|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 3, 2017 18:01:43 GMT -5
Thanks for quoting more, NT. But don't you think this particular leak is in a different league than many of the others? Who freaking cares about Scarmucci's dinner? But leaking a private conversation between the POTUS and another country's leader is on a dangerous and extremely damaging level, no matter what the end game is. Look, we all agree Trump doesn't have the temperament nor the skill set to be a stellar POTUS. And some of you are saying that these leaks didn't make the other guys look bad. But what leaders are going to trust saying anything off the cuff or confidential or "real" to any of our POTUSs in the future now that this has happened? And how can the POTUS, any POTUS, work like that? A POTUS (Obama, IMO) can seem to have his s**t together and be appropriate and intelligent and classy, but that doesn't mean he won't still do things which are to many people bad policy- Iran deal, Obamacare, crapping on Israel, etc. Conversely, though a POTUS can be like Trump, he can still have good ideas and want to implement what is to many good policy (scrap the ACA, protect our borders, reform the tax code, strengthen our military etc.). We can be concerned, but trying to destroy the man in any way possible will damage more than Trump. Using leaks like this last one is also damaging the U.S. and the ability of any future POTUS (no matter what party) to be effective. This is tragic. The tragedy occurred on November 8, 2016. This is the aftermath. I'm not going to clutch the pearls about this leak. John Kelley can do that and so will Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump. Me? MEH. This leak is different from other Trump leaks. This came from inside the White House. Not from some "senior White House source" or any of that jive. Someone who had access to the transcripts gave them to the Washington Post. Now that should narrow the list of suspects for Sessions, but then again, Trump has made a lot of enemies within the nation's intelligence agencies. Even if Kelly is successful in turning off the faucets (he won't be), the water will still trickle out somewhere else. If not the White House then from Capitol Hill or the Pentagon or Foggy Bottom or Langley or somewhere else in the area. There aren't enough FBI agents too put everyone on a lie detector. Personally, I'm glad somewhat shared how much of a pathological liar Trump is-- again. He told President Nieto, "“Up in New Hampshire — I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.” LIE. Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, but in Trump's addled brain he constantly rewrites history until he finds a version he likes. I'm tired of Trump's mendacity being shrugged off as no big deal. It's a big damn deal when the President lies about how he was received by the Boy Scouts, when he lies about the size of the crowds at his inauguration, when he lies about taping the director of the FBI, when he lies about his presidential predecessor taping Trump Tower, when he lies about his dealings with the Russians. If Donald Trump is awake he's lying and when he's asleep he's dreaming of the lies he's going to tell next. That should be more upsetting to all of you all hyped up and wagging your finger at the media and whomever inside the Trump White House put it in the hands of the press, but you're entitled to your own priorities. Wrong-headed though they may be. Trump doesn't have the temperament nor the skill to be a stellar POTUS? No shit? Trump doesn't even have the basic competence to even be a sentient POTUS.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 3, 2017 19:07:33 GMT -5
Look, we all agree Trump doesn't have the temperament nor the skill set to be a stellar POTUS. A...uh... stellar POTUS? STOP IT. *flails* Everything you mention above is about policy. That's fine - you disliked Obama's policies. You like GOP policies. But you don't like Trump policies, because Trump has no policies. None. He's an ignorant, narcissistic train wreck, c.e. I'm sorry, but he is. He's not promoting your policies. He's promoting HIMSELF. That's all. He does not give a fuck about your policies. He cares about ratings. He cares about his image. He cares about being criticized. He cares about the meanie mcmeanie media. He's so superficial, so self-centered, so utterly clueless about actual policies, which is evidenced by every. freaking. word. that comes out of his mouth, that you and every other conservative should be hoping and praying that he gets busted by Mueller and impeached, so your party can actually focus on advancing your policies. Turnbull should have to answer for that comment about refugees to Germany. And I don't see anything wrong with Nieto's "musing," but whatever. Honestly, as an American citizen, I don't care what's leaked as long as it's not classified, i.e., potentially damaging to national security. And I would say that about any politician's leaked words, foreign or domestic, whether I like them or not. They need to be held accountable for what they say behind closed doors waaaay more so than for prepared speeches in front of a camera, or tweets (which, by the way, Trump fails at, too). And surely all of the parties to these conversations understood that transcripts were made? And would that not give the parties pause? My feeling is that if people don't want what they say to ever become public knowledge, they probably shouldn't say it in the first place. If it's an important thing to say, they should own it. If it's a miscommunication, they are free to explain it. If it's exactly what it sounds like and a politician is embarrassed by it, well, good. We should be requiring politicians be accountable, not dickwads world leaders who think they can shoot the shit with other dickwads world leaders with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 3, 2017 19:29:40 GMT -5
And surely all of the parties to these conversations understood that transcripts were made? And would that not give the parties pause? I have to disagree here. Presidents, PMs, and the like need to be able to have private conversations, need to be ably so speak bluntly in the same. And having these conversations transcribed from a recording is simply good sense (you then toss the recording). They really shouldn't have to worry about everything they say in private getting leaked t the press. They should be able to trust the people around them, no? Let's pretend this is during WWII. How would people react if transcripts of conversations between FDR and Churchill were leaked to the press, who then splashed it where the whole world could see it?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 3, 2017 19:38:24 GMT -5
And surely all of the parties to these conversations understood that transcripts were made? And would that not give the parties pause? I have to disagree here. Presidents, PMs, and the like need to be able to have private conversations, need to be ably so speak bluntly in the same. And having these conversations transcribed from a recording is simply good sense (you then toss the recording). They really shouldn't have to worry about everything they say in private getting leaked t the press. They should be able to trust the people around them, no? Let's pretend this is during WWII. How would people react if transcripts of conversations between FDR and Churchill were leaked to the press, who then splashed it where the whole world could see it? The WWII example you gave would be classified, no? It's dangerous when it's classified information, I totally agree. The idea that it's dangerous because world leader X wants to freely vent his spleen to world leader Y with impunity is nonsense, imo. Side question: why would they record it and then toss it? Why is it recorded in the first place? If they are offering each other confidentiality, I would think "no recording" would be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 3, 2017 19:44:49 GMT -5
I guess he could be talking about the primary. Though I'm not sure his claim of NH being a drug-infested den is all that accurate, either.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 3, 2017 19:47:33 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they need to be able to talk freely with each other, they need to be able to have some trust (assuming allies, here). If stuff they say in private is gonna show up on the main website of WaPo or the like, that trust is gone, going forward imo.
They need a transcript of the call--or at least notes--in order to make sure they know what was said for the next conversation, to make sure the given head of state doesn't screw up (yeah I know, a lost cause for Trump). I'm assuming the calls are recorded so no one is listening in. Then, they're transcribed or notes are made to put on file for preparation before the next meeting/phone call. But maybe I'm wrong on how it's done.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 3, 2017 20:06:14 GMT -5
Well, again: if recording is standard protocol, they need to think about what they say if they prefer it never be known. Come on. This is the same for all human beings. We teach this to our children. Politicians are not exempt.
E.g., while being recorded, feeling an urgent need to criticize Angela Merkel's refugee program, in private, to Trump
...all the while not ever saying it in public, because... politics.
Poor politician shared his private opinion with another politician, an off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated criticism of another politician that he just HAD TO SHARE and now, as it happens, it's not private anymore. So unfair. Boo hoo. Sounds like high school.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 3, 2017 20:21:34 GMT -5
Well, again: if recording is standard protocol, they need to think about what they say if they prefer it never be known. Come on. This is the same for all human beings. We teach this to our children. Politicians are not exempt. E.g., feeling an urgent need to criticize Angela Merkel's refugee program, in private, to Trump, but not wanting to say it in public, because... because.... because.... Oh yeah. Because politics. Poor politician shared his private opinion with another politician, an off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated criticism that he just HAD TO SHARE and now it's not private anymore. Boo hoo. I'm not crying for Trump. As I said, it's public now and it makes him look quite bad. Given what he said, he deserves to look quite bad. But I don't have any idea what you're teaching your children and what that has to do with anything here. Who is saying politicians are exempt from something? Not me. What I'm saying is that having this kind of stuff leaked is bad for US interests, period. It undermines trust (of each other and of their governments), it prevents honest discussion about potentially critical things. Trump is Bad. I get it. He deserves to catch heat because he's earning it with what he says and does. Great. But having people who have no integrity or sense of duty working where they have access to sensitive info--maybe classified, maybe not--and who are then willing to leak this info out for either political or personal gain can't possibly be a good thing, can it?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 3, 2017 20:36:47 GMT -5
I don't think leaking is a good thing in general, in the same vein that I don't think gossiping or sharing someone else's secret is a good thing in general. The motives might be good in rare cases, but likely they are bad. In this case, they are most likely anti-Trump and nothing more.
So sure, I agree with you in that it's bad form. But... dangerous? Damaging? Conflating these leaks with leaks of classified info? Meh.
My point is, the responsibility for keeping personal information or opinions private resides with the one who holds those opinions or that information. That's the lesson. If you wouldn't want the whole world to know it, don't share your secret just because. (I mean, yeah, there are close confidantes you can put your trust in, but like, dude, fellow world leaders are not close confidantes.)
Anyhoo, even though I'm generally opposed to "gossip" and the like, I don't mind these leaks. This is the POTUS and it has to do with how he, as president of my country, is addressing things that should matter to us. We should know this stuff. Not by leaking, fine, but we should know it.
BTW, I wasn't in my last post criticizing poor Trump. I was criticizing poor Turnbull.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 3, 2017 20:49:35 GMT -5
I guess he could be talking about the primary. Though I'm not sure his claim of NH being a drug-infested den is all that accurate, either. This part of what Trump said was the most abhorrent to me, honestly. Just such a gross thing to say about a state and the people in it. Why single out NH? They're not the only state dealing with the opiod epidemic by far. And so many addicts, nationwide, get their first "fix" (and continue to get it) from pain medication prescribed by U.S. doctors. So many dealers are folks who sell their prescriptions (often to pay their rent) and Trump wants to make it all about bad hombres from Mexico. As soon as we build the wall, no more drugs, according to Trump. He's utterly clueless. IMO, he hates the concept of "drugs" so much that he is incapable of differentiating between substances and people. He cannot see that the solution to drug addiction is not strong-arming "it" with a "wall." Supply is not the problem, demand is. Same old drug war.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 3, 2017 22:07:45 GMT -5
And surely all of the parties to these conversations understood that transcripts were made? And would that not give the parties pause? I have to disagree here. Presidents, PMs, and the like need to be able to have private conversations, need to be ably so speak bluntly in the same. And having these conversations transcribed from a recording is simply good sense (you then toss the recording). They really shouldn't have to worry about everything they say in private getting leaked t the press. They should be able to trust the people around them, no? Let's pretend this is during WWII. How would people react if transcripts of conversations between FDR and Churchill were leaked to the press, who then splashed it where the whole world could see it? There's a vast difference between FDR and Churchill's conversations and Trump whining like a petulant child about having to keep a "bad deal" Obama had made with Australia. The President has a reasonable expectation that confidential and sensitive conversations with foreign heads of state will remain confidential, but it's flat out WRONG to even suggest the President has an absolute right to keep whatever they said in private secret and stashed away from the public, the press, Congress and the courts. If it were otherwise, that's an expansion of Executive Privilege which would have kept Richard Nixon in office. The President of the United States is accountable to the People of the United States and the checks and balances placed upon the presidency ensures it stays that way. Well, again: if recording is standard protocol, they need to think about what they say if they prefer it never be known. Come on. This is the same for all human beings. We teach this to our children. Politicians are not exempt. E.g., feeling an urgent need to criticize Angela Merkel's refugee program, in private, to Trump, but not wanting to say it in public, because... because.... because.... Oh yeah. Because politics. Poor politician shared his private opinion with another politician, an off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated criticism that he just HAD TO SHARE and now it's not private anymore. Boo hoo. I'm not crying for Trump. As I said, it's public now and it makes him look quite bad. Given what he said, he deserves to look quite bad. But I don't have any idea what you're teaching your children and what that has to do with anything here. Who is saying politicians are exempt from something? Not me. What I'm saying is that having this kind of stuff leaked is bad for US interests, period. It undermines trust (of each other and of their governments), it prevents honest discussion about potentially critical things. Trump is Bad. I get it. He deserves to catch heat because he's earning it with what he says and does. Great. But having people who have no integrity or sense of duty working where they have access to sensitive info--maybe classified, maybe not--and who are then willing to leak this info out for either political or personal gain can't possibly be a good thing, can it? We already have an occupier in the Oval Office with no integrity or sense of duty who barely works and has access to sensitive info---which he shared with the Russians, but I don't see you kvetching about that.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 4, 2017 8:49:57 GMT -5
Heh. This is brilliant. My dearest,
So you put me back on the hook. To be very honest with you, I did not want to have a meeting. Your words are so beautiful. Those are beautiful words and I do not think I can speak that beautifully, okay? I look so foolish doing this.
I am not like this but, if I have to do it, I will do it but I do not like this at all. I will be honest with you. I met you the one time and I studied you. You are a very hard person to study. It is incredible.
But we cannot do this and we cannot sustain like this. Totally true—and you have seen the same thing. No, I do not want say that. I am just going to say that we are working it out.
And certainly, as to the relationship and friendship, I consider you a friend. I would love to continue talking. I want a great relationship. Far greater than anybody understands. You have to see what I am doing. And I want to reiterate, you and I will always be friends do not worry.
Okay, this shows me to be a dope. It will never be the same.
Yours always,
Donald
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 4, 2017 8:59:10 GMT -5
We already have an occupier in the Oval Office with no integrity or sense of duty who barely works and has access to sensitive info---which he shared with the Russians, but I don't see you kvetching about that. Trump, kvetch. Trump, kvetch. Trump, kvetch. Is that better? I've only said negative things about Trump in this thread (and in fact I pointed to him as a leaker, too). I've labeled him a grifter--constantly--and allowed that he's unfit for the job of President. I have no problem saying he lacks both integrity and a sense of duty to his country. Because because I'm not running around pulling out my hair, hurling insults at him, and generally behaving like a petulant six year old when the subject is Trump, I'm what? Supporting Trump. Man, this "put up with anything as long as it hurts Trump" mindset is really disgraceful. I know there were people like that with regard to Obama. There were also people like that with regard to Bush. But it's never been so mainstream as it is now, imo (well, maybe the mid to late 1860s). It's never had otherwise intelligent people tossing their principles and common sense in the trash at the drop of a hat. You know, I don't expect much from the press with regard to stories like this--they love leakers, no doubt--though I think there comes a point where even they might say "wait a second." True, what's been leaked here is not akin to the plans for D-Day. But it's also not Watergate. It's stuff that is just intended to make Trump look bad (and it does). So whomever leaked it did so for purely political reasons, and/or because they were getting paid to do it. Either way, such behavior is bad news going forward. If Trump is setting a new low for Presidential behavior, so are all the people willing to surrender their principles in order to "resist" him.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 4, 2017 9:51:59 GMT -5
As an aside, I'd like to welcome some new members to team transparency. I hope y'all stick around after the next election.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 4, 2017 10:03:28 GMT -5
And surely all of the parties to these conversations understood that transcripts were made? And would that not give the parties pause? I have to disagree here. Presidents, PMs, and the like need to be able to have private conversations, need to be ably so speak bluntly in the same. And having these conversations transcribed from a recording is simply good sense (you then toss the recording). They really shouldn't have to worry about everything they say in private getting leaked t the press. They should be able to trust the people around them, no? Let's pretend this is during WWII. How would people react if transcripts of conversations between FDR and Churchill were leaked to the press, who then splashed it where the whole world could see it? Oh, golly, I suppose leaking the discussions regarding Operation Keelhaul might have marred the reputation of those two supposed deities. We can't have the little people realizing they're nothing more than cannon fodder, easily sacrificed by the tens of thousands if it serves the "benevolent" leaders' purpose.
|
|