is disgraceful, Mr. President. Not only has the past year seen an American president borrow despotic language to refer to the free press, but it seems he has in turn inspired dictators and authoritarians with his own language. This is reprehensible.
We are not in a fake news era, as Bashar Assad says. We are, rather, in an era in which the authoritarian impulse is reasserting itself, to challenge free people and free societies, everywhere.
In our own country, from the trivial to the truly dangerous, it is the range and regularity of the untruths we see that should be cause for profound alarm, and spur to action. Add to that the by-now predictable habit of calling true things false, and false things true, and we have a recipe for disaster. As George Orwell warned, The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
Any of us who have spent time in public life have endured news coverage we felt was jaded or unfair. But in our positions, to employ even idle threats to use laws or regulations to stifle criticism is corrosive to our democratic institutions. Simply put: it is the press’s obligation to uncover the truth about power. It is the people’s right to criticize their government. And it is our job to take it.
What is the goal of laying siege to the truth? President John F. Kennedy, in a stirring speech on the 20th anniversary of the Voice of America, was eloquent in answer to that question: We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
Mr. President, the question of why the truth is now under such assault may well be for historians to determine. But for those who cherish American constitutional democracy, what matters is the effect on America and her people and her standing in an increasingly unstable world -- made all the more unstable by these very fabrications. What matters is the daily disassembling of our democratic institutions.
We are a mature democracy — it is well past time that we stop excusing or ignoring — or worse, endorsing -- these attacks on the truth. For if we compromise the truth for the sake of our politics, we are lost.
I sincerely thank my colleagues for their indulgence today. I will close by borrowing the words of an early adherent to my faith that I find has special resonance at this moment. His name was John Jacques, and as a young missionary in England he contemplated the question: "What is truth?" His search was expressed in poetry and ultimately in a hymn that I grew up with, titled Oh Say, What is Truth. It ends as follows:
Then say, what is truth? 'Tis the last and the first, For the limits of time it steps o'er. Tho the heavens depart and the earth's fountains burst. Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst, Eternal unchanged evermore.
saying (in effect), "America is a country of ideals, not people."
Uh, I hope he did not say that.
Yeah, misstated it. Looking it up this time, what Graham is reported to have actually said was, "America is an idea, not a race." In a statement released later he said, "I've always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals."
The congressmen in both houses are behaving like they don't realize that Congress is a co-equal branch of government, not President Trump's lapdog. Their reaction today to Republican Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) speech that was deeply critical of Trump (see my Message 1740) was either silence or criticism. The only Republican to express support was Senator John McCain, whose op-ed appeared in today's Washington Post (Mr. President, stop attacking the press).
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MI): I don’t think that sort of speech is helpful. I disagree with those quotes and I don’t know why it’s helpful. I don’t see any need to further stir that pot.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): He’s certainly crossed the rubicon with Trump. Strife is not productive.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): He hates him. He doesn’t like the president. I can’t imagine anyone questioning that. As it gets closer to the end of his time here, I think he’s going to accelerate his wrath against the president.
Asked whether he would ever rebut Flake on the Senate floor, Inhofe scoffed: That would probably have the reverse effect and embolden him.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): That’s a little bit of hyperbole. Look, we should always be mindful, because we don’t want to have a chilling effect on what remains of the legitimate press corps. A senator’s words matter. So people, maybe, are going to have a more heightened concern than they should.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): [Trump had not been too aggressive] up until now, that I know of. I don’t believe in attacking the media. Unless they’re wrong on something. I just don’t think that’s our job.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT): I agree with Sen. Flake on the importance of protecting the importance of the First Amendment. Sen. Flake talks about the importance of trust. That cuts two ways. When we had President Obama, he said people who watch Fox News are on another planet.
To correct Senator Daines, Obama didn't exactly say that, and it wasn't when he was president. He said that listeners to Fox News and NPR are on different planets, and he said it only a few days ago, not while he was president. But thanks for playing.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): I don’t know what else I could possibly say that could be edifying to anyone.
Pretty disappointing from the guy who called the White House adult day care just a few months ago.
Republican party, you're a disgrace.
You Republicans out there, write your congressmen (you do it through websites these days, not through actual letters) and tell them that Trump is not their boss. They do not have to kowtow to him. This is not the imperial presidency. Work for the conservative causes they believe in by all means, but stop acting as enablers for this insane president.
Worldwide Approval of American Leadership Reaches New Low
Gallop releases an annual poll of worldwide approval of the leadership of four nations: The United States, China, Russia and Germany. 2017 saw a steep decline in the approval rating of the United States from 48% to 30%, an historic low. A graph of the ratings since 2007, when the poll began, can be found on page 2 of Rating World Leaders: 2018 The U.S. vs. Germany, China and Russia.
Here's the data for the last two years
2016:
United States: 48%
Germany: 41%
Chine: 31%
Russia: 26%
2017:
Germany: 41%
Chine: 31%
United States: 30%
Russia: 27%
How about that, our leadership is viewed as just a few percentage points above Russia. Last year when Obama was president we were 22 percentage points above Russia. Amazing what Trump has accomplished in just a single year.
A few of those guys have responses that don't look completely partisan
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): [Trump had not been too aggressive] up until now, that I know of. I don’t believe in attacking the media. Unless they’re wrong on something. I just don’t think that’s our job.
Hatch is saying that Trump's criticism of the press has not been inappropriate, because attacking the media is okay when they're wrong. Short of when they're wrong, criticizing the media is not the job of politicians. The article from which this was taken (Flake rankles fellow Republicans with Trump takedowns) might make it more clear, so I'll just quote the portion from it that's about Hatch:
quote:What Flake said, they will not: that Trump has taken media criticisms too far. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that Trump had not been too aggressive up until now, that I know of.
I don’t believe in attacking the media unless they’re wrong on something, Hatch said. I just don’t think that’s our job.
I am having a hard time sorting out what Tillis is saying...
Here's what Tillis said:
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): That’s a little bit of hyperbole. Look, we should always be mindful, because we don’t want to have a chilling effect on what remains of the legitimate press corps. A senator’s words matter. So people, maybe, are going to have a more heightened concern than they should.
Translating, he's saying that Flake is exaggerating the problem, and he's making people more concerned about presidential press criticism than they ought to be.
I don't know how much access you have to Republic leaning folks, but I saw folks expressing their opinions today on Quora. What I see quite often is supporters who are happy that their president is not PC and speaks his mind. And that is their reaction even to the Trump's "shithouse/hole" stuff.
The New York Times ran a collection of letters from Trump supporters about how they felt about Trump one year after he took office: ‘Vision, Chutzpah and Some Testosterone’. The first one was typical:
quote:To the Editor:
Donald Trump has succeeded where Barack Obama failed. The economy is up, foreign tyrants are afraid, ISIS has lost most of its territory, our embassy will be moved to Jerusalem and tax reform is accomplished. More than that, Mr. Trump is learning, adapting and getting savvier every day. Entitlement reform is next! Lastly, the entrenched interests in Washington, which have done nothing but glad-hand one another, and both political parties are angry and afraid.
Who knew that all it would take to make progress was vision, chutzpah and some testosterone?
quote:White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told a caucus of Hispanic lawmakers on Wednesday that he has persuaded President Trump that building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is unnecessary, signaling a possible reversal on the key campaign promise.
quote:President Trump directly contradicted his own chief of staff on Thursday and said his position on building a wall between the United States and Mexico had not evolved.
They'll be a hot time in the Oval Office today, you betcha!
Hatch is saying that Trump's criticism of the press has not been inappropriate
What did Hatch mean by "up until now"? Was that a statement that Trump had finally crossed a line?
My interpretation was that he made a poor choice and words and meant "right up through the present moment".
Translating, he's saying that Flake is exaggerating the problem
Yes, but that is an acknowledgment of a problem. That's what I mean by not completely partisan.
You might be right, but I wasn't expecting what I said to be interpreted that way. Rephrasing what I said more precisely, he's saying that Flake is exaggerating the issue to make it seem more of a problem than it actually is, and is thereby causing a more heightened level of concern than is appropriate. So you're right that he's saying some level of concern is called for, but to me he's saying it in a way that indicates it isn't really anything to worry much about.
As I've said a couple times in this thread, there is nothing more risky than being a Trump friend, and today an editorial in the Washington Post endorses the same view: The man-child in the White House reels wildly out of control. Here are a few excerpts:
quote:How do you like him now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? President Trump convened a made-for-television summit at the White House and said he’d sign any immigration bill Congress passed. I’ll take the heat, he boasted. So a bipartisan group of senators came up with a deal and he rejected it out of hand, launching into an unhinged rant about shithole countries.
What about you, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan? You came up with a clever way to get Democrats to agree to a stopgap funding bill, dangling the possibility of a long-term renewal of the vital Children’s Health Insurance Program. But the president tweeted that CHIP should be part of a long term solution and not a short-term measure to keep the government from shutting down.
Is this what you signed up for, Chief of Staff John F. Kelly? In a meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, you said that some of Trump’s campaign positions on immigration were uninformed and that there will never be a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. You reportedly added that whatever partial barrier gets built, Mexico won’t pay for it. But the president slapped you down with another series of tweets, claiming that his promised wall has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it and that Mexico will, too, pay for the wall, directly or indirectly.
How was your week, White House physician Ronny Jackson? You did what is expected of everyone who stands at the lectern in the briefing room: lavish the president with flowery, over-the-top, Dear Leader praise. He is in excellent health, you announced. But the test results you released, according to many other doctors, indicate that Trump suffers from moderate heart disease and is on the borderline between overweight and obese.
Having fun, Stephen K. Bannon and Corey Lewandowski? As bigwigs in the Trump campaign, you helped a manifestly unfit blowhard get elected president. This week, you did the White House a favor by stonewalling the House Intelligence Committee in a way that angered even the Republicans on the panel, which is hard to do. But you remain in the crosshairs of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, and the best-case scenario is that you emerge unindicted but saddled with mountainous legal bills.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
