May 21, 2017

Watch Trump's Saudi Arabia speech — about to stream live.

177 comments:

MadisonMan said...

Pass.

As you know, it was cold and rainy yesterday, and it's not raining today. I'm going outside right now.

rhhardin said...

Great sand.

rhhardin said...

The hysteria has left stuff like Law Talk with no serious topics for the last year or so. The media give no material to analyze.

rhhardin said...

Did the Saudis invent the wheel or something? Trump needs a talking point.

rhhardin said...

And the cares, that infest the day,
Shall fold their tents, like the Arabs,
And as silently steal away.

David Begley said...

Is Trump still President? I thought he'd been impeached already.

Bay Area Guy said...

I'm not a big fan of the Saudis. But to the extent they feel threats to overthrow their silly kingdom by radical Islam (despite the money they use to fund these crazies), well, our interests tend to align.

They prefer the strong horse to the weak horse, so I have no doubt they'll like Trump.

buwaya said...

On the other hand, the Trump bump in the equities market very likely gave the Saudis $100B right in their sovereign wealth fund investment portfolio.

Fernandinande said...

Bay Area Guy said...
silly kingdom


Indeed.

It's too bad they lucked out on the oil.

rhhardin said...

Seventh century. Great century.

rhhardin said...

Maybe the Saudis invented the egg timer. Lots of sand.

Inga said...

Those Saudi's sure do love him.

mockturtle said...

I do wish Trump would not use the word 'incredible' when it's likely to be translated 'not to be believed'.

buwaya said...

Yep, the Saudis are putting on the ritz in a way they didnt for Obama. That is significant.
There are reasons why, for sure, but its not entirely clear what they are.
Similar treatment from the Chinese, note, to the extent we saw in Xi's visit to Washington. They blatantly snubbed Obama at the Beijing G20 last year.
All these things are done for specific reasons, though these are rarely revealed.

buwaya said...

Other interesting thing that slipped under the radar is apparently a whole lot of Saudi money is going to establish a very large local armaments industry in US joint ventures, one announced with Raytheon.

This makes sense, maybe, for the Saudis as a way to diversify from oil. They certainly have another natural resource, a whole lot of wasteland over which to test weapons. And besides which they like weapons.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga said...
Those Saudi's sure do love him.

5/21/17, 9:40 AM

Yeah, it's odd. The Saudis didn't seem to respect Obama very much, although he literally bowed to them. I wonder why Obama did not command respect?

David Begley said...

Historic. Not leading from behind. None of the on the one hand, on the other hand.

Called evil, evil.

Attacked Iran.

Not a weak speech by the weak, corrupt and horrible Hillary.

AllenS said...

The Saudis don't like men who eat dogs.

Inga said...

Trump bowed as well, to receive his golden necklace, he even did a little curtesy, that was cute.

Ann Althouse said...

Trump is colluding again.

Ann Althouse said...

Surprising how many times Trump purported to speak for God.

Ann Althouse said...

I liked the way he told them they needed to make their own choices and he couldn't tell them what to do, then told them what to do over and over again.

buwaya said...

I'm not sure it all was about personal respect.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that's not why different cultures with vastly different interests adopt a similar policy. And the US executive is not entirely a matter of personality.

You elect a clique, not a man, but the public sturm und drang is about the man, not the clique.

mockturtle said...

It was a good speech and well delivered but too long. But then, I think all speeches are too long and have an editorial urge to cut them down to size.

Policy-wise it was shrewd. Diplomacy-wise, it was bold. Iranian leadership should be worried.

Ann Althouse said...

I liked the way after Trump spoke, everybody got coffee served to them in little cups, poured from shiny brass pots.

Inga said...

I'm pretty sure they saw through his dissembling. The Saudi's don't care at this point because he is kissing their asses and they see dollar signs.

Ann Althouse said...

Like Obama and Bush before him, Trump laid on the bolstering of Muslim self-esteem as thickly as he thought he could go without straining credibility.

Inga said...

Where were the Shiite leaders?

AReasonableMan said...

vbuwaya said...
All these things are done for specific reasons, though these are rarely revealed.


They are hoping that their loans to the Donald's real estate operation finally get repaid?

Inga said...

I wonder how they liked being told what to do by an American president? How does Trump think these countries will "drive them all out"?

AReasonableMan said...

Bay Area Guy said...
to the extent they feel threats to overthrow their silly kingdom by radical Islam


They are radical Islam.

Inga said...

Wahabiism is the model for the extremist Islamist ideologies.

buwaya said...

The coffee is the Arab way, and it is a ceremony of hospitality. In grad school my cronies were mostly a bunch of Arab fellows, and one had brought not just his wife and kids to his San Francisco cobdo, but his Indonesian servant, who was expert in such things as serving coffee and making kabsa (a lamb and rice pilaf, usually with raisins and dates, which is delicious).
Needless to say, his digs were the preferred spot for the study group.
If one is to be a student-prince, that is the right way to go about it.

narciso said...

Well it is, and king salman has been like Alexander the third, if one used the czarist paradigm.

Steve Emerson in American house of saud thirty years ago noticed how csis had mischaracterized the resistance among the people

buwaya said...

Yes, Wahhabism is indeed the model.
The trouble is that its inextricably embedded, not just in the society, by now, but is part of the fundamental identity of the ruling tribe and dynasty.

Knowing what it is does not in itself reveal a solution though.

An excellent primer on the Saudi dynasty is "The Kingdom", Robert Lacey. A bit dated now, but not a bad place to start.

gspencer said...

If he doesn't say that Islam is as retrograde as it gets; that its adherents are duty-bound by the terms of their holy (cough) to bring the world to heel on the terms of their vicious and cruel Allah, including when necessary through murder; and that Muslims have brought nothing but misery for 1400 years and that their continued actions are bringing war on themselves and the rest of the world by reason of their hideous religion,

then,

his speech was a failure.

narciso said...

Actually his follow up thirty years later was even more on point, from the view of the kingdom they didnt think w did them any favors.

mockturtle said...

Bay Area Guy understands it, I think: I'm not a big fan of the Saudis. But to the extent they feel threats to overthrow their silly kingdom by radical Islam (despite the money they use to fund these crazies), well, our interests tend to align.

They prefer the strong horse to the weak horse, so I have no doubt they'll like Trump.


The Wahhabi Royal family has always feared overthrow by more violent elements of Sunni Islam which is one reason they have financed terror. While their ultimate goal is that of all Muslims--world domination--it remains strategically sensible for Trump forge a partnership with them which might help deter terrorists while enriching our own economy.

Chuck said...

Maybe the thing I hate most about Trump, is the way he gives completely different speeches, depending on the audience. He's a salesman. Or a sociopath. Or both. Probably both.

Michael said...

Chuck

Does he speak w. an African-American accent? That is the tell of a white dipshit.

Inga said...

And they complained about the Clinton Foundation, what hypocrisy. After a huge arms deal with. Saudi Arabia...

"Coincidentally, the Saudis have also agreed to donate a whopping $100 million to the recently announced women's fund inspired by Jared Kushner’s wife, Ivanka Trump:

The World Bank plans to announce Sunday at an event with Ivanka Trump, the U.S. president’s daughter and senior White House adviser, that Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have pledged $100 million collectively toward a fund for women who own or want to start businesses, according to people familiar with the announcement.

You know what would advance women in Saudi Arabia? Rights. Actual rights guaranteeing their protection and equality."

Bay Area Guy said...

@Chuck,

"Maybe the thing I hate most about Trump, is the way he gives completely different speeches, depending on the audience. He's a salesman. Or a sociopath. Or both. Probably both."

And yet you voted for him. Action speaks louder than words. He thanks you for your support.

mockturtle said...

Call it 'keeping your enemies closer'. There is diplomacy and there is sincerity. Seldom do the twain meet.

buwaya said...

$100B in sales to US industries (export earnings!) is not like the Clintons getting payments into their own pockets.
And money donated to the World-freaking-bank isn't money into any Trumps pockets either.
Come on, Inga, thats not even a category error, because you know better.

buwaya said...

Its called politics and diplomacy.
If he had insulted his hosts he would get slagged for that.
Come on you guys, work harder.
Go read some books.

mockturtle said...

Prince Mohammed is [dare I say it?] HOT.

David Begley said...

Agree with buwaya. Got to be diplomatic and practical.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

Blogger Chuck said...
"Maybe the thing I hate most about Trump, is the way he gives completely different speeches, depending on the audience. He's a salesman. Or a sociopath. Or both. Probably both."

You mean like a politician?
Seriously, Chuck, get help.

exiledonmainstreet said...

mockturtle said...
Call it 'keeping your enemies closer'. There is diplomacy and there is sincerity. Seldom do the twain meet"

Well, that's it.

The deranged and dishonest Trump haters like Chuck and Inga and ARM would bitch and whine no matter what Trump said. If he criticized the Saudis to their faces, they would rant about how how unpresidential he is and how he needlessly alienates foreign governments. Since he's not, they're crabbing about how he is sucking up to them.

William said...

I caught part of the speech. It seemed direct and engaging and a good speech. On the other hand, the Gettysburg Address didn't end the Civil War, and the Sermon on the Mount didn't bring about the new Jerusalem, so I don't have high hopes. Things have a tendency to get worse rather than better in that neck of the woods, and I don't think his speech will change that dynamic.........If I had to sit through a bunch of boring speeches,those chairs would be the ones I'd would choose to sit on. You don't see a lot of the Puritan work ethic in the style and furnishings of that room.

Inga said...

"... (export earnings!) is not like the Clintons getting payments into their own pockets.

And money donated to the World-freaking-bank isn't money into any Trumps pockets either."

First of all you know nothing of the sort ever happened. Secondly, the optics of the Saudi's donating $100 Million into an Ivanka Fund (after sealing a huge arms deal with the Saudis) is bad, every bit as bad as what you people accused Hillary of doing. I didn't say the money being donated to the fund was going in any Trump's pockets. And the money donated to the Clinton Fund didn't go into their pockets either.

Michael K said...

Don't expect Inga to understand those subtleties. It is all hate all the time.

The Saudis are in trouble. Iran has been supported and armed by the previous president. Trump is NOT HIM !

FDR began the alliance with the Saudis in 1945 because of oil. Until 1979, we had an equal share of oil production but then we slid back and they got more power because the world beat a path to their door.

Now, despite Obama and the political left which tried to stop fracking and pipelines, we are again equal to the Saudis. The situation now is that they are facing an existential threat from Iran. They are already allying with Israel, although quietly. They need friends.

Brookzene said...

"You mean like a politician?"

Isn't that why you guys voted for Trump? You told us he wasn't like a politician.

Michael K said...

"And the money donated to the Clinton Fund didn't go into their pockets either."

Inga, you look like a fool to deny what your eyes see.

Inga said...

Mockturtle said...
"Prince Mohammed is [dare I say it?] HOT."

Good Titus impersonation, lol.

buwaya said...

Yes we do. Clinton foundation is a transparent pay-to-play dodge thats the family piggy bank. They pay Clinton retainers and family expenses out of it, such as hiring Chelsea.

Thats @ $250million they can do with as they like.

Its not optics, its reality.

As for a World Bank (you know what that is, right?) charity - thats like giving to the Red Cross, or the World Wildlife fund. If these outfits misuse the money its on them, the Trumps dont get the money. If thats bad optics, its in the eyes of people with bad vision, because its precisely the same thing as every Hollywood celebrity does in endorsing charities, since Audrey Hepburn endorsed UNICEF.

And you, of course, know that perfectly well.

Brookzene said...

"Inga, you look like a fool to deny what Breitbart tells us."

FIFY.

Steve Uhr said...

The speech location is a spitting image of the main casino at the now defunct Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

Trump talked a lot about all the construction and fantastic buildings being built by the UAE. Of course the Saudi's talent is taking down buildings.

Inga said...

"And the money donated to the Clinton Fund didn't go into their pockets either."

Inga, you look like a fool to deny what your eyes see."

My eyes didn't see any such thing Michael. Those are scurrilous rumors and accusations, sorry I don't buy into that bullshit, that's for fools.

buwaya said...

There is hate, and there is intelligent hate.
Or, at least, honest hate.
The modifiers make all the difference.

Brookzene said...

"It is all hate all the time."

No one should be hating each other over this crap. We're all Americans. I'm tough on Trump and tough on his defense but I don't hate anybody and I'll have a beer and share pictures of grandkids after the political talk.

It's this personalization of political differences that's the real threat.

Brookzene said...

"There is hate, and there is intelligent hate.
Or, at least, honest hate.
The modifiers make all the difference."

Hate is hate. It's beneath Americans.

buwaya said...

Oh come on Inga. You can easily find open source about the Clinton foundation's payout ratio, which is near-zero. All the funding goes to paying Clinton staff.
There is none so blind.

Inga said...

Politifact on the Clinton's taking money from the Clinton Fund

Of course you hard core Breitbarters will reject this Politifact conclusion. You can lead a horse to water...

buwaya said...

Brookzone, this is yet another bit of disingenuous gaslighting.
You hate everyone here, and you declaim about hate?

Brookzene said...

"You hate everyone here, and you declaim about hate?"

Ridiculous. You must be projecting your own self-admitted hatred.

Chuck said...

Michael said...
Chuck

Does he speak w. an African-American accent? That is the tell of a white dipshit.


You say that, like I would defend the phoniness of those Democrats. I don't do that. I've condemned that, long before anybody thought about Trump.

Once again I have to say, the "What about Hillary? And what about Obama?" line doesn't work on me. I never liked either one. I sure as hell never voted for either one. Actually, my answer might be, "Yeah what hateful phonies, those Dem politicians are. And Trump is just like them."

AJ Lynch said...

I refuse to watch any prez speeches so I have a question for the readers. Any chance Trump asked the Saudis to establish safe zones for the refugees?

Brookzene said...

Nobody gets rebuffed who reaches out to me in friendship or good will. I don't care what gets said between us.

And that's the way Americans should be to one another. Period.

buwaya said...

Politifact is yet another Democratic party front Inga. And the piece reads like a brief for the defense, without delving into who exactly is getting paid for what work. That is all a bunch of assertions.
There are no lists of, say, doctors being paid out of Clinton funds.

buwaya said...

Chuck,
The opponents of Trump, or his partisans, are evil, or at least inimical to your interests, to a near cosmic degree. Your value judgement about the scale of offense on one side or the other is not simply bizarre, but quite mad.

Rene Saunce said...

Anything with an Orwellian title like "Politifact" is bullshit.

Just 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants

St. George said...

Sunni vs. Shia. Same as it ever was, and a very big ma as-salaama (good-bye) to Obama's pro-Iran policies.

Inga said...

AJ Lynch said...
"I refuse to watch any prez speeches so I have a question for the readers. Any chance Trump asked the Saudis to establish safe zones for the refugees?"

I didn't hear it if he did. Maybe I missed it?

Rene Saunce said...

7 Things You Need To Know About The Clinton Foundation


For an organization that is supposedly a charity, the Clinton Foundation spent very little money on "direct aid." IRS documents showed that the Foundation raised over $500 million from 2009-2012, and yet the Clinton Foundation only spent $75 million on "programmatic grants."

"The other $425 million was allocated as follows: more than $25 million went for travel expenses; almost $110 million for employee salaries and benefits; and $290 million for 'other expenses,' "



Inga did not vote for Jill - she voted for Hillary. Bank on it.

Brookzene said...

"Imagine if Trump had called Arabia sacred land."

William Kristol

Chuck said...

Good lord; there is certainly some basis, to criticize a great many things about the Clinton Family Foundation. But it is a stone cold lie, to claim that all the money that they raise goes to staff and related internal expenses. "Lie" is the only way to characterize it. The overwhelming amount of fundraising goes into other foundations and charities. So the Clintons are raising hundreds of millions of dollars, and turning most of that into charitable works, even though the Clinton Family Foundation doesn't do a lot of direct charitable work on its own.

By comparison, if anybody cares, the Donald J. Trump Foundation is tiny; barely a rounding error in what the Clinton Foundation actually gives to charity, and Trump's own foundation/charitable giving is even more dubious than anything given by the Clintons.

Inga said...

Charity Ratings of Clinton Foundation from Charity Watch

Rene Saunce said...

Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014
The tax-exempt organization's grants to charitable organizations declined by 40 percent between 2013 and 2014.


The current push to lie about the Clinton in an effort to clean up their corruption is a big clue she is running in 2020.

73 year old crook refuses to go away.

Inga said...

April never met a conspiracy theory she didn't love.

Inga said...

Clinton Foundation, Charity Navigator

buwaya said...

In fact it would be very interesting to see a complete audit of the Clinton foundation, including a full statement of payments and their recipients. This does not seem to have ever been disclosed, merely general categories.

The only audit that was done, IIRC, concerned itself only with a complete accounting of its donors, not its expenses.

One would think that a charity trading on the political influence of its directors, even while one held high public office, opening the question of official corruption, would, if honest, be completely transparent about its activities.

Rene Saunce said...

Why are you trying to clean up after the corrupt political whores, inga? marching order from huffpo?

Rene Saunce said...

Inga never met a Clinton lie she didn't buy.

traditionalguy said...

Just got home to catch up. The historic event was the world TV audience watching a DeMille class production with that orange haired clown playing the Moses and Joshua roles to Oscar range.

The man understands media. He just jumped being loved by Deplorables in America to connect to the rest of the world's forgotten people.

Beware of Trump's Triumph.

mockturtle said...

AJ Lynch asks: I refuse to watch any prez speeches so I have a question for the readers. Any chance Trump asked the Saudis to establish safe zones for the refugees?

Yes, in a broad sense.

Rene Saunce said...

Pretty sad that the democrat party cannot find a new leader - one who isn't corrupt.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Inga said...
Where were the Shiite leaders?

**********

They were in Iran, Inga. You know, the country that's been a mortal enemy of the Saudis for centuries.

You think Trump gets more respect from the Saudis than Baraka did because he OPPOSES Iran and the nuclear deal? Ya think?

Bob Ellison said...

It would be good if we would do away with charitable organizations' main advantage, which is non-profit, tax-free status.

Then we wouldn't have Clintons running around, getting rich on charities.

Imagine that world!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga did not vote for Jill - she voted for Hillary. Bank on it.

5/21/17, 11:54 AM

Of course she did. She has never criticized Hillary. Ritmo and Cookie did. People who voted for Stein can't stand Hillary.

Inga said...

A brief analysis of the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation from Guidestar

buwaya said...

No Chuck,
If the Clinton foundation were donating its money to other charities, or to direct aid recipients, it would show in its payout ratio.
Its defense for a low payout ratio is its assertion that it conducts charity work through the labor of its own employees. That means, for instance, that if it is providing medical services a lot of medical personnel would be receiving paychecks from the foundation.

traditionalguy said...

Like Napoleon, citizen Trump has conquered Egypt and the Arabs and rolls on to Jerusalem and Rome.

All he has left todo is conquer Moscow. But the Dimms will be damned if they will allow him that success too.

Bob Ellison said...

It would also be good if we did away with income taxes on C-corporations. That's double-taxation, when you think about it.

But the rubes will always be fooled.

Inga said...

I didn't vote for Hillary, but I sure wish I would've. Then we wouldn't have the Fraudster in Chief in Office.

Chuck said...

Brookzene said...
"It is all hate all the time."

No one should be hating each other over this crap. We're all Americans. I'm tough on Trump and tough on his defense but I don't hate anybody and I'll have a beer and share pictures of grandkids after the political talk.

It's this personalization of political differences that's the real threat.


So much of the personalized ill-will originates with Trump. He is the guy who has so characteristically and originally engaged in all of the personal attacks. It has been his trademark, from the beginnings of his time as a public figure. Way before there was ever any thought about Trump being some sort of champion against the Deep State. He's just a very, very nasty person.

Inga said...

Hexiled, you don't know a thing about the people who voted for Jill Stein, she was a port in a storm. I was a Bernie supporter from the beginning and said so many times here on Althouse. I had issues with Hillary apart from any stupid rumors about the Clinton Foundation.

Michael K said...

Look, the Democrats voted for Hillary and lost. Get over it.

The hate directed at Trump makes a kind of sense for Democrats although the actions to try to stop or sabotage his administration is unique in American history since 1861.

A lot of us were very unhappy about Obama as I thought he was the least prepared person to be elected president in my knowledge of history. I have posted on my own blog, Obama's history in politics, and, while I did not believe the Kenya story I thought he was a real stealth candidate as far as his record and life history.

Still, there were no riots and no threats like there were for Bush and Trump. The Bush election was very close but the Trump win was not.

Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote,.

What I find even harder to understand is the Trump hatred from the right, Chuck seems to be a blowhard but there are lots of "conservative" pundits around, like Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol who want to pull him down when he is our only chance to undo some of the Obama misgovernance,

Patterico is another blog I have read and commented on for years. I know the blog owner Patrick Frey personally.

He has just gone nuts with Trump hatred since the election.

I quit the blog about the election and went back recently when the tone seemed to be moderating. Then this.

It doesn’t mean sub-moronic narcissistic bullying assholes like Trump — and that’s what he is — can’t effect a decent policy outcome here and there, by accident. But that doesn’t mean I have to like him, and I don’t. I despise him. He represents virtually everything that is wrong with our culture. If I could raise my children according to one precept, it would be: Be the opposite of that guy in every way possible.

Patterico


That's just insane. Does he expect if thy succeed in damaging Trump enough they will get a better deal from anyone ?

Ron Radosh, who I respect a lot, has this as a post.

What does he expect will happen if they can somehow force Trump out ?

It’s time to stop enabling Trump and start seeking the truth -- even if the truth hurts.
I share this sentiment, and hope that many other conservatives will join me and do what’s right and necessary.


This is insanity and I don't understand it. The GOP seems to have a suicide wish along with western Europe. Radosh, of all people, should understand that he is playing with fire.

Rene Saunce said...

As not what a Private Server can do for your country, Ask what can a Private Server do for you.

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for

Clintons And Foundation Raked In Cash From Banks That Admitted Wrongdoing


Clintons Facilitated Donor’s Haiti Project that Defrauded U.S. Out of Millions

Rene Saunce said...

We get it, Inga, you support Hillary.

buwaya said...

Chuck,
I have shown you, time and again, the effects of the misrule of the Washington consensus on the United States, based on official data from the Federal Reserve, the BLS, the DOE and the EPA. This is gross, if not fatal, damage to your country.
And yet you obsess about Trump tweets?
This is insane. This is not rational judgement.

J. Farmer said...

What an utter and complete waste of time. I greatly fear a Trump presidency becoming overly focused on foreign affairs. For one, Trump obviously loves the obsequious behavior bestowed upon him during these international trips, and the only time the American media treated him with an ounce of respect or seriousness was when he bombed a Syrian airfield. It's pretty sad when you're not considered "presidential" until you express a willingness to foolishly and uselessly unleash violence and destruction against foreign populations. Trump has also remarked how he has gotten "very high marks, A, A+" on foreign policy. And of course, the president is much less constrained on foreign policy than he is on domestic policy, especially in today's world where we have accepted a permanent warfare president, and the Congress has abdicated its war power.

So, all of this may surge Trump's serotonin levels but it does fuck all for an American First agenda.

Inga said...

Get over it Michael? Well that would be possible if Trump wouldn't be proving us liberals and anti Trumpers right every single day he's been president. If he would've become Presidential and proved he could be an adult, it would've been easier.

Rene Saunce said...

Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga lied: I had issues with Hillary apart from any stupid rumors about the Clinton Foundation.

5/21/17, 12:10 PM

You sure managed to keep whatever "issues" you had with Hillary to yourself.

What were they? You didn't like the oven mitt pantsuit? No, that can't be it because you got upset whenever Hillary's dismal fashion sense was ridiculed here, although the pantsuits are trivial compared to the crimes she has committed.

Inga said...

"We get it, Inga, you support Hillary."

Hillary would've been a real President, despite her own serious shortcomings. I don't want to see her run for office again and would not support her as such, as there are far better Democratic candidates.

Rene Saunce said...

"Shortcomings" - like money whoring, setting up a private server, and lying about it - all the way to the top. Americans saw through it, Inga, and rejected her.
Get over it.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga said...
Hexiled, you don't know a thing about the people who voted for Jill Stein"

Camille Paglia voted for Stein and she knows very well what a corrupt sack of shit Hillary is.

buwaya said...

I am not American, but my wife and children are.
So it is not my business to get over-involved in your public affairs, but it is my duty to provide for them.
This place is devolving into a looney-bin, and I doubt it will turn out well. Its not just one Chuck and Inga, but hordes of them that you have to deal with.
So I am hedging vs the US in terms of foreign investments and real-estate, for the sake of my responsibilities, to preserve a legacy or at least a life-line, and I urge all to look into that. You can't argue with the mad.

Rene Saunce said...

Exactly - what Issues did you have with Hillary, Inga - please lay them all out...

Inga said...

And April, it's hilarious how you ranted and raved about Trump all over the ineternet for months and months, yet now you seem to be as much a Trump sychopant as the rest. You do things to the extreme I think.

Michael K said...

Inga, I don't care if you mourn your heroine, Hillary.

What I am talking about is the violent "resistance" and the sabotage. Hillary, after making a point of accepting the election result, ha snow come out and said she is "joining the resistance."

Nobody rioted in 1992 and 2008.

You and your allies are working up to 1861. Be careful. One of the first rules of revolutions, is that the early revolutionaries end up against walls with people shooting at them, Read about the French Revolution. The American Revolution was against the English who lived across the ocean. The French was against neighbors.

Rene Saunce said...

I seem like a Trump sycophant? how?

The media seem like sad-loser Clinton sycophants.

Michael K said...

"to preserve a legacy or at least a life-line, and I urge all to look into that. You can't argue with the mad."

I moved to Arizona after 60 years in California. We now live in one of the few red zones of Tucson.

Plus, of course, Arizona has sensible gun laws.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rene Saunce said...

I'm not in charge of Trump and I do wish the GOP base would have selected someone other than Trump - but Trump is who we got. A lot of that has to do with the real problem with insider elites in DC, like the Clintons. People are sick of the same old guard criminals.

If I defend Trump it's because he IS being treated unfairly by liars and hacks in the pro-D hack press.

Inga said...

Hillary was too chummy with Wall Street.
Hillary wasn't on board for free College Tuition.
Hillary seemed too willing to get involved in foreign entanglements.
Hillary was not on board with a Public Option for healthcare.
Hillary wasn't far enough to the left, basically.

These are off the top of my head, but right about now she looks pretty damn good compared to Trump.

buwaya said...

Farmer,
$100B in exports employs a lot of US workers.
Thats not chopped liver.
And it is a principal presidential function to deal with foreign policy. Richard Nixon's and Ronald Reagan's main ovcupation was in foreign policy.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Rene Saunce said...
I seem like a Trump sycophant? how?"

In Ingaland, anybody who says anything positive about Trump is a "Trump sycophant." Which is rich, coming from people who thought Obama was the Second Coming.

Like you, I voted for Trump reluctantly. I was a Cruz supporter. But I am very happy now that Trump won, because the Left demonstrates everyday they are unfit to run the country.

Lewis Wetzel said...

As has been written elsewhere, the Democrats haven't been this worked up since Lincoln was elected!
And I promise that is the last time I will make a Trump-Lincoln comparison.

Rene Saunce said...

Inga - it's hysterical remembering how you thought Scott Walker would be indicted.
Any...Second... Now.

Your corrupt party in Wisconsin has turned ordinary Americans against you and your creepy mid-night raid corruptocrats.

Now it's Trump. Trump will be impeached.... soon!

**endless butthurt needs hope.

When the corrupt D media go too far, ordinary Americans see thru it. When Saturday Night Live and Colbert and CNN go too far, ordinary Americans watch in disgust, and they vote.

Michael K said...

And of course, the president is much less constrained on foreign policy than he is on domestic policy,

Domestic policy has two problems. One is the sabotage going on in the bureaucracy. The other is Congress. I don't know which is worse.

I have hopes that Pruitt and Price don't lose their nerve and face down the bureaucracy which seems to be in open mutiny.

The unions are probably a barrier but I think there could be some retribution for this misbehavior. First, fire all political appointees by Obama. Second, fire people for cause if they can be seen to be not doing their jobs. If necessary, pout them in "rubber rooms" like crazy NYC school teachers until they get enough and quit.

Move EPA to Detroit and HHS to St Louis. Call it a jobs program for those cities.

The D of Education should be shut down. Maybe the budget could be zeroed out as deficit reduction.

That would be a start.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

The Saudis seek U.S. support for their various plans in the Middle East, and they are very successful in getting that support. But what are their plans, and are their plans working? They are leading the anti-government forces in Syria, while supposedly trying to prevent any one group of really dangerous terrorists from getting too strong. They are leading the pro-government forces (or pro-an ostensible government) in Yemen, where the terrible civil war receives little Western coverage. The U.S. has been siding with the Saudis in both cases. Part of the rationale is that the Saudis are anti-Iran, and the U.S. likes the idea of keeping Iran in check. Did the U.S. invasion of Iraq make Iran stronger, and make Assad, in particular, think he had better strengthen ties with Iran at the expense of the Saudis? Are the Saudis, probably inadvertently, making the terrorism problem worse, and using U.S. dollars to do it? The Saudi plan for Syria involved Assad disappearing before the terrorist groups could get too strong. Oops. Now is it time to support Assad? Is it possible to work with Russia and Turkey to resolve Syria?

Michael K said...

"Did the U.S. invasion of Iraq make Iran stronger"

Why belabor matters that happened 14 years ago ? We might as well argue about whether we should have let Saddam conquer Saudi Arabia,

Inga said...

April,
I never said a word about Walker being "indicted any day now". Go find where I said it and then post it here.

Inga said...

April, why did you hate Trump, so much so that you ranted and raved about him for hours and hours making all your online friends mad at you, throughout his campaign? Please elaborate.

buwaya said...

The base desire of the Saudi regime is to remain the Saudi regime. They have to deal with the fact that their own people dont like them much, and a large number actively hate them, for a large number of conflicting reasons.

And they have to deal with the fact that they have very few soldiers who are both loyal and capable. There are only a few who would die for the House of Saud, not even many members of the House of Saud.

All this armaments spending - and its gone on for a very long time, on paper the Saudis are extremely well armed already - is a bit of trying to purchase safety. If their soldiers aren't reliable, they at least have the option of killing their enemies from a distance, reducing, it is hoped, the need to test their courage.

roesch/voltaire said...

Long on rhetoric short on specifics of how to deal with the failed states in Middle East but tied together with arms and bombs sure to keep the Middle East a war zone of sectarian strife and resentment ruled by dictators.

mockturtle said...

What an utter and complete waste of time. asserts J. Farmer.

Somehow, $100 billion dollars in contracts seems worthwhile.

Michael K said...

"they at least have the option of killing their enemies from a distance,"

I have read that they are terrible at maintenance, The work is done by immigrants, like Pakistanis, or, God forbid, Shia laborers.

mockturtle said...

sure to keep the Middle East a war zone of sectarian strife and resentment ruled by dictators. says r/v

Otherwise, it would be...what?

Michael K said...

"a war zone of sectarian strife and resentment ruled by dictators."

Bush tried to change that and filed. You are talking about 1400 years of history. There has never been a Muslim "enlightenment."

buwaya said...

The Saudis have spent the last 38 years, since the Shah fell, trying to buy stability in the ME, and especially at home.
Often in opposition to US interests.
They have at various times actively and tacitly exported their radicals and directed their efforts abroad, so that they would eliminate themselves, and not bother the government.
They have also bought religious indulgences with the clerics, in order also to keep their interests abroad.

buwaya said...

True about Bush. He tried, they failed.

The society there is incapable of supporting a liberal, non authoritarian government. They are too tribal, paranoid, vicious and corrupt. The only way any such society works is with an iron hand to suppress its outbreaks and enforce cooperation.

Those that work with a lighter hand (Quatar say) have to be well-lubricated with money. When the money stops, well lets see.

buwaya said...

Melania Trump is getting glamor girl treatment from the Saudi press.

Of course, it is the Saudi press, so this is strictly an official message and absolutely no indicator of public sentiment. Still, they are running front page pictures of her without a veil. Which is quite something, for that place.

They are going very far out of their way to suck up to Trump.

Inga said...

Buwaya said...
"True about Bush. He tried, they failed."
---------------------
"His longtime political strategist, Roger Stone, who helped Trump frame his candidacy to appeal to his white, working-class base, hinted that the latter could be a problem.

“While I certainly still support the President, I fear he has become captive of the neocons he has surrounded himself with,” Stone said in an email. “Dina Habib Powell? Why? Did she even vote for Trump? If the people had wanted a continuation of the George W. Bush administration they would have voted for Jeb.”"

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/21/trump-islam-terrorism-238643

buwaya said...

The Arabs failed, Inga.

mockturtle said...

They are going very far out of their way to suck up to Trump.

Yes, and it's better to be the 'suckee' than the 'sucker'.

Michael K said...

"They have also bought religious indulgences with the clerics,"

That is the whole Wahabbi thing, Ibn Saud used them to gain control in the 1920s.

Chuck said...

I am going to have to become a follower of the Patterico blog. It sounds great.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" & "Ardent defender of Stolen Valor Liar Blumenthal" Chuck: "You say that, like I would defend the phoniness of those Democrats"

Lol

The examples of your Dem water carrying are legion.

LEGION.

roesch/voltaire said...

. Iran does not have a foothold in Afghanistan or Pakistan where we have been involved in a sixteen year war, but that area has been heavily influenced by Sunni fundamentalist supported by the Saudi money and we think giving them arms will cause them to change the teachings in the hundreds of schools and mosques they support? No this soft apology tour conducted with just a little bow and a bigger arms contract is only more of business as usual without the lecture on human rights.

Drago said...

roesch/voltaire: "Long on rhetoric short on specifics of how to deal with the failed states in Middle East but tied together with arms and bombs sure to keep the Middle East a war zone of sectarian strife and resentment ruled by dictators."

So much easier to directly support the Iranians in their pursuit of nukes.

Honestly, it really is astonishing how the lefties start each day as if history began that morning.

Drago said...

R/V: "No this soft apology tour conducted with just a little bow .."

Without the lies the left would have nothing at all to say.

Inga said...

Ivanka Trump talks so glowingly about the young people of Saudi Arabia, such entrepreneurs! Such freedom for young women! Oh... never mind.

Inga said...

"No this soft apology tour conducted with just a little bow..."

And a curtsy to boot!

Drago said...

When Democrat memes collide causing extreme cognitive dissonance: Trump is out of control and insulting the Muslims and creating more terrorists!

Simultaneously the left gin up easily discarded lies about soft apologies and bows which mirror obambi.

Not to worry, all contradictory and self-refuting thoughts are comfortably housed within a lefty mind.

Inga said...

Ahaha Ha! Drago loves when Trump acts like Obama.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Banner on stage proclaims this as "Arab-Islamic-American Summit." Audience, judging from complexion and headgear, includes non-Arab Moslems. What nations are represented besides Saudi Kingdom and USA?

Saudis have a website set up for this shindig, https://riyadhsummit2017.org/

At bottom, amongst the FAQs is "What are the Countries invited to...." Link loops back to the top of page.

Anyone know what countries are there besides the host Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and USA? Any Islamic countries (e.g. Iranian Moslem theocracy) pointedly excluded?

King Salman devoted much time to extolling the peacefulness of Islam. Tolerance not much mentioned. Methinks no matter what sect of Islam, one need not dig far to find universal conversion as a core tenet.

exiledonmainstreet said...

It would be nice if you acted like a woman with a couple of working brain cells, Inga, although that's probably asking too much.

what should Trump do? Insult his hosts? Then you'd whine and bitch about that.

Brookzene said...

"What should Trump do? Insult his hosts?"

If that's what you wanted Obama to do, why not Trump?

buwaya said...

Some others things are utterly clear -

The Saudis would not have gone to these lengths with Obama.

The international politics aside, under Obama the Saudis were enjoying the power of high oil prices. No need to kowtow to the imperial USA.

And likewise, Trump and Melania are white, and so far more socially acceptable to them. They really are terrible racists.

Rene Saunce said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rene Saunce said...

Inga asks,,, April, why did you hate Trump, so much so that you ranted and raved about him for hours and hours making all your online friends mad at you, throughout his campaign? Please elaborate.

I've already elaborated for the umpteenth time. People here are sick of it but here goes again, Inga {btw- WE all remember you yammering on about Walker, and his pending legal troubles {bogus garbage manufactured by the left}.]... I did not want Trump to be the nominee because I thought he was in it to hand it to Hillary. The media picked Trump, in part, to face Hillary because our corrupt control freak media manipulate information all the time.
The media wanted Trump to lose to Hillary. You wanna be pissed at someone or something. Inga? -blame your DNC media.
Well, Turns out I was wrong in my prediction that he would hand it to Hillary. Trump did a better job than Hillary connecting with disaffected Americans. You know- people you and Hillary call "hillbilly" or "deplorable."
Turns out Hillary really does suck more than Trump.

Rene Saunce said...

I never hated Trump - the whole love/hate/worship politicians as gods is a construct of the left.

mockturtle said...

Drago rightly asserts: Honestly, it really is astonishing how the lefties start each day as if history began that morning.

I am convinced that most leftists know very little--if anything--about history.

Marc Puckett said...

I saw that the Times was editorially worrying about a 'diminished presidential office' this morning... well, it was Eric Posner and Emily Bazelon, I guess. Don't we on the Right want a less imperial presidency? I suppose not if that means that the bureaucracy remains powerfully amok. Tsk.

Michael K said...

" Iran does not have a foothold in Afghanistan"

No just a 945 kilometer border plus a history of cooperation.

That's a HuffPo link R/V so you won't feel compromised clicking on it.

Go ahead. You might learn something.

Known Unknown said...

The problem with the Trump-hating Conservatives is that the deplorables didn't turn out for Pence. They'll sit on their hands in 2018 if the GOPe keeps seeking to derail or undo Trump.

Michael K said...

They'll sit on their hands in 2018 if the GOPe keeps seeking to derail or undo Trump.

They are weak and beholden to donors, most of whom are doing well in the Obama ZIRP economy,

A lot of politicians, including Ryan, have never held a real job and know nothing about what makes the country work. Reagan spent years traveling around for GE and talking to people in plants. That's where he got a lot of his economic savvy,

Of course, he had also dealt with communists in Hollywood when he was president of the actors' union.

Karen said...

Inga, no need to take money from the Clinton foundation fund since they were already getting several hundred thousand per speech for every speech Bill made before the very groups that were donating millions to the foundation fund.

mockturtle said...

They'll sit on their hands in 2018 if the GOPe keeps seeking to derail or undo Trump.

That is my opinion, too. I may not vote Democratic but may vote for any other party but the GOP. They will have cooked their goose.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya said...
They really are terrible racists.


I guess they learnt this from liberal elites, just like the Chinese.

Inga said...

"They'll sit on their hands in 2018 if the GOPe keeps seeking to derail or undo Trump."

"That is my opinion, too. I may not vote Democratic but may vote for any other party but the GOP. They will have cooked their goose."

Woo hoo! All the better for Democrats!

buwaya said...

Nope ARM, it comes natural.

US Chinese are remarkably prone to marry liberal whites, but fear blacks and rednecks and have a vague sense of superiority vs Hispanics. All of that is learned, as out East they pretty much dislike everyone.

BillyTalley said...

Seems pretty clear to me. The speech was an invitation to agreements already arranged between the Saudis and the USA: we'll get rid of ISIS and you stop the radicalization at home. The whole proposal was conditional and subject to verification in the near future.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

$100B in exports employs a lot of US workers.
Thats not chopped liver.


Yes, actually, it is chopped liver. The US economy and labor market has much more systematic problems, and this kind of 19th century mercantilism will not change that.

Richard Nixon's and Ronald Reagan's main ovcupation was in foreign policy.

Yes, to the great detriment of the country. What in the world makes you think I approve of either Nixon or Reagan's foreign policy?

@mockturtle:

Somehow, $100 billion dollars in contracts seems worthwhile.

They're not. But of course we could have gotten them without having to flatter and reassure Saudi Arabia, a US client-state. If Trump had gotten any useful confessions from the regime, that might be one thing, but insanely enough Trump seems to be onboard with the Saudi strategy. That is insane. We need a US president who will reign the Saudis in, not write them a blank check of American support.

But then again, I've been arguing since September 12th, 2001 that US foreign policy in the middle east needs a major readjustment. We should pursue a detente with Iran and pivot away from the Gulf Arab states. Indulging their petty nonsense has been disastrous for the US. Similarly, we made a foolish, shortsighted decision to prefer the Pakistanis over the Indians, who were seen as insufficiently hostile to the Soviets. How has our half-century relationship with Pakistan worked out for us? Not only did our bosom buddies the Pakistanis help establish Taliban control over most of Afghanistan, they have been sympathetic and supportive of Al Qaeda type Sunni radicals. Pakistan is full of madrassas funded by Saudi oil money that have indoctrinated generations in its particular brand of radical salafism. Similarly, Turkey has been attached to the Pentagon hip for decades and once housed US nuclear missiles pointed at Russia. How fruitful has that been for us?

J. Farmer said...

p.s. We should pursue a detente with Iran and pivot away from the Gulf Arab states.

Let me explain...

The Saudi and other Gulf Arab monarchies are obviously worried about Iranian influence in the regime. There are ethnolinguistic (Arab vs Perisan/Farsi) and theological (Sunni vs. Shia) fault lines between the two areas. The US should act like a proper continental superpower and look past the petty issues we have with Iran over the 79 revolution. We should reopen the embassy, establish normal diplomatic relations with Iran, and trade with Iran. This would not only deprive hardline forces in Iran from using America as a propaganda tool, it would give us tremendous leverage over the Arabs. All we have to do to get in the good graces with the Iranian regime is to accept their legitimacy and abandon our nearly 40-year effort to overthrow the regime. Persia's millennia long history of civilization and cosmopolitanism is much more aligned with the West than the Arabian peninsula's history of petty kinship tribalism and rivalry. Only a foreign policy larded up with ideology and dogmatism could produce the schizophrenic relations we have in the region currently.

buwaya said...

The Iranian regime bases itself on the idea of a cosmic struggle against the US. They cant let go of enmity, because if they did they would lose all legitimacy with the extremist, militant remnant that maintains the regime. It is this hate thats the pillar of their rule.

This is the rock on which all (and there have been many) attempts by several US governments have struck. Even in the 1980s the USG has been trying to arrange a reconciliation. The Obama administration made a sustained effort, with exceedingly rich incentives, to no avail.

buwaya said...

And, note, the Iranians are a clever lot.
They like to tease, present a plausible, reasonable face, obtain a concession, and then when they have it, switch about in a flash.

buwaya said...

And, needless to say, the Iranian regime is not the Iranian people. Over there the people are a pointless appendage on the state. The state lives on oil and pays their partisans, that is all the Iran that matters.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

The Iranian regime bases itself on the idea of a cosmic struggle against the US.

No, they do not. That is an absolute character of the nature of the regime. This is precisely the mistake the US made with the USSR. It may have briefly had an expansionist, ideological agenda but that had been all but abandoned by the age of Khrushchev at the very latest. From that point, the USSR was a primarily defensive power trying to manage it's relentless march of decline. Iran, similarly, is much more driven by realistic pragmatism than blind ideology. One of their closest partners is Russia, an Orthodox Christian country with a history of repressive Muslims in Central Asia and in Chechnya. None of that has been a barrier to Russia-Iran relations. The primary cause of enmity between our countries is our refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the regime and our efforts to bring the regime down. If we normalized relations with Iran and abandoned regime change efforts, we would deprive the Iranians of a propaganda tool and could use our relation with them to extract concessions from the Arab states.

A middle east dominated by Iran and eastern Iraq would be a much better middle east for the US than the one dominated by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Our current strategic relationships in the region is a leftover cold war anachronism. We no longer have to worry about partnering with authoritarian regimes who will keep Soviet influence out. The Saudi regime, particularly under its new leadership, has proven itself to be incompetent, short-sighted, and impulsive. They are a major source of headache in the regime. Their support for sunni radicals in Iraq and Syria and their stupid, pointless war on Yemen are just the most recent examples. Never mind that Saudi oil money funds a lot radical salafi jihadist activity.

We should be doing the exact opposite of reassuring, flattering, and standing by them. We should put the Saudis on notice that reflexive US support should no longer be taken for granted and instead should be tied to verifiable results. We should put pressure on the Saudis to abandon support for the radical sunnis in Syria and we should assist Assad in taking back control of his country. This would be much better for American interests than our current regime change policy.

J. Farmer said...

They like to tease, present a plausible, reasonable face, obtain a concession, and then when they have it, switch about in a flash.

Again, I think that is a caricature. Yes, there is a great deal of mistrust between the two sides, and both sides will need to work towards a reconciliation, but we should not close our eyes to the role we have played towards that mistrust. Had the Iranians shot down a US passenger plane and killed hundreds of Americans, I imagine we would be quite upset about that. Nonetheless, the Iranians provided assistance in the initial aftermath of 9/11, because they realized their interests were aligned with Americans in getting rid of the Taliban. They nearly went to war with the Taliban themselves in the late 90's over the murder of Iranian diplomats. Similarly, all indicators suggest that Iran is keeping to the nuclear agreement.

J. Farmer said...

And, needless to say, the Iranian regime is not the Iranian people. Over there the people are a pointless appendage on the state. The state lives on oil and pays their partisans, that is all the Iran that matters.

Certainly the regime is not the people. But it is wrong to say that the regime sees the people as a "pointless appendage on the state." The regime is checked, in part, by national will. The same is true of China. Very few regimes can be that dismissive of broad public opinion without maintaining a massive police state. The entire point of the sanctions was regime was to cause economic misery among the population and hope that this dissatisfaction with the economy among the masses would pressure the Iranians to coming to the table, which it did.

buwaya said...

The difference between Iran and China is that the power and wealth of the Chinese regime depends entirely on the productivity and enterprise of the Chinese people. The people are their most valuable asset. Thats the case with normal countries.

The Iranian regime depends on the revenues of a single industry, in which few people are required to operate it sufficiently to finance the whole of the state apparatus and keep the social clique that runs the place in comfort. The rest of the population is irrelevant, or at worst a possible threat. Saudi Arabia is the same, or even more so.

Iran no longer even sees its people as cannon fodder. The regular conscript army has been sidelined, and all military infrastructure is in the hands of the IRGC, and security in the hands of religious militias and foreign mercenaries.