Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 12 of 36     «   Prev   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   Next   »
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #166 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
 

That is terribly unfair.  The Benghazi "scandal" has been proven (and even admitted by Republican congressmen) to have been a political exercise that was completely baseless and aimed at undermining Secretary Clinton's campaign.  The VA has been poorly run for decades and is not a "scandal", just gross ineptitude on the part of big government, and it pre-dates Obama by several administrations.  The IRS likewise.  The Obama administration has been actually one of the few recent administrations with a fairly clean record as far as scandals.  We are barely a month into this administration and we are facing rather material questions about the President insisting on hiding his tax returns, on his and his administration members ties to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and rather deep conflict of interest and personal aggrandizement questions.  Unlike the "scandals" that you mentioned, these all directly involve the sitting President himself personally.


This is inaccurate. There were two main Benghazi reports by the Republicans in congress. One was in the senate and one was in the house, led by Trey Gowdy. The senate one unaccountably whitewashed things for Obama and Clinton, but not the house one. The senate one did not call important witnesses and was a farce. Senior researchers and intel experts who had helped on the senate report refused to sign it: they signed the house one. The house report was a thorough investigation, and certainly not a political witch hunt. You are unfairly referring to the words of a congressional leader who wasn't even on the committee, and of course the slander of Democrats and the Clintons (echoed by the media).  Without the house investigation we wouldn't have even known about Clinton's highly illegal private server, which she was lucky to escape gaol over. It should also go without saying that political bias on its own means little. Certainly, I have no doubt the Republicans on the house committee were politically motivated in part to go doggedly after Obama and Clinton, just as the Democratic members were politically motivated when they tried to obstruct the investigation. What matters is how thorough and well-reasoned the report was, and it was both.

The problems at the VA do go back before Obama, but they came to a head under his administration. If he was a Republican, he would have been excoriated in the media over them. They are still ongoing.

The IRS has been misused before, certainly. But the targeting of conservatism groups was under Obama, and it seems at least to have come from the atmosphere provided by the Whitehouse, and perhaps even from some direction. The WSJ estimated that the IRS could have cost Republicans up to eight million votes in 2012, by illegally and unconstitutionally suppressing get-out-to-vote and other groups. This speculative, but it would have been enough to cost Romney the election.


Quote:

The Conservative press is by it's nature "conservative", they are not going to become hysterical, but behind the scenes establishment Republicans are far from calm.  I see a systematic push by conservatives to check the alt-right element, and they are doing it with outward calm, but their alarm is real.  It is not secret that the meteoric rise of Milo Yiannopolous was torpedoed by the Republican establishment.  Take a look at who released the video that has basically destroyed him.  It certainly wasn't the left.  The Left actually made him bigger by going after him on University campuses making him a chapion of "free speech".  As much as what Milo says and stands for turns my stomach, I don't think honestly that he is in favor of pedophilia.  I don't think the people that just swatted him off the scene believe that either, but clearly the Republican establishment feels that the Breitbart crowd need to be pushed off the place on the stage that Bannon's elevation has put them.  Lt. General McMaster's elevation to the NSA post is significant.  It does not bode well for Bannon and his allies that he replaced General Flynn.  Vice President Pence and Defense Secretary Pence are visiting foreign capitals right now and making public pronouncements directly contradicting statements made by the President and Bannon in order to calm alarmed allies.  Secretary of State Tillerson is headed for Mexico today to allegedly try to repair a very damaged relationship.  This has had the effect of confusing allies and making allies wonder what is going on and who is actually in charge.   If you think that outward calm and upholding the party line is indicative of a lack of panic on the right and center-right, you are very mistaken my friend.  See below.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-defense-secretary-mattis-arrives-in-1487537425-htmlstory.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/analysis-learned-defense-secretary-james-mattiss-trip-overseas/story?id=45614506

https://europeansting.com/2017/02/20/the-four-top-americans-who-flew-to-europe-perplexed-things-about-trumps-intentions/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/21/pence-appears-support-eu-freedom-of-movement/

http://thehill.com/policy/international/320401-bannon-questioned-eu-in-german-diplomat-meeting-before-pence-visit

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/02/22/trump-sends-tillerson-to-smooth-tensions-with-australia-mexico/

Tillerson looks like he will be getting a rather frosty reception in Mexico

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mexico-idUSKBN16127O?il=0



The establishment can do what it likes. It has its interests, and many of them are wrong. John McCain and his ilk are not preferable to Trump, in my book, in terms of policy at least. But I'm not sure how that shows that the Trump administration has been a disaster. There is a tussle over foreign policy, certainly - and one in which the Republican establishment are not necessarily the good side. But apart from the chaotic veneer, I think the Trump administration hasn't been too bad so far.

What you get at National Review is not suppressed panic but a reasonably balanced and fair appraisal of Trump's presidency. Add to this the American Conservative, and you get a much better overall picture than you would from the likes of the BBC or CNN, who have descended even further than usual into partisan hysterics.

Remember the silly screams about Sweden (which was just the kind of misspeaking during a speech that the press would have ignored from Obama):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445126/donald-trump-sweden-fake-news-or-real-problem
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445116/trump-swedish-gaffe-media-hoax




Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,344
Reply with quote  #167 
It is hard to reduce the "Sweden incident" as simple misspeaking. Indeed it requires verbal acrobatics to do so.  He referred to an event that happened "last night" which clearly didn't happen.  He watched a report on FOX news, obviously was not really paying attention to the content of the report and spoke about it as if a specific horrific event had happened the previous night in Sweden caused by migrants. 

Quote:
The establishment can do what it likes. It has its interests, and many of them are wrong. John McCain and his ilk are not preferable to Trump, in my book, in terms of policy at least. But I'm not sure how that shows that the Trump administration has been a disaster. There is a tussle over foreign policy, certainly - and one in which the Republican establishment are not necessarily the good side.


That is of course your opinion, to which you are entitled to, but I for one (and most of my far more conservative friends here in the States) find the establishment Republicans to be far superior to Trump and the element he has introduced to government here.  Give me a George W. Bush, Mitt Romney or a Senator McCain over Trump and his Putin fan club any day.  I seldom agree with them, but I certainly believe they are honorable and honest men. I'm afraid I could never say that about President Trump.  He is a demagogue, a rabble-rouser of the worst kind, because I honestly believe that his personal convictions do not enter into his political philosophy at all.  It is all political opportunism which I find contemptible.

My only hope for Trump and his administration is that I hope they will not stand in the way of monarchial restorations if that opportunity arises in various places around the world.  George W. Bush blocked the restoration of the Monarchy in Afghanistan where it otherwise would surly have happened.  I believe America played a role in blocking the possibility of restorations in Libya and Iraq as well.  That is the only area I have any hope for a Trump administration being an improvement.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #168 
I disagree on the Sweden thing. It seems plausible he simply was referring to the report in general, given his words. He could have easily just phrased it badly, and lumped the vague idea of bad things happening in Sweden with the rest. The worse explanation is also plausible, but I think the principle of charity applies even to Trump. I think CNN et al. would certainly have given Obama charity.

I agree about Trump's personality. He is all of those things and more. But there is the issue of policy to consider, and in terms of policy he's been pretty good. He has finally begun to take action on immigration, which has reached an absurd state. He stopped the funding of abortions overseas (interesting the pro-choice don't care about forcing others to pay for these choices). His nomination to the Supreme Court (in itself worth a Trump victory over Clinton) was a good one. And he has done something to rein in the lawless actions of federal agencies like the EPA and DOE, which burgeoned under Obama.

Foreign policy has been chaotic. Part of this is the fault of Trump's mouth and Twitter account. But it is also due to a tussle between hawks on the one hand and realists on the other.

Given the context, I was mostly referring to establishment foreign policy. Here Trump is at least half supportive of a more sensible and restrained foreign policy, against the hawks and neocons of the establishment. In this sense, I think Trump is much preferable. When Pat Buchanan deserts him on foreign policy, then I will rethink. What he says about Putin isn't of great importance to me as long as his policy is sound.

I don't think the establishment are much good on domestic issues either. They remind me of the Tories of Pitt's day, as Chesterton describes them: the only traditions they wish to preserve are of banking. True, Trump's populism isn't much better, but at least he offers more than rhetoric on some issues, and is opposed to aspects of neoliberal globalisation.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,517
Reply with quote  #169 
On the abortion question, I would point out that this policy was instituted by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan, reversed by the next Democrat president, William Clinton, reinstituted by the succeeding Republican, George Bush #43, and reversed by the succeeding Democrat, Barack Obama. So to have it reinstituted by the succeeding Republican, Donald Trump, doesn't seem terribly worthy of remark. Link with the details.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #170 
But it does if we consider Trump's questionable pro-life credentials. It shows he has at least acted quite well, if not spoken or written so, which is my general point. Some of these acts are in line with his Republican predecessors and some aren't. But that doesn't affect my general point there. He hadn't have done it, that would be very troubling.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,344
Reply with quote  #171 
Well this is looking increasingly dismal...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mexico-idUSKBN1621X2

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,517
Reply with quote  #172 
Every time you think there are no further depths for the 45th President to descend to, he finds a new low. This time it is accusing #44 of having his, Trump's, telephones tapped during the election campaign. As usual there is not one jot, tittle or particle of evidence offered in support of an utterly outrageous accusation. I guess Trump thinks just getting the allegation out there will do, there are enough idiots that will believe it. Hey, it's worked before. One day it's not going to, a day I look forward to with a mixture of trepidation (for the upheaval) and anticipation (for the comeuppance). Least presidential President ever? It's already established fact, and by the time the debacle is complete surely even the US political system will be inoculated against ever again electing such a man to the highest office.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #173 
I don't know whether Trump's specific claims are true, but it may have been the case something dubious was going on:


McCarthy and National Review are hardly in the tank for Trump. What McCarthy outlines sure seems a politically motivated abuse of power by the Obama administration.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #174 
Note, I have seen other sources (though anti-Trump ones) suggest, more or less, McCarthy is wrong. I have no idea who is right. But McCarthy and National Review are not Trump. There is likely something worth looking into here, even if ultimately the Obama administration is vindicates. It doesn't seem all Trump mouthing off.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,517
Reply with quote  #175 
In a sense, it doesn't matter whether the allegation is true or untrue. If the former, the way it was made was still disgraceful, to accuse the previous President of the gravest misconduct without providing even the tiniest particle of evidence. And further, as pointed out in the link, if there was a tap by far the most likely cause is that a judge perfectly legally ordered it, as part of an investigation into the Trump campaign's links with a foreign power, Russia. Former President Obama had no power to do so, no President does, only a court of the appropriate level. That he did it anyway is possible of course, thoroughly illegal as it would have been, but seems extremely unlikely and I would need cast-iron evidence before beginning to believe it. And, I repeat, so far no evidence has been offered at all, it is pure smear.

SOP for Trump, but I think this is the worst example of it yet, reprehensible even for him. There is another dismal piece of information about #45 in this report from the same newspaper, right in the first paragraph. The man is a food abuser. Some poor bovine has died for your sustenance and enjoyment, and you reward the gift by cremating the creature's offering, ruining the subtle flavours and textures? Trump should get together with Jean-Claude Juncker who keeps malt whisky in the fridge of all things, and compare notes on their joint lack of taste. I suppose though that the general chaos and disarray of this administration discussed in the article might be seen by some as more important. I guess since I already knew about that the steak revelation grabbed my attention more.

With National Review, you only get to read so far before you have to subscribe if you want to continue. I did want to continue, but not to subscribe so that was that. As far as I got seemed pretty disingenuous in itself to me, conceding that a wiretap would only have been under a court order and not directly involving the then President, but seeking to blame him for it anyway.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #176 
You get full access to the National Review. The subscription box is just an ad. Just say you don't want to subscribe and you get full access.

McCarthy doesn't accuse Obama directly. He notes it was the Obama Justice Department though which sort the warrants. How far up it went, and the political interest involved remain unclear. McCarthy makes the point, given the circumstances, there is almost certainly to have been some consultation with the Whitehouse. I am not in a position to say if this is correct. As McCarthy notes, the FISA court is not a normal one. It okays (it rarely forbades) surveillance for claimed national security purposes, rather than allows the building of a criminal case. Its purpose is to help expose agents of foreign powers. It is very unusual for such an investigation of a candidate for president or his close associates. This is not in itself to say there shouldn't have been an investigation, but it seems there was always not much evidence. It seems that it was known early that there was little in the allegations, but the Justice Department sought further surveillance. The FISA court is usually quite pliant to the government, but it turned them down. I think McCarthy is right that you'd need very stong evidence - which was not the case -before investigating a predidential candidate as an agent of a foreign power, or even trying to.

This is the crux of McCarthy's case:

"Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment."

If he is correct in the details, I think he is correct in this conclusion from them. Perhaps we just have very different ideas about the sort of evidence needed for the Obama administration to investigate Trump and his campaign for being Russian agents, or different ideas about the strength of the evidence. It all does at least suggest to me that thinking this issue worth looking into doesn't make one a conspiracy theorist.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,517
Reply with quote  #177 
I don't get a 'no thanks' button, I get a choice between subscribing now and saving for later. I don't wish to do either. It would certainly be unusual to investigate a presidential candidate in this way. And Trump was certainly an unusual candidate, conducting an unusual campaign. So far, one Trump Cabinet member has resigned due to being caught lying over his links with Russia. Another Cabinet member has now also been caught lying about the same thing, though whether he will have to resign remains to be seen. It does seem not unlikely to me therefore that there were indeed grounds for such an investigation to take place, if it did which we don't yet know.

Trump's allegation however was not of a legal investigation under Justice Department auspices, but of a thoroughly illegal one directly ordered by the then President. Trump's great gifts, apart from an ability to lie without the slightest trace of conscience, are stirring up trouble and muddying waters. Try to bear in mind through the mirk that there are two issues; the allegation made by Trump, and the possible investigation. To make the first in such a way can never be justified. The second if it happened may well have been.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #178 
The later button closes the ad.

Vague links, at one long after the incidents we sre referring to, between one or two appointees or associates and Russia is not the same as Trump warranting investigation as an agent of a foreign power. The FISA court is very pliant. That it turned down further applications does seem telling.

I agree that Trump no doubt mouthed off again; I just don't see there can be much justification of the Obama Justice Department's behaviour. I think that at least the cause for concern over the latter is more interesting and important than what silly thing Trump said
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,517
Reply with quote  #179 
And the fact that it later agreed (if in fact any of this happened) does not? We differ over the gravity of Trump's accusation, unsupported by evidence, of a serious act of criminal behaviour by a former President. I feel it is a very grave matter indeed, as you will have gathered.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #180 
It didn't agree later. The FISA court allowed preliminary investigations. It then uncharacteristically blocked further requests. This is my understanding of the timeline of events. Trump's comments are concerning. You are correct. But, in my opinion, as is an administration investigating an opposition candidate as a foreign agent on flimsy evidence.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.