President Trump

[Crafty_Dog]

I am tempted by the analysis here by long time Trump hater Karl Rove, but I also find myself remembering a line from a Brandon Lee movie where one bad guy says to another "Don't ask for what you can't take."  Along that line, exactly what leverage do we have with Russia to back up the threats that Rove would have President Trump make?

I could have posted this in the Cyberwar thread, but posted here because of the comments on President Trump-- but please let's use the Cyberwar thread for discussion of the larger issue-- which is a very important one.
==============================================================

Trump Wastes Another Weekend
The indictment was a perfect time to pivot. Instead he amplified the media noise.
By Karl Rove
Feb. 21, 2018 6:21 p.m. ET
103 COMMENTS

President Trump has shown he has a finger on the nation’s pulse. But he often fails to read it correctly, missing obvious opportunities to advance his cause.

Take Friday’s decision by the Justice Department to indict 13 Russians and three Russian companies for interfering in American politics between 2014 and 2016. The indictment is compelling reading, its evidence damning, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s televised explanation riveting.

The next day the president tweeted that the indictment didn’t show a conspiracy between his campaign and the Russians, that the Russians spent more money after the election than before, and that they began intervening long before he entered the race. All are true and useful points, but Mr. Trump offered them with an unnecessarily defensive tone.

In doing so he missed his opportunity for a permanent pivot on the Russian mess. Mr. Trump should have talked about firm actions he is taking to stop foreign meddling in American elections. He could have vowed that any foreign nation that intervenes in our elections will be discovered, have its methods exposed, and face forceful retaliation.

Though the Russians named in the recent indictment are unlikely to be extradited and face trial, Mr. Trump could have warned them never to leave Russia. If they do, he might have said, America will guarantee they receive justice.

Mr. Trump could have pledged that his administration will do whatever is necessary to stop meddling in 2018 and beyond. He will ensure state and local governments have the cyber tools to protect elections. He will make certain America has the cyber weapons and defenses to respond if foreign adversaries attempt to subvert our democracy.

This could have given his administration a firmer footing on the Russia issue. The question of Mr. Putin’s election interference would have become much less about Mr. Trump and much more about defending the country against serious threats.

But instead the president amplified the media noise. His weekend tweets claimed “they are laughing their asses off in Moscow” because of “all the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred.” (Moscow may well be laughing, but not for the reasons Mr. Trump claims.) He falsely blamed the Parkland, Fla., mass shooting on the Federal Bureau of Investigation “spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion.” And he asserted that he had never claimed Russia didn’t meddle in the election, only that China or “a 400-pound genius sitting in bed” might also be the culprits. It’s time for Mr. Trump to put the rotund computer nerd to sleep and say without qualification that Russia attempted to undermine American democracy.

Furthermore, Mr. Trump raised the bar for himself by tweeting that President Barack Obama “did nothing” to prevent Russian meddling before the election. Mr. Obama’s sharp words for Mr. Putin and ousting of 35 Russian spies were indeed an inadequate response, but now Mr. Trump must show he is doing everything possible to stop Russia’s continuing efforts. He could start by condemning Russia’s reported use of cyberbots to inflame tensions after the Florida shooting.

The mishandling of the Russia indictments wasn’t Mr. Trump’s only missed opportunity last weekend. Time is one of any president’s most precious resources, and Mr. Trump wasted some on Sunday by pinging Oprah Winfrey after she appeared on “60 Minutes.” At 11:28 p.m., he called Ms. Winfrey “very insecure” and taunted her, saying “ Hope Oprah runs so she can be exposed and defeated just like all of the others!”

The next presidential election is nearly three years away, and a Jan. 12 NPR/PBS/Marist poll after Ms. Winfrey’s Golden Globes appearance showed 35% of Americans want her to run while 54% don’t. Mr. Trump’s tweet guaranteed breathless coverage the next day of Oprah vs. The Donald. He could have instead drawn attention to Monday’s New York Times/Survey Monkey poll. It showed approval for the recent tax reform rose from 37% in December to 51% in February, while disapproval dropped from 57% to 46%. Better numbers for his signature domestic achievement are more important for Mr. Trump than tweaking Oprah.

In his White House memoir, Henry Kissinger wrote, “The old adage that men grow into office has not proved true in my experience.” Like many others, I anticipated Mr. Trump would become more “presidential” over time. Yet tweet by tweet, he appears determined to crush that expectation. Maybe he will yet be helped by people who wrestle the White House’s messaging onto more constructive paths. We can wish.

Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is the author of “The Triumph of William McKinley ” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).

[ccp]

I agree with most of Rove's points

actually

except the use of the word "Guarantee"  the US will be able to get any of the indicted Russians to US soil if "they leave Russian soil"

As for this week his listening to the children (soros CNN et all funded ) march on DC was a good political move.

but i agree with Karl about the opray wnifrey tweets .  Why is he wasting time with her?
and raising the bar on himself by criticizing Brock could back fire.

And i absolutely agree what he says about the line "they are laughing their asses off in Moscow"  That was frankly dumb to say .
And this :  "In his White House memoir, Henry Kissinger wrote, “The old adage that men grow into office has not proved true in my experience.” Like many others, I anticipated Mr. Trump would become more “presidential” over time. Yet tweet by tweet, he appears determined to crush that expectation. Maybe he will yet be helped by people who wrestle the White House’s messaging onto more constructive paths. We can wish"

I could not agree more on this point. 

[ccp]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-florida-deputy-coward/2018/02/23/id/845056/

Anyone recall Eisenhower forcing Patten to apologize in front of the troops and be demoted for calling a soldier who mentally collapsed under the stress a coward?

I don't like this.  And don't bother to tell me its true .  Not the point

[Crafty_Dog]

The Only Good Thing About Donald Trump Is All His Policies
A U.S. president who is a boor presents a problem. The presidency, after all, has a symbolic aspect.
By Joseph Epstein
Feb. 26, 2018 6:58 p.m. ET

My son Mark, whose mind is more capacious, objective and generous than mine, nicely formulated the Donald Trump problem for thoughtful conservatives. “I approve of almost everything he has done,” my son remarked, “and I disapprove of almost everything he has said.”


Second the motion. I approve of the Neil Gorsuch appointment, the moving of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the removal of often-strangling regulations from much commerce, the opening of the Keystone pipeline, the tax-reform law, and more.

I disapprove of the bragging tweets, the touchiness, the crude put-downs of anyone who disagrees with him (“Little Marco, ” “insecure Oprah, ” “Sloppy Steve, ” and the rest), the unrestrained vulgarity. America has had ignorant, corrupt, vain, lazy presidents before, but in Donald Trump we have the first president who is a genuine boor.

In many realms of life, a boor’s rude, unmannerly nature can be forgivable. A wise stockbroker, who makes his clients lots of money, might get away with being a boor. A boorish winning football coach— Mike Ditka, take a bow—is livable if not likable. Showbiz has never been without its boors, from George Jessel to Whoopi Goldberg. Even a boorish friend is possible, if he is also loyal, generous and honorable. But a boorish president of the United States presents a problem.

The presidency, like the monarchy in England, has a symbolic along with a practical aspect. The president is meant to represent the nation at its best. What precisely that means can vary greatly in a country as wide and differentiated as ours. Dwight David Eisenhower was a different model of our best than was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Harry S. Truman was different again, and yet in his own way he represented the country, in its Middle Western, small-business, common-sensical strain.


No one expects the president to be perfect. Nonetheless, it is disappointing when his imperfections are glaringly on display. Hence Bill Cinton’s fraternity-boy high jinks in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky was not a mere misdemeanor, a contretemps, but a disgrace, which left a permanent blot on what was in many ways a successful presidency.

The obverse of Donald Trump’s presidency for me was that of Barack Obama. To flip my son’s formulation, I approved of almost everything Mr. Obama said, and I disapproved of almost everything he did. He made a wretched nuclear deal with Iran, initiated a hopelessly cumbersome health-care law, deserted Israel at the United Nations, and did more to exacerbate than to alleviate race relations. Yet no hint of corruption, no sexual scandal of any sort, clings to Mr. Obama, a man who seems a loving husband and a good father.

I can easily imagine myself at lunch with Barack Obama, talking baseball, basketball, the University of Chicago, the intricacies of Chicago-style machine politics, whereas I cannot think of a single topic I might take up at a similar meal with Donald Trump.

The presidency, I can hear critics claiming, is not a charm contest. If President Trump is a boor, that may be regrettable, but better a boor with sound policies than a gentleman with unsound ones. True enough, yet this does not, as the philosophers say, exhaust all cases. A man likes to think that one day we may again have a president with both sound policies and dignified behavior.

Such a combination is of course possible, but at present more than merely unlikely. Boors in their 70s do not change. Donald Trump is incorrigible. Not even John Kelly, a tough retired Marine Corps general, has been able to whip him into anything resembling presidential shape. With Mr. Trump, what we see is what we get, and what we get distinctly isn’t Cary Grant. And we have three more years, possibly seven, to live it.

What is to be done? I wonder if we might start with journalism. What if American reporters began by ignoring Mr. Trump’s tweets, treating them as no more than the belches and embarrassing flatulence of an incurably dyspeptic man? Heavy media coverage of his tweets only encourages the old boy. What if journalists also ceased searching out the rest homes for aging hookers, porn queens, Mmes. America and Universe who, many moons ago, may or may not have lain with the current leader of the free world? With these two steps alone, the nature of current-day political life would be radically improved.





As things stand, with television punditi awaiting each morning’s fresh batch of presidential tweets, and with journalists sniffing out possible sex scandals like so many truffle dogs, the coverage of our politics seems rarely to rise above the intellectual level of the New York Post’s gossip-filled Page Six. Gossip is amusing in its place, but when that place is the White House it tends to lose its allure. In fact, it makes politics in the United States dreary beyond reckoning.

 Mr. Epstein is author of the forthcoming “The Ideal of Culture and Other Essays” (Axios Press) and “Charm: The Elusive Enchantment” ( Taylor Trade), both to be published in 2018.

[ccp]

" The obverse of Donald Trump’s presidency for me was that of Barack Obama. To flip my son’s formulation, I approved of almost everything Mr. Obama said, and I disapproved of almost everything he did."

" Yet no hint of corruption, no sexual scandal of any sort, clings to Mr. Obama,"

I certainly do not agree with these assertions in the least.

"  What is to be done? I wonder if we might start with journalism. What if American reporters began by ignoring Mr. Trump’s tweets, treating them as no more than the belches and embarrassing flatulence of an incurably dyspeptic man? Heavy media coverage of his tweets only encourages the old boy. "

This statement is intriguing though.  What if the media just ignore the man?  Who wants to hear him on a daily basis anyway?  Even I who supports most of his policies do not like listening to him unless he is totally scripted like a SOTU address.

[ccp]

he is wrong.

Trump won not because of himself but despite himself.

He won on his policies  .  He would have won bigger if he did not have his personal flaws and certainly not because of them.

His fighting spirt true was paramount.  But not his obnoxious words.  And to hear other including Mike Savage tell us now that Trump was the only one who could beat Hillary if frankly nonsense.
I distinctly remember real clear politics had every Repub candidate AHEAD of Hillary EXCET Trump. 

That said Trump was the only one with the policies.  Imagine there would not have been so many never Trumpers if Trump was more of a role model personally.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/trumpian-rorschach-test-never-ends/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27655/flashback-donald-trump-rushed-stop-assailant-1991-michael-j-knowles?utm_medium=email&utm_content=022818-news&utm_campaign=position1

[DougMacG]

Quite of few things in her story indicate lack of credibility.  It is only credible because, yes, people can imagine that Donald Trump would have been unfaithful to his wife and family even at that point in his life.

She denied this, denied it, denied it in sworn documents, then alleges it.

She says she is not a victim, this was all consensual, but what came out of the 60 minutes story was the threat made to her in a garage.  That was the criminal part, but the story, like the sex, has no details to verify.  Police were not called.  And she forgot about that when she started calling herself not a victim??  Hard to walk those words back as you expand the allegation.

An affair with a porn actress?  Even as alleged, it was one time, lousy, consensual sex.  Cheating, yes, but not much of a relationship.  She indicated he wanted sex again but didn't get it.

The payment, if made on his behalf, was a campaign contribution?  But the motive for a married man to keep it secret also relates to his marriage, even now as President.  

How about the other side of it?  She has consensual sex allegedly and wants money for silence or for her story?  That has legal danger as well.  Extortion?

If this is a real claim in real life, she has a real name, Stephanie Clifford, but CBS, 60 Minutes and Anderson Cooper keep calling her "Stormy Daniels", even in the transcript I read.  That is not how journalists normally handle this, must have been a condition for the interview - not disclosed to the audience.  Surprisingly, she has a DVD for sale coming out in that nationally promoted name.

The lawyer seemed to hang a warning out there, like she still has videos, photos or more likely texts, but he has denied it so we will see.

The lawyer is a Democrat activist, but this is not political.

The motive whether true of false seems to be not that Leftists are offended by cheating but that Trump supporters like evangelicals should be offended.  Add to that, they would love to see this connect somehow to Meuller's investigation even if it turns out there is nothing there.

Again, the only thing credible is that yes, people can imagine that he would have sex with this woman if given the chance and this woman would have sex once with this man if given the chance.  A BFD maybe if this was Pence and the facts proved true.  But Trump already failed the test of role model and sexual purity.

[G M]

I’m more upset with Trump cheating on us, hooking up with the DC uniparty for some consensual overspending. He says never again, but I don’t believe him.

[Crafty_Dog]

What was the President to do?  Look Sec Def Mattis in the eye and tell him that he was going to throw away all the spending increases for our military until after Congress and the American people got over their spending addictions?

[G M]

What was the President to do?  Look Sec Def Mattis in the eye and tell him that he was going to throw away all the spending increases for our military until after Congress and the American people got over their spending addictions?

I expect that the alleged author of the "Art of the deal" not get rolled by the likes of Chuck Schumer. If I understand correctly, China gets 15 million in foreign aid out of this bill.

That's the fcuking best he could do?

[Crafty_Dog]

Sorry, but spending originates in the Congress.  The Congressional Reps are the ones who lack the testicular fortitude. 

As stupid and outrageous as the $15 MILLION to the Chinese is, losing $700 BILLION (or whatever the number is) for our badly overworked military and overextended military to a fit of pique would be self-destructive beyond calculation.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/anti-trump-new-york-times-columnist-david-brooks/2018/04/10/id/853677/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=newsmax.com&utm_term=68938&utm_content=2218209

[ccp]

I resent the usage by David Brock and others this description of differences of people as "tribal"

it is condescending denigrating and belittling .

This term always seems to come from the Left as a way to describe people on the Right as ancient , medieval ,  or ignorant , uneducated  and basically dumb.

[Crafty_Dog]

He struggles to deal with the reality of how things are going. 

[DougMacG]

I resent the usage by David [Brooks] and others this description of differences of people as "tribal"

it is condescending denigrating and belittling .

This term always seems to come from the Left as a way to describe people on the Right as ancient , medieval ,  or ignorant , uneducated  and basically dumb.

I resent it too.  It has a divide-America motive to it for political gain and it is disgusting.

I also hate terms of class in America, as if you're stuck in a class, upper, middle or lower.  I remember as a boy wondering what class we were in. It could have been any of the three; we didn't neatly fit into a label. There are places in the world where they really do have classes that you are born into and stuck there for life.  In America, we have mobility; you can move up down or sideways, and same for your so-called subculture.  Unless all the people around you succeed in stopping you, you can choose any class or 'tribe' that you want.  You can even choose your gender!

We call them terms like 'liberal elites' and their outlets 'mainstream media', but they embrace those labels.  Like the proponents of "smart growth" and central health care planners like Jonathon Gruber, they really do believe they are smarter than everyone else.  HRC:  "I won the areas that have 2/3rds of GDP".

But as Crafty alludes, we know they aren't smarter because their policies don't work.  A market full of honest, hard working people is smarter than a roomful of geniuses, even if each one of them really was smarter than us.  The economy is picking up and our enemies are taking notice of the new Commander in Chief.

When the politicians and commentators go negative on the deplorables for example, it tends to backfire.  The attacks on Trump and his supporters are backfiring.

[ccp]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doctor-says-trump-dictated-letter-health-000553950.html

I am not defending the doctor here. 
He is a bit questionable himself.

But this is exactly why Trump's heavy handed revenge tactics back fire in his face.  He has never learned to control his temper.

The doctor should not have said anything bout propecia without Trump's prior approval
but just sending his palace guard there to raid the place was a bit much
OTOH I guess he didn't want the guy to copy his records
In NJ I used to copy the records to give to patients and keep the original which I think is necessary for legal purposes.

We are supposed to keep them for 7 yrs even if patient see another doctor. 

I don't know about NY though

[ccp]

Not much to say

if dems win Congress he will be impeached.
even if dems win Senate he  may not  be convicted as  67 votes needed (unless some rebs also vote to convict - and  I can certainly see that happening)

the future of his presidency looks very miserable from here

*unless* Repubs can keep House and Senate.

It may be up to Repub turnout in November



 

[Crafty_Dog]

FWIW I see the legal tide shifting the President's way of late , , ,

[G M]

FWIW I see the legal tide shifting the President's way of late , , ,

He's rich, he bangs supermodels and porn stars, he wants to create a space army. He is an Iron Man suit away from being a superhero. He may be our greatest president ever!

[ccp]

GM wrote :
"He's rich, he bangs supermodels and porn stars, he wants to create a space army. He is an Iron Man suit away from being a superhero. He may be our greatest president ever!"

A modern Republican version of DEM icon JKF
  (except for the third sentence)

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/trumps-email-scandal/

[DougMacG]

Yesterday I wrote about G7:
"Nice that the group now excludes Russia, not close to top 10 but part of the former G8 or 7+1."
The ink wasn't dry when Trump announced Russia should be in the group.  What??  Mentioned earlier, Russia has an economy smaller than China, India and Brazil, all not in the talks.  Their significance is what?  Nuclear arms?  China has those, India too.  Rogue interventionism gives them a seat in the group of advanced economies?  What is advanced about the Russian economy, crony industries and oil?

A minute or two before that he was bragging how no one is tougher on Russia than him.

It makes me think of the ZTE question.  Why would we save a Chinese company who makes its fortune stealing US technology?  He needs China's help on NK and with trade barriers.

Trump tried to isolate China on trade, but declaring a national security emergency on Canada and Europe as well.

Is this guy nuts?

I have grudgingly become a Trump supporter because he has been far better than expected, and better than the candidate I supported on policy and appointments would have been.

It's difficult being a Trump supporter when he keeps pulling stuff like this.  Written previously, there is no way to tell while it's happening when he is being stupid and when he is a step or two ahead of us with an eye on the big picture.

Is this guy nuts, is exactly the question he wants his negotiating opponents, Europe on trade and Kim Jung Un on his continued existence, to be thinking as negotiations begin.  He doesn't want Russia in the group.  He wants his rivals in the trade game of chicken to think he is nuts.  And he needs Putin's help to isolate NK.  Now Un can wonder if Putin and Trump have something all worked out much larger than Russia protecting his puny regime.

Painful to watch but very good results could come out of this.

[Crafty_Dog]

IIRC, Russia is making quasi-cooperative noises about leaving Syria.

Putin is doing mating dances with Xi.

If at all possible we want to not have Russia working at cross purposes to us geopolitically.  China and the Norks are all we can handle right now.  If we succeed with the Norks, and Russia distances from the Iranians, our success with the Norks will lay the foundation for pressuring with Iran.

The Euros oppose us on the JCPOA in great part because of Swamp reasons.  See https://www.facebook.com/FoxNewsVoices/videos/1047138215434733/?hc_ref=ARSrSohQBj3VrCPAUa3c8jbiiKNo7cJvf2D6Fev-dxAb42WhjzMQw5xHWOCPBhOAlJA Sorry for citing via FB, anyone have this on youtube?
 

[Crafty_Dog]

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/56540-trump-plays-chess-while-msm-plays-checkers?mailing_id=3544&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3544&utm_campaign=alexander&utm_content=header

Still looking for non-FB clip of this:

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNewsVoices/videos/1047138215434733/?hc_ref=ARSrSohQBj3VrCPAUa3c8jbiiKNo7cJvf2D6Fev-dxAb42WhjzMQw5xHWOCPBhOAlJA

[Crafty_Dog]

This I believe was the origin of Donald Trump's comments  about rapists that were part of his announcing his candidacy:

""80% of women and girls from Central America who enter the U.S. illegally suffer rape."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html "

I would also note that no one  seems to have asked whether he said is his typically fragmented syntax

(working from memory here)

a) "the people they are sending , , , they are rapists" or

b)  "they are sending us their rapists"

[DougMacG]

This I believe was the origin of Donald Trump's comments  about rapists that were part of his announcing his candidacy:

""80% of women and girls from Central America who enter the U.S. illegally suffer rape."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html "

I would also note that no one  seems to have asked whether he said is his typically fragmented syntax

(working from memory here)

a) "the people they are sending , , , they are rapists" or

b)  "they are sending us their rapists"

He also based his campaign start on Ann Coulter's book 'Adios America' which I believe was a highly researched academic study of these problems.  Most law enforcement and media crime reports don't distinguish legal from illegal with perps of crimes so a lot of research was required to try to measure the crimes of the illegals.

On the second part, good point.  He did not say they were all rapists etc. but it was easy for opponents to say he was disparaging all of them with his not very careful arrangement of words.  A little like the Muslims, if (only?)10% are jihadists and 30% are ISIS sympathizers, or if the ratios are one half or tenth of that, why take any of them if we can't sort it out?  If we reject the whole group with plenty of good people in it because of the crimes of the many, so be it.  With legal immigration we can at least try to sort out good from bad.

If you are an illegal who came across the border by paying thousand of US$ to a criminal border gang and an 80% chance your wife and daughters were raped, you have seen the bad elements of which he refers.

Interesting that Huffington Post is the source reporting that despicable border statistic, "according to directors of migrant shelters".  Don't believe for a second that the leaders of the Left don't know how bad this is.

It is inhumane to keep luring them into this trap.

One more point on the "children".  A 17 1/2 year old who has not been under the direction of a parent for 6 or 7 years and has already committed multiple felonies, rapes and murders, could be a gang leader, and would be tried as an adult if caught - is a "child".  Not just the cute, innocent little ones.

[DougMacG]

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/08/magazine/the-expanding-empire-of-donald-trump.html

...somehow, everyone at this sports function was drawn to Donald Trump, the 37-year-old owner of the New Jersey Generals, a franchise in the upstart United States Football League.
...
Donald J. Trump is the man of the hour. Turn on the television or open a newspaper almost any day of the week and there he is, snatching some star form the National Football League, announcing some preposterously lavish project he wants to build. Public-relations firms call him, offering to handle his account for nothing, so that they might take credit for the torrential hoopla. . .

SPENDING A DAY WITH Donald Trump is like driving a Ferrari without the windshield. It’s exhilarating; he gets a few bugs in his teeth. . .

Just as the name Donald Trump is well-known to most New Yorkers, the name is now becoming recognized throughout the country. He is fast becoming one of the nation’s wealthiest entrepreneurs, able to buy practically anthing he wants. . .

While critics charge that Mr. Trump is a raving egomaniac, bent on putting his name on every inanimate object in the city, he claims that putting on the Trump name is value added.

‘These units are selling,’ says Blanche Sprague, who is in charge of sales at Trump Plaza, ‘because of the Trump name.’ A man holding a trowel says he is proud to be working on a Trump building and always tells his friends.

‘I don’t think you understand,’ Mrs. Sprague adds. ‘When I walk down the street with Donald, people come up and just touch him, hoping that his good fortune will rub off.’

The Trump touch. It has set some people in New York to outright Trump worship; they call him ‘a real-estate genius’ who has helped lead the city out of the darkness of the mid-1970’s into a new era of glamour and excitement. Mr. Trump does not take exception to that.

To others, the notion that Mr. Trump seems to be able to do just about anything he sets his mind to is terrifying. They see him as a rogue billionaire, loose in the city like some sort of movie monster, unrestrained by the bounds of good taste or by city officials to whom he makes campaign contributions . . .
‘Trump is mad and wonderful,’ says [famed architect Philip] Johnson. . .

‘He has the uncanny ability to smell blood in the water,’ a competitor says. . . ‘He is an almost unbelievable negotiator,’ says Irving Fischer of HRH Construction. ‘I don’t worship at the shrine of Donald Trump,’ he says, ‘but our company has given up trying to negotiate costs with him. We just say: ‘Tell us what you want, you’re going to get it anyway.” . . .

Preston Robert Tisch, a developer and chief operating officer of the Loews Corporation, who lost out to Mr. Trump in the battle over whose site would be chosen for the city’s convention center, concludes: ‘He captured the imagination of people to a greater degree than I could.’

Mr. Trump does not place patience on his list of virtues. . .  It is often pointed out that Mr. Trump is prone to exaggeration in describing his projects. Oh, he lies a great deal, says Philip Johnson with a laugh. But it’s sheer exuberance, exaggeration. It’s never about anything important. He’s straight as an arrow in his business dealings. . .

Mr. Trump has abandoned the flashy haberdashery he favored some years ago – a wardrobe that included a burgundy suit and matching shoes – and he now dresses conservatively if casually, often wearing dark suits, white shirts, subdued ties and loafers. He speaks slowly and softly and in the same casual manner to eminent architects an business moguls as to the coffee and sandwich vendor outside his casino-hotel. He is said, by acquaintances, to be generally even tempered and rarely seems ruffled. He is not given to unkind remarks and is nearly always in a positive frame of mind. I never think of the negative, he says. All obstacles can be overcome. . .

Asked to explain, he adds: What does it all mean when some wacko over in Syria can end the world with nuclear weapons? He says that his concern for nuclear holocaust is not one that popped into his mind during any recent made-of-television movie. He says that it has been troubling him since his uncle, a nuclear physicist, began talking to him about it 15 years ago.

His greatest dream is to personally do something about the problem and, characteristially, Donald Trump thinks he has an answer to nuclear armament: Let him negotiate arms agreements —he who can talk people into selling $100 million properties to him for $13 million. Negotiation is an art, he says, and I have a gift for it.

The idea that he would ever be allowed to get into a room alone and negotiate for the United States, let alone be successful in disarming the world, seems the naive musing of an optimistic, deluded young man who has never lost at anything he has tried. But he believes that through years of making his views known and through supporting candidates who share his views, it could someday happen.

He is constantly asked about his interest in running for elective office. Absolutely not, he answers. All of the false smiles and the red tape. It is too difficult to really do anything.
-------------------
Hat tip Steve Hayward

[Crafty_Dog]

Far out.

[ccp]

Klayman:

not illegal to pay hush money(though the left will make it about some twisted election law thing)
it is not illegal to tape in one party NY state but unethical for Cohen to have done so with a law client

[ccp]

Even Roosevelt seemed to like Stalin.

I though Trump was better then this though but I guess not :

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/helsinki-summit-trump-bites-on-putins-incredible-offer/

[ccp]

a week or two ago we had one poll with him at 49 % and that was the highest approval yet.
now we have him at 44 % and he is at the highest yet.  Every week I read his approval is mid 40s for a year and he is at the highest yet with each one.

What a bunch of BS :

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/donald-trump-republicans-approval-rating-economy/2018/07/22/id/873124/

[DougMacG]

a week or two ago we had one poll with him at 49 % and that was the highest approval yet.
now we have him at 44 % and he is at the highest yet.  Every week I read his approval is mid 40s for a year and he is at the highest yet with each one.

What a bunch of BS :

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/donald-trump-republicans-approval-rating-economy/2018/07/22/id/873124/

The 49% poll was probably Rasmussen, different methodology, generally more accurate. For the others, look at it this way,.  He won the election at their measure of 38% approval so he is way up from where he was when he won 300 electoral votes.

Isn't Trump more popular in the US than Merkel is in Germany, May in Britain, Macron in France or Trudeau in Canada? Only in the 95% negative media are his detractors noteworthy.

On the disapproval side, Dems are united in hating Trump but divided beyond that.  All the energy on the left is with the far left but the country is not clamoring for a revolution against capitalism. If a sensible moderate prevails with the Democrat nomination, the far left will revolt.

Of the Democrat candidates they could put up against Trump, there is a small pool of moderate or western state governors that aren't part of the socialists and jackasses in Washington, such as Hickenlooper in Colorado, and they have virtually no chance of being nominated or winning.

In the aftermath of Obama, all that's left of experienced leadership are the octogenarians. Put Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Schumer or Durbin on a national ballot. These are their leaders. What a joke. Or Ocasio or Ellison...   Approvals are relative to the alternatives.

[Crafty_Dog]

Exactly.

[ccp]

I don't know yet if House will be lost etc.  But if it does this could well be what turns off the "independents" from voting Republican:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/midterm-elections-democratic-wave-trump-unpresidential-manner-will-cost-republicans/

[DougMacG]

I like Jay Cost but he is half wrong which means wrong on this IMHO.  Good for him for hanging around with wise people like George Will but George Will is wrong too. Electing Democrats doesn't solve this and voters know that.

Jay cost, from the article:  "Trump’s entire Twitter feed is a case study in how not to act as president."

Because this is an overstatement, half false, this statement is false. Trump goes over the top and has inaccuracies in his Twitter feed but it is exactly that feed that gives him the voice that got him elected and got his long list of accomplishments achieved. To those who don't get that, you are missing something. Where is President Jeb Bush with his nice manners now? Where was the MSM support of John McCain after he won the nomination? When did the media reward Romney for his stately manner and deep resume?

It didn't matter. If you aren't a leftist, they hate you. If you can't fight back, you lose, they win.  Trump's overstatements and chest pounding on his Twitter feed draw attention to it and that is where he is able to make his points to the public without the MSM filter. Haven't we all known this for about a year and a half or more?

If people don't like the unpresidential manner of this president, do they think it will be better with the House run by the nuts of the opposing party and as he defense against a groundless impeachment?

Trump will be removed from office only when a majority of Republicans turn against him. The midterm election is irrelevant to that. On the ballot this year will be the repeal of the economic recovery and the reinstatement of the Obama Ocasio Chavez economic plan.  Democrats need about a plus 9 or 10 in the polls to win. Maybe we can look back later and say that they almost had that in late July.

Jay Cost is a good analyst but he is citing the last poll numbers published before the Republican economic success was cast into concrete for the midterm campaigns. The media won't toute it but the House Republican campaigns will and they have not begun to air.

[Crafty_Dog]

I agree with the piece's point about President Trump's all too frequent farts of personal immaturity and personal insecurity genuinely causing concern and that they are a key variable for many people in determining whether to support him and the Reps or not.

[ccp]

" I agree with the piece's point about President Trump's all too frequent farts of personal immaturity and personal insecurity genuinely causing concern and that they are a key variable for many people in determining whether to support him and the Reps or not. '

Indeed 

I am not nostradamus but I find it hard to believe this guy's approval would not be above 50% mark if he did not have the personality flaws that go with his tenacity.

We CANNOT lose the House this November. 
We all agree here no doubt. 

I can't believe the Senate race in Missouri is a toss up at this point.
How is it the slime ball crooked Dems so often can buy there way through elections?
I gave $100 to Hawley and will probably donate some more.
(of course I have a personal interest)

I was thinking of donating some to David Nunes.

[DougMacG]

I wholly agree on manner and gaffes but don't think he would be president if Trump were not Trump. The good without the bad is not one of our options. His erratic behavior also causes confusion for Juncker, Un and Xi in addition to Schumer, Durbin, and even Ryan, McConnell. That is not all bad.

The issue I found him most wrong on was trade. He still makes wrong sounds on trade, yet his policy is leading toward breaking down the barriers against American products overseas and toward free trade more so than any other president or any other candidate would have achieved.

It seems to me his trendline is up; he is acting more and more presidential over time. The Helsinki freeze-up was bizarre but there was something more going on there that we don't know. Bigger things were at stake, the Syrian war and cooperation against Un and Xi for examples.  Time will sort that out.

[ccp]

couldn't agree with Bannon more :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/steve-bannon-charles-koch-apos-103627144.html

of course the big business guy is screaming about trade and immigration
blah blah blah.

he is not conservative then .  you can't tell me you may be willing to work with crats and give the US of A as we know away for good and tell me you are a real Republican or conservative

over some temporary tariff issues and opening up flood gates to the world who will predominately vote for a party that is against everything we stand for

now is not the time to squabble .   

[DougMacG]

quote author=ccp
couldn't agree with Bannon more :

Yes but not real practical to tell donors to shut up.

To Koch and to George Wil typesl, it's pretty hard to advance libertarian causes by supporting the party of Obama, Sanders, Pelosi!

Pick the right side and help out. Give money to Cramer in North Dakota and to key house candidates. They can still criticize Trump when he's wrong or has bad form.

[ccp]

"Yes but not real practical to tell donors to shut up."

I agree ,

but then what to do with them?  do we change policy that affects the whole nation because they insist?


they are threatening to stop donations and support Dems if they don't get what THEY want.
they can do what they want with their money but does the Repubs need to be threatened by their own donors
their points are well taken with divisiveness and trade and immigration .

But that said
they either support the GOP ( with some disagreements in policy understood) or they don't.

why are they giving to the GOP anyway ? is it all about what helps their businesses and everything else be damed?
I am not saying that but just don't get it otherwise .  that is what it appears to be.
How can anyone seriously insist on immigration (open at least ) and after watching what has happened to California and other previously red states like Colorado NM and others and say you are for the GOP?
the two are incompatible.  The Bush theory of winning them over is too little and too late and cannot compete with the Dems tax and bribe policies

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/the_chinese_think_trump_is_a_genius.html

[DougMacG]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/the_chinese_think_trump_is_a_genius.html

From a link in the article: 

Donald J. Trump
‏@realDonaldTrump
"The Supreme Art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." -- Sun Tzu
17 Jul 2012

Trump was known as a negotiator before he had the full faith and credit (and military) of the United States of America behind him for his position of strength.  It seemed like a joke or cliche, but it really will get more and more fun for him if he keeps winning.

How do the Canadians, the EU, or the Chinese justify their own position, having a complex set of rules and tariffs against our products while we accept theirs freely?  We don't have cheap labor and their consumers can't afford that much of our products, what are they afraid of?  It doesn't make any sense.  A level playing field with no tariffs is the only logical stopping point in the trade fight.  Meanwhile Trump has confronted China with a number of even bigger issues, NK, Taiwan, So China Sea, technology theft, WTO, nuclear proliferation in their region, plus underlying all that they know he might just be nuts.  Brush him off at your own risk but if I were them I would cut a deal and let Trump declare victory.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271088/trumps-character-and-trumps-presidency-david-horowitz

[ccp]

https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2018/08/24/jim-brown-backs-trump-2020-claims-support-will-make-me-very-unpopular-black-community/

I remember around 10 yrs old reading a biography from some NY Giant who discussed a lot of his games .  I think he was a defensive lineman but cannot remember his name.

Whenever they would play Cleveland the coaches would tell them to watch out for Jimmy Brown.  Watch out for him over and over again.

They would play against the Browns and Jimmy would run all over them anyway and kick their rear ends.

May have been a better actor than OJ too.

[Crafty_Dog]

I saw Jim Brown play against the Philadelphia Eagles. 

He was truly extraordinary.

[DougMacG]

An truth came out of the McCain funeral where presidents Bush and Obama spoke, Hillary and Biden sat next to the Cheneys and Trump was shunned, mocked and denigrated:

The Resistance is The Establishment.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/405463-dems-vow-to-grab-trump-tax-returns-upon-taking-majority

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/donald-trump-political-opponents/