The US Presidency 2019

[Jarnhamar]

Lots of disappointed Americans today not having very much about Trump's speech yesterday to be outraged about.

At least his reveloutionary war airport mixup must have helped many get through the day  ;D

 

[FJAG]

Lots of disappointed Americans today not having very much about Trump's speech yesterday to be outraged about.

At least his reveloutionary war airport mixup must have helped many get through the day  ;D

The reference to the 1814 Battle at Fort McHenry as part of the Revolutionary War was also interesting. Who writes his speeches anyway?

That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

Changing the subject slightly, there's a good article in today's The Atlantic which delves into the development of Trump's foreign policy contradictions over the past year or two which is worth reading:

Trump Couldn’t Ignore the Contradictions of His Foreign Policy Any Longer
The president moves to straighten out his own foreign policy—and leaves his hawkish national security adviser on the sidelines.

6:00 AM ET
Thomas Wright
Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

... President Trump’s foreign policy has been full of twists and turns, but it has also followed a clear narrative arc. The 10-day period from June 20—when Trump reversed himself on Iran strikes—to the DMZ visit was among the most significant of his presidency, as he was forced to come to terms with the consequences and contradictions of his own decisions. Over the course of three decades, Trump has carefully nurtured two images of himself—as a deal maker, and as a militarist. Bolton did all he could to encourage the latter. But even from faraway Ulaanbaatar this past weekend, it was clear that, when made to choose, Trump would opt for the former.

To understand where we are and where we are going, we must first understand where we have been. Trump became president with a set of deeply rooted visceral instincts about the world—hostility to alliances, skepticism of free trade, and support for authoritarian strongmen—but little idea about how to convert these beliefs into policy. He had few advisers qualified for high office who believed what he believed. He was insecure. And so he turned to a number of highly experienced businessmen and former military officers to fill key national security and foreign policy positions—John Kelly, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, Gary Cohn, and Rex Tillerson. These men saw their role as constraining the president, not empowering him. The measured their success by what they prevented from happening, rather than by what they made happen. In the Trump epoch, this was the age of constraint. ...

See rest of article here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trump-tries-to-fix-his-foreign-policy-without-bolton/593284/

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

I imagine the base was a bit disappointed he didn't turn it into a full-scale MAGA rally.

So far, he's sticking to this dry as melba toast speech and resisting the temptation to riff. We must have scared him straight. He doesn't want his campaign to have to repay the government the millions he'd owe if he got political.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-july-4th-speech-1.5200055

 

[Brad Sallows]

The "base" is undoubtedly perfectly happy with a full-scale pro-America rally.

A substantial slice of the "news" media spent the past couple of days hyping speculation about elements of campaigning, deploring and documenting the costs of military participation, going to the America-isn't-so-great well to recycle the usual complaints, and fretting about overt patriotism in general.  You watch; you'll see; you'll be sorry; etc; etc.

Then they find the speech is just basic rah-rah America, with no apparent partisan campaign messages or self-boosting Trumpism.  Another damp squib.

 

[Remius]

That said, I wasn't disappointed at all; just pleasantly surprised that he was able to keep the speech about America rather than himself.

:cheers:

To be honest I agree with what you just said.  it was more or less subdued and his speech was a little too rah rah rah military but overall was not very political at all.  A few tank displays and some fly overs.  Not that different from some Canada day things I've seen.

 

[FJAG]

The "base" is undoubtedly perfectly happy with a full-scale pro-America rally.

A substantial slice of the "news" media spent the past couple of days hyping speculation about elements of campaigning, deploring and documenting the costs of military participation, going to the America-isn't-so-great well to recycle the usual complaints, and fretting about overt patriotism in general.  You watch; you'll see; you'll be sorry; etc; etc.

Then they find the speech is just basic rah-rah America, with no apparent partisan campaign messages or self-boosting Trumpism.  Another damp squib.

Damp squib is exactly the right term for this whole event and the news coverage of it. I've just watched the New York Macey's 4th of July celebration as well as the Washington affair (skipped the fireworks for the later)

Macey's was actually quite nice interspersing a variety of musical acts with video clips of Americans (including the military). It was nice that it covered the country from coast to coast and while hyping up patriotism and America as a whole made it's point by looking at Americans as individuals who are part of the whole.

The Washington event seemed to be a big bust (and not just because of the rain). While Trump's speech talked up the military, the event was not really military. Two M1s and two M2s and a few planes flying past do not a military show of force make. The National Guard probably makes as much of a display at some professional football games. The Marine drill team, band and choir and the Old Guard fife and drum corps had little impact performing on a lacklustre stage. There really was no military parade to speak of just Trump's lengthy and quite dull speech.

In a lot of ways Trump's vision of an event to rival Bastille Day was a complete bust. Here I blame a grandiose vision frustrated by a combination of a Democratic Washington municipal government and a military hierarchy neither of whom wanted any part in the affair. While the press for the most part had a pre-event negative view of it, that's understandable from the point of view of Trump's penchant from making these type of things all about himself, and the departure from the traditional way the 4th has been celebrated over the last half dozen decades.

I'm really not sure who to blame more for this "squib" but in the end, does it really matter? I expect the left will consider it a national embarrassment while the right will laud it as a great presidential moment while much of the centre is probably just happy that it didn't turn into the ****show that they were all expecting that it would.

Trump Commandeers the Fourth of July
Wandering the National Mall on Independence Day brought you face-to-face with a divided country.

... A Mall celebration that is normally “come one, come all” was split into haves and have-nots, as the choicest spots to watch Trump’s speech were off-limits to anyone without a VIP ticket. Scoring one depended on who you were and whom you knew: Distribution was controlled by the White House, the Trump reelection campaign, and the Republican National Committee. ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/trump-fourth-of-july/593359/

:2c:

 

[tomahawk6]

The meaning of the 4th of July was the start of the Revolution which was a success thanks to our people and leaders at the time. So last night was a tribute to our armed forces and I liked it. The fly over was nice similar to the one's I have seen in France and the UK.

 

[Remius]

The fly over was nice similar to the one's I have seen in France and the UK.

Well the revolutionary war did inspire the French Revolution when they stormed the Bastille and the Paris airport and the Brits under Alfred the Great pushed the Danes out of Heathrow.  So I can see why a fly by makes sense.  ;D

All kidding aside it seemed fairly appropriate and tastefully done.  I’m actually surprised Americans don’t normally have military displays or military parades for July 4th.

 

[mariomike]

In a lot of ways Trump's vision of an event to rival Bastille Day was a complete bust.

At least this time it didn't get cancelled,

2018 Washington Veterans Day Parade
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-military-parade-estimated-cost-92-million/story?id=57218363
Trump cancels military parade, blames local politicians as estimated cost balloons to $92 million

 

[tomahawk6]

Well the revolutionary war did inspire the French Revolution when they stormed the Bastille and the Paris airport and the Brits under Alfred the Great pushed the Danes out of Heathrow.  So I can see why a fly by makes sense.  ;D

All kidding aside it seemed fairly appropriate and tastefully done.  I’m actually surprised Americans don’t normally have military displays or military parades for July 4th.

We do but they seen at football games or at an air force base when they have an air show.

 

[mariomike]

We do but they seen at football games or at an air force base when they have an air show.

There was an increase in the military and emergency services being honoured at sporting events after 9/11.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It wasn't that long ago that the US was opposed to a large standing professional army. So not surprised that large military parades were not a thing.

 

[mariomike]

It wasn't that long ago that the US was opposed to a large standing professional army. So not surprised that large military parades were not a thing.

Regarding recruitment,

Trump predicts July 4 rally will cause a 'big spike' in military recruitment
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/05/donald-trump-military-july-fourth-1399147

 

[RocketRichard]

Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Remius]

Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.

 

[RocketRichard]

His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.

Bloody racists. Unsat!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brihard]

Just coming out of backcountry to this: ‘Trump told the women (three were born in the U.S.) they should "go back" to the "crime infested places from which they came." ‘

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a definite portion of his base for whom “Make America White Again” is a perfectly laudable objective. He has been pandering to them for the entire time he has been in office. All the more ironic that this is coming at the same time one of his ‘good people on both sides’ from Charlottesville is eating life + 419 years for ramming his car into a crowd of liberals.

His words to the members of Congress is disgusting. Of course as usual he will have plenty of apologists, sadly including on our side of the border.

 

[mariomike]

What the actual hell? Who finds this acceptable behaviour for anyone let anyone the president of USA?

He's not an employee. So, he can't be fired. Politicians can say and do what they want. Can't even indict a sitting president.

His base.  They probably want to hear it.  White nationalists are also part of his base.  I’m sure they are elated.

Charles de Gaulle had this to say about nationalism,

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

Of course as usual he will have plenty of apologists, sadly including on our side of the border.

True.

 

[cavalryman]

Charles de Gaulle had this to say about nationalism,

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."

DeGaulle also (in)famously said "Vive le Quebec libre" on a state visit to Canada.  That pretty much invalidates anything the **** hypocrite had to say about nationalism, no?

 

[mariomike]

That pretty much invalidates anything the **** hypocrite had to say about nationalism, no?

How do you  define nationalism?

White nationalists are also part of his base.