The US Presidency 2018

[Strike]

Much more detailed explanation than I gave for sure.

Given that the TAF was ammended part way through it's forecast period due to unexpected worse conditions, it's safe to assume the forecast from the planning brief the day before likely did not reflect conditions that morning either.

Edit: To keep on topic, sloppy reporting like I saw on CBC with a headline along the lines of Light Rain Keeps Trump from Ceremony just creates distrust in the media's ability to report impartially and reasonably on some topics.

Now, in the media's defence, that may have been what they were told - the rain is too bad for the helicopter to fly in.  Was that the case? Not exactly. But do you think that the media would have understood Loach's explanation, even in Coles Notes version?

Many times I have done the same thing - given a short version of why we do what we do in a way people would understand because the full version is too complicated and the media would probably F it up in translation anyway.

 

[Loachman]

No reporter can ever be a complete expert on all of the subjects on which he or she reports - generally multiple completely different topics every day. I've found that most are genuinely interested, and do the best that they can.

There is always a minority, however, that have agendae and deliberately twist everything to match.

 

[Remius]

It is being able to sift through the noise though.  For example after seeing the initial reports on rain keeping the president away I came across an article about how French officials attended the Arlington’s ceremony despite Trump not going to the one in Europe.

While true, sure, it is misleading.  The president had way more distance tontravel than French officials posted to D.C.  also it was officials, not the PM or the president of France attending at Arlington.  But it was trying to drive a narrative that was not required.

 

[FJAG]

I think that much of this discussion fails to meet the point.

There undoubtedly was a severe enough weather condition so that the air planning element recommended against flying to the site. Similarly I would assume that there was a concern about the ground transport security with the distance involved. I would expect, however, that, like any of these types of events, there was already a contingency plan for ground transport in place with a risk assessment.

The question I am left with is whether or not Trump saw this event as a significant enough one to trigger the ground transportation plan in light of the contingency plan risk assessment.

My viewpoint on this matter is greatly influenced by the fact that Trump did not tweet anything about there being a security risk that made travel unacceptable. His tweet addressing the issue said:

. . . when the helicopter couldn’t fly to the first cemetery in France because of almost zero visibility, I suggested driving. Secret Service said NO, too far from airport & big Paris shutdown. . . .

That can be interpreted several ways but IMHO it does not disclose a "security risk", just a difficulty that could be overcome if the President thought it important enough. Again, IMHO, while the Secret Service has a lot to say about security arrangements, it's up to the President and his political staff to determine if the risk is acceptable in the face of political reality. I would think that considering the significance of this event at this particular time the political backlash and criticism was readily foreseeable and the decision not to go but to send representatives was a poor one.

Do I think that he is deliberately dissing veterans or afraid of a little rain. No. What I do think is that he makes poor decisions and when it comes to making one that favours his "convenience" rather than other considerations. He, and his advisers (or maybe in spite of his advisors), makes impulse decisions that do not properly weigh the consequences of his actions. This was one of those. It's not a matter of deliberate disrespect just that the event didn't matter enough to him.

:cheers:

 

[QV]

That is quite the supposition.         

 

[Remius]

That is quite the supposition.       

Not really.  As I said, WW1 is not as culturally important in the U.S as it is in Canada or France or GB or other countries that were more involved at the time.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think that much of this discussion fails to meet the point.

There undoubtedly was a severe enough weather condition so that the air planning element recommended against flying to the site. Similarly I would assume that there was a concern about the ground transport security with the distance involved. I would expect, however, that, like any of these types of events, there was already a contingency plan for ground transport in place with a risk assessment.

The question I am left with is whether or not Trump saw this event as a significant enough one to trigger the ground transportation plan in light of the contingency plan risk assessment.

My viewpoint on this matter is greatly influenced by the fact that Trump did not tweet anything about there being a security risk that made travel unacceptable. His tweet addressing the issue said:

That can be interpreted several ways but IMHO it does not disclose a "security risk", just a difficulty that could be overcome if the President thought it important enough. Again, IMHO, while the Secret Service has a lot to say about security arrangements, it's up to the President and his political staff to determine if the risk is acceptable in the face of political reality. I would think that considering the significance of this event at this particular time the political backlash and criticism was readily foreseeable and the decision not to go but to send representatives was a poor one.

Do I think that he is deliberately dissing veterans or afraid of a little rain. No. What I do think is that he makes poor decisions and when it comes to making one that favours his "convenience" rather than other considerations. He, and his advisers (or maybe in spite of his advisors), makes impulse decisions that do not properly weigh the consequences of his actions. This was one of those. It's not a matter of deliberate disrespect just that the event didn't matter enough to him.

:cheers:

So if Trump tweets the left is upset.

If he doesn't tweet, they get upset because he didn't tweet about national security concerns while visiting an enclave of islamic terrorism?

Not sure whether I've got that right.

What I'm finding, though, is that no matter how this is explained, or who's doing the explaining, some just cannot get their head around that this was probably a glitch, nothing untoward.

Even if it was because Trump had had a heart attack, there are those that would try extrapolate it to the point that Trump administered sodium pentothal to himself to avoid the cemetery service.

It has nothing to do with the Fallen or Remembrance and all about casting about and refusing to believe all this wasn't Trumps fault. Sad that the left let their personal vendetta and agenda take over such a solemn occasion, but I've come to accept that they have no more concern over sacrifice than the next protest. Nothing stands in the way if they can stick it to Trump. The agenda is number 1, not the truth.

I like Trump. I don't like the left. No surprise to anyone. However, I have priorities, unlike the single minded Trump haterz. Trump is human, he makes mistakes. I can admit that.

I don't know what happened, but I'll take the word of SME's over some second rate journalist, or those that just can't be satisfied that maybe, just maybe Trump might be innocent in all of this. They must be running out of rocks to look under. Or maybe they are finding so many friends there, they forgot what they were looking for. Loachman provided the most succinct, educational explanation I've heard so far, anywhere. Here, on other social media or in the Press. It's there in black and white for anyone that wants to understand. Yet there are those that discount it out of hand because of their hatred for Trump.

Not really.  As I said, WW1 is not as culturally important in the U.S as it is in Canada or France or GB or other countries that were more involved at the time.

Does that mean you're current narrative blames Trump not going because the US doesn't think WWI was culturally important, because that's the way it reads?

I have met hundreds of Americans that will disagree with you.

Maybe, it's just the pompous attitude Canadians seem to have when speaking about Americans.

 

[Remius]

Does that mean you're current narrative blames Trump not going because the US doesn't think WWI was culturally important, because that's the way it reads?

I have met hundreds of Americans that will disagree with you.

Maybe, it's just the pompous attitude Canadians seem to have when speaking about Americans.

Oh give it a rest.  Go back a few posts and read my thoughts about what I think about him not going and why.

Instead of shotgun blasting your thoughts maybe read and consider what people here are actually trying to say. I actually agree with you about why he might not have gone.  But you likely just skipped that.

I’ve already been warned once about responding to you. I suppose i’ll get another one.

Yes I actually do believe that WW1 is less important culturally to most Americans.  Look at all the movies made about Americans in WW1 compared to the myriad of WW2, Vietnam, civil war or any other major conflict other than WW1.  Or littérature or what ever.  WW1 seems to be more or less at the bottom or close to it.

WW1 was a coming of age for most British Colonial states.  It was also a much more drawn out affair for them than it was for the US.

It isn’t a knock on the US or Trump it’s just a fact.  Feel free to disagree but how about you argue the point without being so passive aggressive.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You'll have to use better bait than that.

I reserve the right to comment, my thoughts, on any given topic presented here, just like you and others.

It probably would have been better to just explain what you meant instead of attacking me.

Been warned about replying to me? That's really rich. You no doubt have. Likely by those that have not successfully silenced me, but that's a guess and really I could care less about faceless people making faceless comments about what I write.

It doesn't matter anyway, but again, thanks for making it all about me, then trying to slip a little explanation in there.

I've been written as a Trump boot licker here, literally, but no one seems concerned. I've been called a very long established alt right racist, nobody's concerned here. I've been demonized by the left, here, for my stances. People keep insisting I read their stuff, but they don't read mine or ask for clarification, before responding and calling me names or impinging on my integrity. Contrary to your, and others belief, I do read what is written and I read it like hearing a conversation. If what you're saying isn't making sense, I'll question it.

If you don't like my style or comments, challenge them.

I'll respond in kind to any that want to discuss things. I'll also respond in kind to those that wish to attack me instead of my comments.

I've about run my course on the subject of the cemetery anyway. There's those that have some intelligence and recognize that there were probably real circumstances that prevented the visit, then there are those that will accept nothing less than Trump wanting to protect his hair. The former warrant discussion, the latter don't

Enough of the tangent. You brought it out in the open, in public, I've given my side, in response. If you still want to vilify me, do it over PMs.

 

[larry Strong]

From the Washington Post no less........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?utm_term=.ec7850fb8d83



Cheers
Larry

 

[Loachman]

I am truly surprised to see that in the Washington Post.

I monitor a number of unconventional sources and analysts, as well as the "reputable" ones who prove less insightful and accurate reporting and commentary. The non-standard ones have been pointing this stuff out all along.

President Trump's background is business - and an often cutthroat one - and entertainment. He approaches his current job in the same way, self- and national-promotion, which generally involves a little excessive hype, but actual results are the most important.

He has frequently had to work with people that he doesn't like, and set aside differences, to achieve results - the "greater good". This is why he has been able to get further with Kim Jong-Un than any of his predecessors, firstly responding in kind, then holding out a carrot. Whatever his personal opinion of Kim Jong-Un really is, and he is certainly aware of Kim's brutal crimes, a peace treaty is definitely the "greater good".

One can find interviews with him going back decades on YouTube. He is remarkably consistent in his views over that time.

Yes, there are some truly cringe-worthy tweets, and he is far from perfect, but the US (and the planet) is far better off with him as President than any of his contenders, from either party, when one looks at the bigger picture.

And the entertainment value is second-to-none.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

From the Washington Post no less........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history/2018/10/11/67aefc5a-cd76-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?utm_term=.ec7850fb8d83



Cheers
Larry

As a long time subscriber, I can tell you that they go out of their way to ensure that a counter-voice is presented, almost every week.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I dont see anyone caring. The situation is being handled. Nothing to talk about.

Just like the 10% tax cut for the middle class that was going to be brought in "in the first week of Nov", notwithstanding that Congress was not sitting I guess.

Oh that's right - that was another pre-election lie with no chance or hope of being enacted.

 

[brihard]

What’s Trump up to now? More than four thousand documented lies or mistruths since he was sworn in? Counterpoint or no, calling him an ‘honest’ individual is hardly credible.

 

[Remius]

Well stranger things have happened....

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/11/16/chris-wallace-donald-trump-interview-preview-should-have-gone-veterans-day-arlington


But good on him for admitting a mistake.

 

[mariomike]

Oh that's right - that was another pre-election lie with no chance or hope of being enacted.

Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379

Republican votes: 50,101,060

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

 

[kkwd]

Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379

Republican votes: 50,101,060

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

It doesn't sound so impressive when you add in the unopposed districts. There were 38 districts like that. By a rough count it comes out to about 4 and a half million votes where the Republicans didn't field a candidate. There were even districts where 0 votes were cast and the Democratic candidate prevailed. Raw numbers don't seem to tell the true story. Anyway, I thought the historic outcome of a midterm election was for the party holding the White House to lose at least the House Of Representatives. Is it different now? Just because, you know, "He" is in the President.

 

[brihard]

Anyway, I thought the historic outcome of a midterm election was for the party holding the White House to lose at least the House Of Representatives. Is it different now? Just because, you know, "He" is in the President.

Nope- in fairness to the man, he did properly observe the midterm tradition of losing control of the House of Representatives. So no different now. It was amusing to see him try to call it a victory though. That was some amusingly tortured logic.

 

[kkwd]

Nope- in fairness to the man, he did properly observe the midterm tradition of losing control of the House of Representatives. So no different now. It was amusing to see him try to call it a victory though. That was some amusingly tortured logic.

Certainly, we all know how he is, he loves to put a spin on it.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379

Republican votes: 50,101,060

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

My statement has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. President Trump stated that the tax cut would be enacted before election day, even though it was apparent to outside observers that this would be impossible, as the House had risen.  This of course begs two questions: did the President know that he would have needed congressional consent in order to deliver a tax cut; and if he did in fact know that, is his statement an indication of his contempt for his base, or perhaps the American voter in general.