President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[hound dog]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

It is easy to suppose that Mr Trump is not the sharpest tool in the box but I don't think that hr is stupid in the strict meaning of this word. I think he has good average intelligence: I bet his IQ is somewhere in the 120s.

I think you're being generous, I'd put him somewhere much closer to 100. President Trump himself has stated he isn't a reader, he gets his information from the television. It's called the idiot box for a reason.

Mr. Trumps business success is not due so much to his brilliance and innovative thought as it is his ability to bluff, con and bully. None of these skills are very useful in finding common ground to build upon and reach a consensus through compromise, which is what our government is based upon. Nor are they ideal attributes for reassuring our allies, continuing to earn their trust and faith.

Originally Posted by diamelsx

As far as the court goes too many on the left saw little contrast between Hillary's and Trump's vision of the court, especially fiscally. They saw Obama's pick as being too far to the right and they knew that Hillary was not going to the left of that, so they felt they were losing either way which may help explain why a lot on the left stayed home this last election. Funny how the media always points out the voter suppression tactics the right, yet is silent about the tactics done by the est... I mean the left.

To me President Obama's Supreme Court nomination was a very sincere attempt at finding compromise, not too far left, not too far right.

It's funny how both liberals and conservatives see the "establishment" as representing the views of the opposition.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by hound dog

To me President Obama's Supreme Court nomination was a very sincere attempt at finding compromise, not too far left, not too far right.

Here lies the flaw with trying to be centrist using Obama as an example. When Obama went to the Republicans trying to compromise the other side would refuse go further to the right and Obama would follow after them. After a while he ended up following for so long he ended up being where the base could not find him. At the end of the day Obama always did worse when he tried to go the comprise route. People came out for him cause they felt he stood for change, not for compromise to maintain the status-quo.

Originally Posted by hound dog

It's funny how both liberals and conservatives see the "establishment" as representing the views of the opposition.

The establishment stands for the status-quo which in times likes these detestable to both sides which is why both will try to attribute the establishment to the opposing side when in reality they are a side all its own.

[hound dog]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...cid=spartanntp

Apparently the administration forgot to book a room in Hamburg for president Trump while attending the G20 summit. The president doesn't own any hotels in Germany, and it seems Hamburg hotels are completely booked up for the summit. It's currently not known where he will be staying. Perhaps the Saudi King, who is known to book entire hotels for himself, will allow President Trump to bunk in one of his empty rooms.

[hound dog]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

Here lies the flaw with trying to be centrist using Obama as an example. When Obama went to the Republicans trying to compromise the other side would refuse go further to the right and Obama would follow after them. After a while he ended up following for so long he ended up being where the base could not find him. At the end of the day Obama always did worse when he tried to go the comprise route. People came out for him cause they felt he stood for change, not for compromise to maintain the status-quo.

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that far left liberals refused to support president Obama for reaching out to republicans with centrist policies, and that president Obama's continuation of putting forth more centrist policies to work with republicans then alienated the far left of his base constituency such as they abandoned the democratic party in the election, giving the win to President Trump? I haven't read an in depth voting analysis, but Hilary lost the election, no doubt. Perhaps Obama's crime then was not being centrist enough to get any sort of cooperation from republicans and the legislative branch. There never appeared to me to be any willingness on the part of House and Senate republicans to work with president Obama on anything. They even declared it when he was first elected, and as far as I can tell, carried through with the promise through two terms. And despite it all we really didn't do too bad under his watch when you consider where the economy was when he was elected. Not only that, he conducted himself in a dignified manner, befitting the office. My opinion.

I don't see the problem with being a centrist, when either extreme seem a bit deranged to me. And if there is no compromise we're left with grid-lock, that's not preferable to me. Grid-lock is nothing but stagnation, compromise has a chance to eventually find an acceptable solution for a majority of the people, which is what I think legislation should be all about. I have never understood why the centrist 50 plus% can't work together, and tell either extreme to bugger off, instead of dividing themselves and pandering to a group who doesn't quite give either interest the control they need to push their more extreme agenda's.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by hound dog

I don't see the problem with being a centrist, when either extreme seem a bit deranged to me. And if there is no compromise we're left with grid-lock, that's not preferable to me. Grid-lock is nothing but stagnation, compromise has a chance to eventually find an acceptable solution for a majority of the people, which is what I think legislation should be all about. I have never understood why the centrist 50 plus% can't work together, and tell either extreme to bugger off, instead of dividing themselves and pandering to a group who doesn't quite give either interest the control they need to push their more extreme agenda's.

I sense that the spirit of the age is against consensus or bi-partisanship. Mr Obama achieved more than many commentators are prepared to admit, but his presidency was constantly burdened with obstructionist sabotage from the House Republicans and he was not a good advertisement for consensus and bi-partisanship. Earlier there was the morally bankrupt but slick administration of Mr Clinton who cooperated with House Republicans rather too well for the taste of many Democrats now. Meanwhile, in the UK, from Tony Blair and the "third way" through to David Cameron and his "Big Society" rhetoric, we here have been expected to make like the Four Musketeers while behind the scenes Cardinal Richelieu steals the cashbox.

For decades the centre ground has been dominated by corrupt and dishonest politicians who do not serve the people. The awful Grenfell Tower disaster has started to become a meme for this establishment betrayal. Money available for gimcrack flashing cladding panels which make it look like you have improved the building. No money available for safety to protect the residents from fire risk. Never mind the tyres which wont pass the next MOT or the worn out brake pads. I want a state-of-the-art sound system and magnesium alloy wheels (but no spare tyre or jack).

Our values are false and our priorities are very unprincipled and out of whack. We need to reconsider who we are and what are the things which matter. Having principles is necessary in order to define priorities responsibly. We have been led to this point by people claiming to represent us, so I cannot claim to feel surprised by the current popular mood.

[hound dog]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I sense that the spirit of the age is against consensus or bi-partisanship.

All too true, and after a couple minutes reflection, the outcome's that we have today, even with all the division and nastiness, may be exactly the same as it would be with centrist cooperation, the extreme's off by themselves in their prospective corners. The really extreme stuff from left or right can't get through, the more middle of the road stuff does, leaning left or right depending on who's actually in majority. The political outcome is basically the same, we all just get to spend that much more time and energy vilifying anyone with a different viewpoint, as opposed to finding common ground on which to build working relationships.

Maybe that explains all the hostility, neither left or right centrist's can get their ultimate wishes through without cooperation from the other, boiling over into the frustration we see today as we are all denied that ultimate wish whatever it may be.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But actually Mr Putin has not bought either Mr Trump or America. Witness the missile strike against official Syrian government forces recently. In the long run, even if you did buy Donald Trump, it would be like buying a screwdriver made in China. The tool is too low quality to last long; and Mr Trump is too erratic and emotional to stay bought for long.

Russian banks bailed Mr T out when US banks wouldn't touch him - he feels he owes them, that's how he thinks. Hence all the fawning of Putin. The missile strike in Syria was a non-event, Russians couldn't care less. I'm curious that North Korea, which has limited missile and nuclear capability if any and isn't threatening to invade anyone gets childish abuse heap on it, but the Russians who have invade a sovereign territory, are aiding by proxy a separatist faction, has the second largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, has moved missiles to the Kalingrad enclave gets praised and lauded, though admittedly in an equally childish and inept fashion.
Those banks must have lent an awful lot of money at a very good interest rate. Wonder where that shows up on the tax forms.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I sense that the spirit of the age is against consensus or bi-partisanship.

Originally Posted by hound dog

All too true, and after a couple minutes reflection, the outcome's that we have today, even with all the division and nastiness, may be exactly the same as it would be with centrist cooperation, the extreme's off by themselves in their prospective corners.

Originally Posted by hound dog

Maybe that explains all the hostility, neither left or right centrist's can get their ultimate wishes through without cooperation from the other, boiling over into the frustration we see today as we are all denied that ultimate wish whatever it may be.

All you need to understand is that the reason bipartisanship is so out of favor is that the way it is practiced. It is used as a cover to fulfill the whims of the unannounced third party (the donors)at the expense of the voters. Look at welfare reform under Clinton the Republican voters wanted the recipients to get a job and get off of welfare and food stamps while the the donor's wants differed a little and if you have to ask who's wishes were granted you can get your answer anytime you go in a Wal-Mart or fast food establishment.

[Devius]

Trump spars with Chelsea Clinton over Ivanka's G20 seat

US President Donald Trump and former first daughter Chelsea Clinton have sparred over his decision to seat his daughter at a summit of world leaders.

Mr Trump tweeted that his decision to allow his daughter to take his seat at the meeting in Hamburg was "very standard".

He also said the media would have cheered "CHELSEA FOR PRES!" if Hillary Clinton had made the same choice.

Chelsea Clinton tweeted back that her parents would never have done so.

Ivanka Trump was criticised online after taking her father's seat between the British prime minister and the Chinese president at the G20 summit in Germany on Saturday as her father sat for a one-on-one meeting with the Indonesian president.

Details:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40561077


Donald Trump Jr faces calls to testify before Senate over Russia meeting

Donald Trump’s son is facing calls to testify before the US Senate about his meeting with a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton during last year’s presidential election, and a leading Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee said he wanted to speak to him.

Trump Jr attended the meeting – allegedly brokered by a British music publicist – with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer who reportedly has ties to the Kremlin. Paul Manafort, who was the Trump campaign’s chairman at the time, and Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were also present.

The revelation, first reported by the New York Times, was the first public evidence that members of the Trump campaign were willing to accept Russian assistance. A senior Republican on the Senate intelligence committee demanded that Trump Jr appear on Capitol Hill and testify under oath.

Details:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ton-statements

[hound dog]

Apparently our president has thus far spent 22% of his time in office on the golf course.

And by how well he did at the G20 summit, it shows.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-tr...154100352.html