We're not on a 17 day vacation, not us. We have meetings and calls! Now where did that golf ball go?...Trump cont.

[MicrowaveSpy]

Previous thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2992986-Is-this-just-real-life-Is-this-just-fantasy-ScaraMooch-keep-your-hands-away-from-me-Trump-continued?watched=1&msgid=70989494#70989494

That's geographically. Mentally? Who knows!

He will have to step down for his health.

I hope he doesn't die on the job. We'd never hear the end of the conspiracy theories.
And I'm not sure a civil war in the US would be any better than war with NK.

God this is all sounding like that old parlour game. If you had the chance to go back and shoot Hitler, could you do it...

I asked DS this the other day (in relation to if Trump or another President was ready to fire nukes) and he didn't hesitate to say yes.

cozie, and what's the matter with Mattis, anyway?

I have my political differences with him, and there are many of those. Having said that, pre-DefSec Mattis voiced a number of opinions which are, well, simply common sense: the notion that Israeli settlements are an impediment to peace, the assertion that Russia is seeking to weaken or, ideally, break up NATO, his stance on climate change. The man may be hawkish (well, he's a general) and generally wrong on many issues, but he used to be basically sensible and is demonstrably sane.

A good friend of mine and someone whom I actually much admire on a personal level is a former member of a US Marines special unit of some sort. He respects the hell out of Mattis and actually voted for him in the 2016 election (write in). I dare not ask him about what he is thinking these days as I fear we might have a massive falling out.

So, really, I guess my question is this: what made Mattis take the job? How come he's not being more vocal, given that a lack of self-confidence hasn't exactly been on his top 10 list of personal weaknesses, like, ever? Why does he continue to legitimise this sham of an administration? And, more than anything else, how come he's doing all this in spite of things taking a turn that he's clearly smart enough to recognise is dangerous and that his past record would suggest he's just not crazy enough to defend out of principle?

Maybe he sees his role more as The Sane One.
Thank goodness someone is willing to fill that role

I don't know the answers to your questions, Bossy. He's not ........straightforward, though.

Maybe he sees his role more as The Sane One.

Wasn't Priebus also supposed to be the sane one? Followed by Kelly, the sane one? Was Ivanka not meant to be the sane one? As well as a bunch of other people?

I'm getting the distinct impression that an entire army of sane ones would not suffice to rein this one in!

They're straightforward, though.

I can understand why some people step up, especially the holdovers who stick to a job they know they can do.

They risk the taint of association but can still try to hold the line.

Bossy

Did you ever ask your friend why he reckoned Mattis?

I did, actually, cozie, although I'm not entirely certain I really understand.

As per my friend, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place and regarded the choice between Trump and Hillary as one between two equally bad choices. That part we vehemently disagreed upon during an entire series of lively discussions. As a leftie in the European sense, I obviously can't full-heartedly stand behind someone like HRC, but the difference to me always seemed like night and day. As someone who leans conservative in the American sense, my friend had an entirely different perspective.

At the end of the day, I reckon, he voted Mattis because he couldn't bring himself to vote for either candidate and opted for someone whom he personally admired and, out of experience, viewed as a trustworthy and good leader. That part I actually empathise with - I'd vote for my boss any day (and am on the record as trying to convince him to run for office, albeit in a country where I don't get to vote).

This is long but it is in its own way, quite heartening (apart from the possibility of war as distraction).

Seth Abramson‏Verified account @SethAbramson

The ratio of Trump-Russia thinkpieces to breaking Trump-Russia news has reached the point where it's clear media knows where this is headed.

2. I've scoured long essays in Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, &c for news but found only an implicit acknowledgment this will take Trump down.

3. It's easy to forget that, if you were saying 90 days ago what all mainstream media is saying now, they attacked rather than credited you.

4. Now one sees the signs of change everywhere: for instance Peter King (R-NY) saying he wants to talk to Trump's secretary. Very telling.

5. A CNN analyst—Phil Mudd—being willing to say on national TV that if Manafort were smart, he'd flee the United States and never come back.

6. Trump's attorney frantically making legal arguments (including a proposed Motion to Suppress) over an FBI raid of Paul Manafort's home.

7. I guess what I'm saying is that the mainstream media has caught up to those who've been writing/researching Trump-Russia for many months.

8. We're in a space—what I called the "long Phase 2" of a 10-phase process—and the question is if Trump will fill the gap with nuclear war.

9. But in a way these non-news-making thinkpieces are a kind of news—they confirm the argument over "if" is over. Now it's all about "when."

10. A month ago we crossed the key 50% threshold on the "Trump acted illegally/unethically with Russia" question.

11. Media is naturally, and perhaps wisely, a bit more conservative than Americans when it comes to adopting/accepting new metanarratives.

12. But I think the "invisible news" of the week is a shift in conventional wisdom, which now says Trump colluded and it will take him down.

13. The timeline to impeachment I've offered, having investigated/tried criminal cases: 12 to 18 months from May 17 (Mueller's appointment).

14. That suggests 9 to 15 months left. But as indictments first arrive in the middle of Phase 2, we won't have to wait as long for those.

15. Phases 3 through 10 (see prior thread) should take 6 to 9 months, so we're just 90 to 180 days from seeing a major spate of indictments.

16. But what I get asked about most isn't a spate but the first publicly revealed indictments—which now seem to be just 30 to 60 days off.

17. Indications are that the first indictment will be either Flynn (Making False Statements), Manafort (Money Laundering) or Kushner (FARA).

18. Or an indictment could stem from the investigation—e.g. a Perjury, Obstruction, or Destruction of Evidence charge (Page, Manafort, Jr.).

19. Note that the case against Trump for Obstruction is likely now stronger than any other case the FBI has—but it won't come first.

20. Big fish don't come first unless you fear they'll flee—and Trump can't. That's why indictments (or "referrals") on Trump are in Phase 3.

21. So the reason for this week's shift in Big Media—which savaged Russia freelancers for months—is simple: there will be indictments.

22. I want to repeat that: it is now BEYOND QUESTION there will be indictments in the Trump-Russia scandal. And that has big implications.

23. Namely, federal prison sentences are habitually MUCH longer than commensurate-crime state-level sentences. So Trump aides WILL squawk.

24. You will see powerful D.C. operatives with a ton of dirt on Trump willing to offer anything they can on Trump to reduce their sentences.

25. We already saw that from Flynn months ago—a desperate bid to sell out higher-ups for the sake of a reduced federal prison sentence.

26. Truth is, that was the moment seasoned attorneys knew Trump was done. Trump's own lawlessness has since confirmed it many times over.

More 27) I used to have clients of whom I knew if all their business were known, they'd be chargeable for countless crimes—such a man is Trump.

28. So when folks start rolling on Trump they WILL have crimes to speak of—that's 100% clear to anyone who gets the criminal justice system.

29. That's why I haven't been talking about "if" for awhile—and why media is likewise moving hard toward "when." It's all timeline, now.

30. Trump knows it—or at least his attorneys do. It's all about how long he can hang on for. That's why North Korea is just a play for time.

31. Trump has one play left, long-term: to convince Republicans that the 2018 mid-terms should be the referendum on him, not an impeachment.

32. But to get to the beginning of the mid-term election season—given the Phase 2/Phase 3 timeline I've laid out—he needs to buy some time.

33. @maddow notes the last time we had "DPRK nuke miniaturization" news, a) it was false, and b) the Obama Administration didn't freak out.

34. Trump's done the opposite—taken one agency's intel, reported via unclear sourcing in WP, and turned it into a run-up to World War III.

35. But when a president plays like it's nearly World War III, it's a fait accompli—because he's the president—that it becomes just that.

36. So the North Korea standoff is both a serious crisis and a transparent attempt—by a POTUS who will be impeached—to buy himself time.

37. That's a very dangerous combination because—and we should all really consider this—Trump has much less to lose than Kim does here.

38. Political analysts seeking to game this out should consider that Kim may be seeking to act "rationally" against an irrational adversary.

39. So the danger may not be Trump's harrowingly bad temperament and skills, but that his presidency is over already and he can't accept it.

40. Media must move FAST from "if" to "when" to "how"—as in "how" does America lawfully and peacefully extricate itself from this man. {end}

I only wish he could guarantee us 30-60 days, lion.

That's a great thread lion 🙏

Thanks all, the solidarity and sympathy has been much appreciated

DP is a good man - kind, gentle, feminist - and I think that's why it feels like he's part of a cult rather than a terrible person. He is still all those things and more besides but it's hard to reconcile it with his
Trumpiness.

After some discussion this afternoon I feel better than his values of tolerance, fairness etc are still in tact (as awful as it sounds that I'd question it) and it really is that he believes this alternate universe. It's going to take more conversations but I think we'll be ok fucking Trump ruining everything

That's if we avoid nuclear fallout of a literal type though

Jim Acosta @Acosta
Not just North Korea. Trump: “I am not going to rule out a military option. We have many options for Venezuela”.

Courage, Pain.

That is an encouraging thread in terms of the long game. The short term nuclear fear is quite stark though. Weird to be hoping that China will calm everything down - wonder what they will want in return?
Pain that is tough for you.

Trump will fall.

Pain I'm glad you can talk with your DH on this and can understand each other.

What a read that is Lion. Hopeful in parts

This is pretty nauseating. President of Guam is obviously a huge Trump fan. Not sure why he isn't saying 'sod off, we were find until you came along'.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/11/trump-predicts-tourism-spike-for-guam-in-wake-of-n-korea-threat-reassures-islands-governor/?utm_term=.98fb495d4765

*we were FINE (not find)

Words fail me - yet again.

Trump to governor of Guam: "I can say this, your tourism is going to go up like tenfold ... so I congratulate you"

Oh sorry cross post - just saw Roussettes link to article re conversation with President of Guam.

It's worth saying twice NorthWest because it's awfulness. Trump acts like a seedy businessman all the time

So he's now threatening Venezuela with military action? I find it laughable that unprompted he talks about this with the press there, and when they ask if that means something US led, he does his usual "aahhh, I'm not going to talk about, I never do".

Reminds me of an annoying kid saying "I've got a secret but I'm not telling you"

More reassuring but I'm still furious that Trump's willy-waving continues. He should be tried for war crimes as well as all the rest!

...if the U.S. military is preparing for a major conflict, there is little evidence of it.

As of Friday morning, no U.S. aircraft carrier was on patrol in the Asia-Pacific region. The USS Carl Vinson and USS Ronald Reagan have both returned to their respective home ports, San Diego and Yokosuka, Japan.
...........

There are about 29,000 American troops permanently stationed in South Korea. Annual U.S.-South Korea military exercises begin Aug. 21 but are conducted primarily with forces already in place.
...........

Jonathan Pollack, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution specializing in Asia-Pacific security issues, says the U.S. day-to-day military capabilities in the western Pacific are "very imposing, very impressive."

Pollack says they are intended "to deter the North from any kind of potential actions. But if the North were to act, the U.S ... would have to deploy far more to the peninsula and the region as quickly as possible."

And he points to another sign that the U.S. is not moving toward war with North Korea: There have been no efforts to evacuate the at least 150,000 U.S. citizens living in South Korea.

"That would be the clearest indication that we were headed toward war," Pollack says. "And I don't think we are."

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/11/542799683/despite-rhetoric-on-north-korea-u-s-military-posture-hasnt-really-changed

AIBU to go to an island that North Korea has threatened to attack with a missile?

Someone asked if threatening war on Twitter is a breach of their terms and conditions?