The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 19, 2017
He's talking about reports like "Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation" in the NYT and "Trump had undisclosed hour-long meeting with Putin at G-20 summit" in The Washington Post.
IN THE COMMENTS: The first comment, by Matthew Sablan, is just perfect:
They probably just were talking about their grandkids.
पोस्ट्स
२४७ टिप्पण्या:
247 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»They probably just were talking about their grandkids.
I can't see the harm in two nuclear powers talking to each other over a drink in a quiet room. In fact, I think it's a wonderful idea. Get to know each other. A big nothing-burger. Does every minute of a big international conference have to be choreographed down to the minute and second? I would hope that the attendees would have time to break away and have some private time with each other to discuss and get to know each other and do some informal horse-trading.
I was assured yesterday by posters on this blog that the meeting was nefarious and demonstrated Trump-Putin collusion.
The total 24 hour/day, week after week breathlessness over anything Trump is just making most people turn away. I'd take them (media) much more seriously if they would have just done bare reporting on Loral getting the OK to sell highly sensitive satellite info to the Chinese, in return for campaign dollars (Bill Clinton), or Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung having to leave the country after arranging millions of dollars to Bill Clinton's campaign from the People's Republic of China.
Or Hillary arranging the sale of Uranium One. Or Hil and Bill taking in big bucks for Russian 'talks' while Hill played with her Blackberry. Or Hill keeping her state secrets in a place where every government could read it. Or...or...
Jeez- Just can't take it seriously compared to that stuff.
The NYT story is comic, not sinister. It's over-the-top we-don't-care-anymore journalism.
So the radio news here at WMAL just breathlessly reported that the White House had confirmed that a second meeting with Putin did happen.
Even the most right-leaning radio station in DC (talk radio) is infested with a dedicated left, agenda-pushing news staff.
"They probably just were talking about their grandkids."
What...you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!
Robert Cook missing the Lynch/Clinton talking points.
Has there been any demonstrable, significant change in US-Soviet....(sorry) US-Russian relationships?
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"They probably just were talking about their grandkids."
What...you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!
Very impressive comeback! Did you think of that clever response all by yourself? Or was that provided to you in your daily talking points e-mail?
Cookie bleated
What...you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!
The fact that every kid in his family turns out to be someone a normal person would be proud to call their own? Trump's modesty regarding raising his kids is contradicted by the wonderful stories you can find on the web from his kids and their friends. He made time for them and listened to what they had to say.
What...you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!
7/19/17, 7:08 AM
Why do you think he doesn't?
I could say exactly the same thing about Bernie or Pelosi, except that I have no more knowledge of their feelings toward their grandchildren then you do.
I do know they both love money far more than you'd think good little socialists are supposed to. It's other people's money they hate.
"you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!"
I imagine Trump cares very much about his grandchildren. Why would you think otherwise?
At what point will Trump fans admit that some of the things he does is just plain weird? An hour long conversation between Putin and Trump and only Putin's translator is not fake news, it is extraordinary and unprecedented. At the very least, Trump should have had his own translator there.
Trump's modesty regarding raising his kids is contradicted by the wonderful stories you can find on the web from his kids and their friends. He made time for them and listened to what they had to say.
Talk about fake news.
This response — "What...you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!" — seems to not get the brilliance of Sablan's quip, which I just front-paged and consider it one of the best comments ever posted on this blog. (Especially great because it was the first comment.)
I can't believe people are focusing on the grousing, low "gives a shit" comment when it's just a routine knee-jerk reaction. The Sablan quip should be savored, celebrated, and laughed over.
Is it possible that you don't get the reference?
Freder queefed
Talk about fake news.
Maybe you can track down all those people are bully them into taking down their stories. That's what you Fascist Lefties love to do, isn't it? Bernie Sanders honeymoons in the Soviet Union in 1988 and you wear out all you felt tips drawing hearts around Soviet heroes' names. Eat shit and die, please.
"I imagine Trump cares very much about his grandchildren. Why would you think otherwise?"
He gives the impression of caring about no one but himself. He's a narcissist.
Besides that, I was just making a crack because it amused me. Not that I don't legitimately question whether he gives a shit about his grandchildren.
What is the reference Sablan is making? I don't know it.
WHo won the handshake this time?
He's a narcissist.
That's the uneducated opinion of the ctrl-left internet. I say he's a New Yorker.
The MSM game is to just put out the narrative (via a ten second sound bite) that Trump and Putin has a secret meeting and therefore sinister. People believe it.
Maybe you can track down all those people are bully them into taking down their stories. That's what you Fascist Lefties love to do, isn't it?
For every anonymous story about what wonderful and brilliant people the Trump children are, I can show you other anonymous stories that they are not the bright and every bit as narcissistic as their father (e.g., both Donald Jr. and Eric being referred to as Fredo by some in the White House staff).
I have it on very good authority that Robert Cook doesn't give a shirt about his grandkids.
"it's just a routine knee-jerk reaction."
It's just that I had thought better of Robert Cook. And no, I don't get the reference.
I love how the NYT refused to type the phrase "fake news." They had to "summarize" a tweet!
I'm so old i can remember when two leaders, who between them control something like 90% of the world's nuclear-tipped missiles, getting together to talk quietly and off the record was a damned good thing.
I'm so old i can remember when two leaders, who between them control something like 90% of the world's nuclear-tipped missiles, getting together to talk quietly and off the record was a damned good thing.
Really, when was that? Please provide an example when the president and the Soviet Premier met with the only other person participating in the meeting was the Soviet translator.
I find this Trump tweet very confusing. How is it "fake news" if the news media are reporting something that really happened and which is clearly of interest to many of their readers? Of course, I understand that one might have a view about the way an incident is reported. I sometimes read about an event and disagree with the manner of the reporting or the slant, as it were, of the piece. I still think it's news, though, since I know that it wouldn't be possible to find a news outlet that would only report on things that I find interesting.
Overall, I find these Trump tweets to be very non-presidential. I do expect the leader of the United States to show some respect for a free press and to also be able to stand apart from the back and forth of daily news reporting.
Isn't it a reference to the infamous meeting Bill Clinton had with Lynch on the tarmac? Didn't he say they were just talking about their grandkids?
I needed another cup of coffee before that occurred to me.
Althouse, some of us are not morning people.
Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch having a meeting on the tarmac, ostensibly just talking about their grandkids.
Paco, Cookie, and anyone else who doesn't get the reference ... think back to the (allegedly) accidental meeting of William Jefferson Clinton with Attorney General Lynch on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport? When confronted with the evidence of their meeting, Bill Clinton claimed that the two just talked about their grandkids.
Memories must be short in this country.
For every anonymous story
See, they're not anonymous stories. That's what snakes like you do. Paris Hilton, for example, has been open about calling Trump a second father, and talked about the role he played in her life as she was growing up, often staying with the Trumps because she was a friend of Ivanka's and her parents often stayed in Europe, while she attended school here. She talked about the advice he gave her about schooling, staying away from drugs, about making a big deal about her birthdays and always getting her special presents that reflected some conversation she had with him month's before--like some Art Nouveau store fixture she admired. Her gift was the object, books on the subject-including collecting--and a class for creating it. Later, business advice and introducing her to the right people. She says she'll always be there if he calls.
After CNN breathlessly reported this news last night the talking heads explained that had Obama or any other previous President spoken privately with Putin in this manner it would of course have been absolutely unremarkable but Trump speaking to Putin bordered on treason because...........TRUMP DERANGEMENT.
Althouse said: I can't believe people are focusing on the grousing, low "gives a shit" comment when it's just a routine knee-jerk reaction. The Sablan quip should be savored, celebrated, and laughed over.
I understand your desire to steer the commentary to the high road, What clever response should we have made to Sablan's comment?
Was the G20 dinner really on the tarmac?
The G20 leaders eat airline food?
Matthew's comment was witty, but not that good. Cookie's comment is a window to his soul. And many of us find his soul childish and repulsive. We react to the things we find irritating. Sadly, Cookie intends to irritate.
Is it Matthew Sablan's point that the Bill Clinton/AG tarmac meeting, and the Putin/Trump dinner conversation should be treated equally?
I think that the Clinton/AG meeting was far worse, and far more consequential. But then, it was treated much more harshly and with far greater consequence. Lynch recused herself. The Clintons were savaged, rightly, in the conservative media. The investigation likely took some turns that were very unfavorable to the Clintons.
With Trump/Putin, so far all that I am seeing is that there was a meeting, the Trump Administration and the G20 participants' descriptions are at odds with each other, and the lack of transparency and strangeness (just three people, including one Putin-retained translator) of the meeting raises questions.
It's fine if Matthew Sablan wants to compare the two. We could just as easily contrast the two.
NYT/WaPo feel they are entitled to censor everything the president does; especially when he is of the opposing political party.
However, that is not what the 1st Amendment says.
They were back-slapping and high five-ing each other... that's what colluders do.
I heard it on the Rachel is a Liar and a 15 year old boy show.
So, M. Sablan makes a comment – perhaps the wittiest comment ever at Althouse – and us clods fail to see it, falling immediately into quotidian bickering. Althouse is sorely disappointed in us. Back to bed, starting the day over.
Bullshit Cook - Trump's kids are well adjusted and they really love and admire their father. That is not the product of a parental narcissist.
Leftists are so blinded by hatred of Trump - they cease to recognize reality.
From WaPo: "The second meeting, undisclosed at the time, took place at a dinner for G-20 leaders, a senior administration official said. At some point during the meal, Trump left his own seat to occupy a chair next to Putin. Trump approached alone, and Putin was attended only by his official interpreter."
It was not a meeting of only Trump, Putin and a translator. It was at a larger dinner. Trump moved to a chair next to Putin, and they talked. You still had the other leaders and their entourages present.
Seems reading comprehension is missing these days.
The G20 dinner was set up by Angela Merkel for all leaders in attendance and their spouses. Putin was seated next to Melania and Trump spoke a few words with him through the Russian translator (the American translator didn't speak Russian-- only French, German, and Italian. On Trump's other side was the Japanese PM. Secret meetings shouldn't have 50 people in attendance.
Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the information policy at the upper house of Russian parliament, said it best when asked about the Media's story--“They’re sick,” he said.
"Chuck said...
Is it Matthew Sablan's point that the Bill Clinton/AG tarmac meeting, and the Putin/Trump dinner conversation should be treated equally?
I think that the Clinton/AG meeting was far worse, and far more consequential. But then, it was treated much more harshly and with far greater consequence. Lynch recused herself. The Clintons were savaged, rightly, in the conservative media. The investigation likely took some turns that were very unfavorable to the Clintons.
With Trump/Putin, so far all that I am seeing is that there was a meeting, the Trump Administration and the G20 participants' descriptions are at odds with each other, and the lack of transparency and strangeness (just three people, including one Putin-retained translator) of the meeting raises questions.
It's fine if Matthew Sablan wants to compare the two. We could just as easily contrast the two."
It was a joke. And funny.
You are a joke. And not funny.
There. You have your contrast. Tool.
That is not the product of a parental narcissist.
Do I need to link the numerous creepy pictures of Trump and Ivanka and the number of inappropriate public comments about how Trump wishes he could date his daughter? Which, of course, sheds a little light about why he was so interested in Paris Hilton's well being.
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG! -- This is CNN
"So, M. Sablan makes a comment – perhaps the wittiest comment ever at Althouse...."
Really? I don't think so.
Bill Crawford said...
From WaPo: "The second meeting, undisclosed at the time, took place at a dinner for G-20 leaders, a senior administration official said. At some point during the meal, Trump left his own seat to occupy a chair next to Putin. Trump approached alone, and Putin was attended only by his official interpreter."
It was not a meeting of only Trump, Putin and a translator. It was at a larger dinner. Trump moved to a chair next to Putin, and they talked. You still had the other leaders and their entourages present.
Seems reading comprehension is missing these days.
There's video. The video shows what we all might reasonably expect; a large room with dozens of people, all engaged in separate conversations. Have you ever been at a party of 50 or 60 or more people, and had an individual conversation? Of course. And were you aware of everything going on in other conversations? Of course not.
I think some in the press are just asking why the great disparity in descriptions, between the Trump Administration, and the other G20 attendee/witnesses, who say that it looked like a very chummy conversation, for close to an hour.
And central to the controversy as Althouse is framing it, is a presumption that the main stream media is freaking out over this story. Other than reporting it, as they should, what is a really good example of a media freakout in this case?
For lefties, "narcissism" in a politician is not feigning altruism with other people's money or not surrendering the national sovereignty of the people who elected you.
"Do I need to link the numerous creepy pictures of Trump and Ivanka and the number of inappropriate public comments about how Trump wishes he could date his daughter? Which, of course, sheds a little light about why he was so interested in Paris Hilton's well being."
Or how about this?
@Darrell, that is my understanding of what happened as well (though I thank you for explaining why Trump had to rely on Putin's translator).
"For lefties, 'narcissism' in a politician is not feigning altruism with other people's money or not surrendering the national sovereignty of the people who elected you."
What President has ever "surrendered the national sovereignty?"
My name goes here. said...
Robert Cook missing the Lynch/Clinton talking points.
No; worse, he believed them.
Jeez I thought all liberals were so well informed and knowledgeable yet Cookie pleads ignorance on the grandchildren comment.
This thread has the potential to be one of the best ever: jealousy, self-righteousness, partisan anger and deceit, sexual perversion, comic interludes.
Usually, when fisking the Times, Althouse will pick a phrase or a paragraph and deconstruct it for evidence of bias, sloppiness or rank falsity.
Having read the Times story, I can see the usual Times angle, which is dubious of all things Trump. But I don't see any errors or journalistic malpractice.
I propose a Narcissism scale for measuring the self-absorption of public personae. The maximum would be One Narcissus, a level achieved by Barack Obama, graduated into milli-narcissi. If Trump scored any more than 500 milli-narcissi he'd do something about his appearance.
"If Trump scored any more than 500 milli-narcissi he'd do something about his appearance."
To the contrary, being a narcissist, he thinks he looks just dandy!
"Jeez I thought all liberals were so well informed and knowledgeable yet Cookie pleads ignorance on the grandchildren comment."
Why would I be aware of the original reference? I scorn the Clintons and do not assiduously follow their comings, goings, and daily lies. Having heard the reference explained, I have a very faint recollection of having heard about it when it was happening, but I don't recall in the least the circumstances or context.
I seem to be alone with the opinion that a relationship with Russia would be a good thing, after all, it has been our policy in the past that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Perhaps some of the more enlightened here can explain it to me. Our mutual efforts in the space program stand as a small example of what could be.
Matthew Sablan, post #1:
[drops mike]
Paco Wové @ 7:50 AM
LOL
Freder F
You have fallen for the meme that only a translator was there. The double secret meeting was at a dinner for the 20 top world leaders, hardly a secret event. They were not behind closed doors but out in the open.
Robert Cook's 7:08 comment pricelessly misses the target by miles. Excellent way to start the day.
"I do know they both love money far more than you'd think good little socialists are supposed to. It's other people's money they hate."
Another obnoxious comment from you. I believe that you are subconsciously talking about yourself. Why do you waste your and our time? You should be exiled to Elba. Main St. is too close to home.
"I seem to be alone with the opinion that a relationship with Russia would be a good thing...."
I agree that we should be nourishing a friendly relationship with Russia, rather than treating them as an enemy. However, we are belligerent to any nation that we see as a threat to our global dominance, so it is hard to know what will happen. I actually support Trump in his desire to reestablish a partnership with Russia, something we had until the Obama administration decided to trash it.
KittyM: Overall, I find these Trump tweets to be very non-presidential. I do expect the leader of the United States to show some respect for a free press...
Please explain what you mean by "respect" here. There is respecting the 1st Amendment rights of the press, and there is respecting a news organization's or reporter's actual work, and they are not the same thing. The press is entitled to the former, but I'm afraid they have to earn the latter.
...and to also be able to stand apart from the back and forth of daily news reporting.
Ideally, yes. In present reality, however, it would be unwise not to push back against a poorly-performing press establishment whose absurd partisanship veers very close to insanity. Anybody who claims to respect the concept of a free press should be holding it to higher standards than its current childish antics, not sniffing about the obligation of the president to be the only adult in the room.
If Trump stopped his "un-presidential" tweeting, would the press sober up and start doing their jobs like adults? No, they would not. But if we had a press worthy of respect, complaints about "un-presidential" tweeting would have traction.
"Bullshit Cook - Trump's kids are well adjusted and they really love and admire their father. That is not the product of a parental narcissist."
Or maybe, as with children of neglectful of bad parents, they desperately seek their father's love, acknowledgement, pride, and admiration, and will keep trying to gain it.
I don't know what their private relationships are and neither do you. We just see what they show us, as is true of many families.
Chuck
You are right about this not being a press hysteria moment but the NYT has sent progs into hysteria by reporting it later than they should have. The meeting was at a dinner attended by the top twenty (20) world leaders. So it was not private. There were a lot more people present than the Russian translator (the current meme for poorly informed progs is that the meeting was attended only by Trump, Putin and a "Russian translator". The NYT makes plain this was not the case.) . The NYT should have known about this immediately after the dinner.
For their "private" conversation, Trump would not have to rely on Putin's translator. Putin speaks English quite well.
Just about everybody on that level has a working knowledge of English - and American English at that - today. The translators are mainly there to speak for the television clips to be shown back home.
Robert Cook ".I don't know what their private relationships are and neither do you." See comment at 7:08 AM.
@Cook: "Why would I be aware of the original reference?" On behalf of all the righties here who would like a few smart lefties to stick around: that's disappointing.
If you'll pardon the mansplaining, the Lynch/Clinton meeting really was a pretty big deal, and the grandkids excuse pretty transparently phony, and the lib nothing-to-see-here forgetaboutit response pretty hard to take for us righties, so MS's imagined Trumpian response to lib outrage over a nefarious! long! private! meeting with Putin! and his translator! is indeed witty, playing on both righty hurt and lib hypocrisy.
Of course, as serious wit-policing commentators have pointed out, the parallel is not exact. But if Sarah Huckabee Sanders reads this blog (she should) and picks up the line and uses it on the press at the WH, they would laugh.
Further undercutting the "gives a shit" comment, Loretta Lynch doesn't even have any grandchildren.
I find this Trump tweet very confusing. How is it "fake news"
Poor Kitty. She must find many things confusing. I hope you have help with your daily activities. Oh. And here is a hint. The IRS will never call you and ask for your information.
Hope that helps.
Clinton Corruption Update
Nowhere in the MSM will we hear about any of this.
I can't decide if some people are missing the humor and relevance of Matthew Sablans first comment through appalling ignorance or are pretending on purpose to misconstrue the relevance and are trying to divert the thread.
The first one, ignorance, is really shocking, especially from commenters who we supposed haven't been in a coma for the last 4 years.
"Robert Cook '.I don't know what their private relationships are and neither do you.' See comment at 7:08 AM."
Right. Made as a wisecrack, responsive to the impression he gives that he doesn't care about anyone but himself.
Michael said...
Chuck
You are right about this not being a press hysteria moment but the NYT has sent progs into hysteria by reporting it later than they should have. The meeting was at a dinner attended by the top twenty (20) world leaders. So it was not private. There were a lot more people present than the Russian translator (the current meme for poorly informed progs is that the meeting was attended only by Trump, Putin and a "Russian translator". The NYT makes plain this was not the case.) . The NYT should have known about this immediately after the dinner.
Michael, I obviously learned about this at the same time as the rest of the world. I don't feel like I have been misled or misinformed or stampeded into hysteria about it.
I think I am clear on the nature and origin of the story. Trump & co. left Hamburg, along with everybody else. And nothing was said. Later on, persons who were at the dinner, said to their own circle(s) of confidantes something to the effect of, "Wow, that long conversation that Trump had with Putin sure was weird." Those secondary conversations percolated for a while, news outlets did their due diligence, video was retrieved and reviewed, and then when all of the basic reportorial questions were answered, and multiple sources were checked, the story as we currently have it went to publication.
I still am not seeing any media hysteria over this. I am seeing routine reporting. It really is a good question, because the other day Althouse made a crack about how maybe the media had overdone it with so many dubious attacks on Trump that even legitimate questions from the media won't be taken seriously.
Here, Trump seems to be saying that even a 100% accurate story is "fake news." That'll get old, too.
Cook - You think you do know, and then claim you do not know.
If ourward appearances are any indication, his kids like and respect him. *Must all be fake.
Loretta Lynch doesn't even have any grandchildren.
And our illustrious Media kept on repeating her comment even after the learned that fact. Only opinion columnists mentioned it--rarely in the BIGLie Media. Loretta Lynch may tell us if Barack authorized the meeting if the heat gets hot enough. I doubt it, though. Based on the number of felonies alone, it is probably the biggest miscarriage of justice in American history.
"If outward appearances are any indication...."
Ah, but outward appearances often are not an indication of the reality, particularly where public figures are concerned.
100% accurate story
Like your comments. Right. Trump defended the dinner in a pair of angry tweets late Tuesday that noted the dinner had been on his public schedule. All G 20 leaders, and spouses, were invited by the Chancellor of Germany. Press knew!” he wrote. Now that's 100% accurate--not the Media's implication of an illicit meeting.
Crazy Trumpit blathered: "Another obnoxious comment from you. I believe that you are subconsciously talking about yourself."
Well, I do like money, but then I'm not a fake socialist like Bernie and Pelosi. And of course and predictably, you can't refute my comment. Pelosi is a very wealthy woman and Bernie owns three homes,which is one more than I do. Bernie's wife is under investigation for fraud. The left tells me that if one is investigated that surely means one is guilty so I declare the phony socialist a fraud and swindler.
The truth does seem to annoy and anger you.
The Hillary Russian connection for $$$$$$
Takes a lot of combined energy to produce that much fake.
Re Sablan: Ok that's not bad
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Clinton Corruption Update
Nowhere in the MSM will we hear about any of this.
Well you heard it. Because Judicial Watch has a webpage, and others will link to it. And, I expect, an array of conservative news outlets will discuss it.
It is amazing, the time and energy that the Trump Administration and its supporters devote to their fight with some media outlets. As opposed to something like health care reform.
I think Trumpworld cares more about CNN than the ACA.
Chuck - Will NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC etal - discuss any of these new revelations?
That's the mainstream press. The pro-democrat hack press. The media most Americans watch.
Nah - MSM concerned with the sooper sekrit meeting between Trump and POOT.
Finally - the MSM cracked the collusion code. Smoking gun.
Yesterday I heard trump had an undisclosed meeting with Putin and his translator from several media outlets including the stupid news function on my phone.
Today I learned it was the two of them talking at a dinner party with a lot of people around.
Chuck is of course defending the media. Again.
Have fun with the next 7.5 years of trump. He has already succeeded in destroying the credibility of the media wing of the democrat party. Now for the Vichy republicans.
Congress ignores Trump’s call to cut funding for NPR, PBS, NEA, NEH.
Of course they did. Useless fucks.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Chuck - Will NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC etal - discuss any of these new revelations?
That's the mainstream press. The pro-democrat hack press. The media most Americans watch.
Nah - MSM concerned with the sooper sekrit meeting between Trump and POOT.
Finally - the MSM cracked the collusion code. Smoking gun.
Yeah, I get it. Conservatives -- many of them associated more or less with NeverTrump -- have been on the "media bias" beat for a long time. Brent Bozell. Bernard Goldberg. Bret Stephens.
I can tell you, the media that will cover your fave stories. Fox News. Rush Limbaugh. Mark Levin. Breitbart. Twenty other AM talkers, and a hundred different right wing websites.
And if the story is any good -- a good example being the Canadian government's gaming the multimillion dollar payout to a former Gitmo terrorist -- it will also get picked up at NRO, the WSJ, and the Weekly Standard.
Hardly a media blackout.
You seem focused on Nielsen ratings and shares. Maybe that's the Trump way; and just maybe he's onto something.
I predict the Media will go from smoking gun stories to actually smoking their guns as people awaken.
Here, Trump seems to be saying that even a 100% accurate story is "fake news." That'll get old, too.
It must be so difficult to maintain such an obtuse stance in the face of obvious facts. ALL the headlines scream "secret meeting!" across the Web, which is 100% FAKE but you'll buy it because it's a smear on Trump. Boy that does get old fast. If you were paying attention and had reading comprehension skills greater than first grader you would have realized that most "fake news" is a function of the headline not matching the facts presented. On TV this is similar to the lying chyron text that is rarely supported by the "facts" facts delivered. The DNC-Media complex knows many if not most "viewers" and "readers" skim instead of read for context. So the lying headline does just fine to spread their poison.
Especially when there are so many vichy republicans available like you to sniff that you see nothing wrong with all their lies, so long as the story has a turd of truth rolling around in the bowl somewhere..
Chuck
Agree generally w/ what you wrote. The hysteria comes from people ready (oh, so ready) to misread the story into a secret meeting with Putin Trump and a Russian interpreter. The NYT is pretty clear that this was not the case but the meme has been picked up by many poorly informed. See FredricF above who has clearly read fake news somewhere on this topic.
Mike:
You purposely searched "secret meeting"; and you didn't come up with scores of headlines from the networks and major newspapers. You came up with a couple, from HuffPo and Salon, and then a bunch of "secret meeting!" headlines from unrelated stories.
Give me good example of a major outlet freaking out over "secret meeting!"
And by the way, Id' like to go fuck off, with your mendacious "Vichy Republican" trashtalk.
You call me a "Vichy Republican," and my response (which I presume will be just as inaccurate) will be to call you a "moutbreathing Trumpbagger."
Achilles said...
Yesterday I heard trump had an undisclosed meeting with Putin and his translator from several media outlets including the stupid news function on my phone.
Today I learned it was the two of them talking at a dinner party with a lot of people around.
So link us to a good example of a media outlet that did a story in which Trump was described as having an undisclosed meeting with Putin, but did not mention where it occurred or who was around.
Your best "biased news media" exemplar.
Angel-Dyne: "Please explain what you mean by respect"
Thanks for the question. I agree that wasn't very clear and in some ways, I am just trying to work out for myself my own views.
I suppose what I mean is that the President in his role as leader of the United States should fundamentally support the idea of the free press, which is threatened around in the world in authoritarian societies. So in practise I believe that the President should not make these kind of very crude statements in public. I think it damages the idea of free speech by implying that maybe the press is doing something wrong in making life difficult for the president (which I don't believe) and it cheapens the role of president.
"There is respecting the 1st Amendment rights of the press, and there is respecting a news organization's or reporter's actual work, and they are not the same thing. The press is entitled to the former, but I'm afraid they have to earn the latter."
I agree with this in principle, and of course, I absolutely think that Trump as a private person can have whatever views he wants about whatever he wants, including the press. And I know he has a *right* to make these statements. I just think as a matter of policy, he shouldn't make these kind of statements. All over the world, people in positions of power, or simply im positions of high visibility, are subject to criticism or bad reporting or good but hostile reporting etc. Usually, the heads of state in democratic countries choose to be "above" fighting with the press or they make statements that are more tactful.
I believe that as President of the United States, Trump should openly and vigorously defend free speech, even the kind he hates or finds offensive.
I find it frightening when President Trump makes statements like that, because I don't like how similar it sounds like the kind of statements that authoritarian dictators such as Erdogan and Putin make. I like it when the leaders of Western democracies make it clear how different our societies are from such closed and repressive regimes.
@DustBunnyQueen I know that sounded very naive so you are right to make fun of me. But I honestly, I meant the question seriously and would love for you or others to answer it. In what way is it fake news? The meeting really did happen (so that's not fake) and it was news in the sense that it was new (so that aspect's not fake). It was a report about the President of the United States and the President of Russia, so it wasn't fake news in the sense of being just about, say, C-list celebrities. Many people find this issue important and concerning. Of course, you might not. Which is perfectly fine. But many people do, so it is surely right for the media to report this story.
I mean, wouldn't you report it if you were the editor of a paper?
Kitty said: The meeting really did happen (so that's not fake) and it was news in the sense that it was new (so that aspect's not fake). It was a report about the President of the United States and the President of Russia
Ok Kitty, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The media made it look like the "meeting" was a secret, one on one, clandestine, some how subversive thing between Trump and Putin. They did this by omitting some very important FACTS such as it was a public meeting/event that comprised over 20 other leaders and their translators.
Compare it to you attending a dinner "meeting" with a large group of your friends at an Applebees and then you see on Social Media that YOU had a one on one, secret, somehow nefarious meeting with one of your friend's husbands who happened to be at the same dinner table. With pictures cropped to make it look hinky. Would you consider that to be a factual or fake rendering of what happened?
n what way is it fake news?
Because it is presented as if something illegal, immoral, or unethical took place. And most people walked away after reading or seeing the stories believing that it was a secret meeting between Trump, Putin, and a Russian translator when in fact the whole of G20 was there, including spouses. The Press is conducting a jihad against Trump (their own words) to prevent him from governing. That is not their job. The free Press isn't free--it's tied to the Left. And as for respect--they've lost it, threw it away.
Chuck asks: "So link us to a good example of a media outlet that did a story in which Trump was described as having an undisclosed meeting with Putin, but did not mention where it occurred or who was around."
Here Chuck: Let me quote the post to which you are responding
The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 19, 2017
He's talking about reports like "Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation" in the NYT and "Trump had undisclosed hour-long meeting with Putin at G-20 summit" in The Washington Post.
As you and I know, most people don't bother to read beyond the headlines.
The headlines quoted here are obviously written to give the impression that there was some sort of secret undisclosed, hours long private meeting. That impression is purposely being given to distort public opinion in those people who are famously called, and justifiably called "low information"
Once the false impression or distorted story is out there, it is very very difficult to correct. That is the plan. Put out a lie/distortion/omission and let it become a truth in the minds of the dumb American voter.
It is called lying by omission. Something which it seems you are quite familiar.
As Mark Twain said ‘A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.’
The Press is conducting a jihad against Trump (their own words) to prevent him from governing.
I just know I'll regret biting on this bait, but...
Go ahead and link us to the source that speaks for "The Press" and which confesses to a "jihad against Trump." "Their words," in your words, so I am expecting a quote. Oh, and that the goal is to prevent Trump from governing.
This is gonna be a hell of a link.
Chuckhttp:
Google Trump Putin Russian Translator. You will see some headlines with the word "secret" and many with "undisclosed"
KittyM
Being "frightened" by Trump is so March 2017. Move on, catch up.
Dust Bunny Queen:
LMFAO. In a post about headlines, and stupid people, and the speed of lies, you published a lie. That the old quote about lies getting halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on, was a Mark Twain original quote. It wasn't.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
http://freakonomics.com/2011/04/07/quotes-uncovered-how-lies-travel/
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/02/weekinreview/may-26-june-1-never-the-twain.html
The media made it look like the "meeting" was a secret, one on one, clandestine, some how subversive thing between Trump and Putin.
Bullshit. The media explicitly stated that they met at the dinner where they were observed by the other leaders (who could not overhear what was being said).
Why are you mis-characterizing the reports?
https://spectator.org/the-medias-jihad-against-the-trump-white-house-staff/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/07/06/linda-sarsour-calls-jihad-president-donald-trump/
Michael said...
Chuckhttp:
Google Trump Putin Russian Translator. You will see some headlines with the word "secret" and many with "undisclosed"
Nope. You are flunking this assignment. I'm not talking about shit-stupid Trump supporters who can't get past a headline. Like, a headline about Democrats engaged in child sex slavery at a Washington DC pizza parlor.
I am challenging you to come up with a mainstream media story that hysterically overplays the Trump/Putin/dinner story.
Don't stand for being called or labeled 'lying' or 'crooked' or 'failing'
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour called for left-wing press unity in opposition to President-elect Donald Trump during the 2016 International Press Freedom Awards on Wednesday.
Accepting an award acknowledging her ostensible contributions to “press freedom,” Amanpour issued her call to arms via a prepared speech.
Amanpour began with alarmism, framing Trump as a dictator-in-progress:
@Darell: "The Press is conducting a jihad against Trump (their own words) to prevent him from governing. That is not their job. The free Press isn't free--it's tied to the Left. And as for respect--they've lost it, threw it away."
Do you really believe that there is no free speech in the US? In what way? My understanding is that freedom of speech is protected in the United States.
There are definitely many countries around the world which do not value freedom of speech. But the USA is not one of them. If you ever lived in or visited one of those countries, you would very quickly notice the difference.
Freedom of the press means of course by definition that there will be many competing voices and you can't possibly agree with them all. There is NYT and then there is Fox News. In that sense it is easy to see that the press is indeed free.
I actually believe quite strongly that one of the roles of a strong free press / the fourth estate is to make life as difficult as possible for those in power. Whether he can govern (effectively) or not, depends on many factors.
"They probably just were talking about their grandkids."
"What...you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!"
"Robert Cook missing the Lynch/Clinton talking points."
Maybe, but how are we to know? The only other person who heard the conversation was Putin's translator. Trump is the President of the USA, it's his responsibility to act accordingly. In the Lynch/Clinton meeting on the tarmac, neither one of them was the POTUS. If you were incensed over that meeting and make light of this meeting, then consider yourselves hypocrites.
Darrel;
Well of course the American Spectator and Breitbart are going to publish insane shit like "jihad" in reference to the media.
The Spectator is willing to publish Jeffrey Lord. And Steve Bannon ran Breitbart. Duh.
They don't speak for your "The Press," as I demanded of you. They speak for the Trump Fever Swamps. For people like you. In an echo chamber of hate.
@ Chuck
Sorry, I was going by this link http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/76-a-lie-can-travel-half-way-around-the-world-while which makes it seem that Twain said the line.
Nevertheless, it doesn't negate my point. That the media, via headlines, which is about as far as many people actually read, is spreading the impression that there was a secret meeting.
Lying by omission.
"Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation," queefed The New York Times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4708778/Trump-Putin-held-second-undisclosed-meeting-G20-summit.html
"Trump held secret hour-long meeting with Putin at G20," The Independent screeched.
Seth Abramson ✔ @SethAbramson
BREAKING (THE HILL): Trump and Putin held a second, secret, one-hour meeting at the G20 they didn't disclose. Story: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342589-ian-bremmer-trump-and-putin-held-second-informal-meeting-during-g-20 …
4:23 PM - 18 Jul 2017
4,540 4,540 Retweets 4,413 4,413 likes
Ted Lieu ✔ @tedlieu
How do we know 2nd Trump-Putin meeting was NEFARIOUS? Because @POTUS tried to keep it a secret & he didn't even trust Tillerson to be there. https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/887438430266904581 …
7:04 PM - 18 Jul 2017
9,129 9,129 Retweets 18,730 18,730 likes
Darrell, Christiane Amanpour is one reporter. One reporter with a well-earned reputation for hysterical bias and even propaganda.
Like Sean Hannity, except that Hannity doesn't have much of a resume for having ever been a respected journalist. (A reputation that I think Amanpour has lost.)
Don't make allegations about broad and nearly universal media bias, and then name one reporter who's been a target of conservative criticism for ten or twenty years already, pre-Trump.
Didn't expect that big of a response.
But, to answer Chuck's comment: "It's fine if Matthew Sablan wants to compare the two. We could just as easily contrast the two." It is good to do both. I would like to know what both pairs really talked about, and fully expect I'll never know.
Darrell, just stop.
Don't post a Tweet, by a left-wing idiot like Rep. Ted Lieu, as evidence of a broad-based media bias. Lieu is a politician, not a journalist.
@Michael: "Being "frightened" by Trump is so March 2017. Move on, catch up."
It is interesting to me how people who are not frightened of Trump react to people like me who are frightened. I can understand their point of view perfectly: they either support his policies in which case obviously they wouldn't be frightened but rather pleased and excited by the thought of these policies being enacted (fair enough) or they might think that the worst case scenarios are ridiculous and will never happen.
Can't you understand my point of view in the same way? In other words, can't you imagine that I might really be genuinely concerned about the changes that Trump might make to the American democracy we live in? Do you really think it is so absolutely ridiculous to be concerned? On this blog, I am surprised not by the support for Trump which is a perfectly legitimate political point of view which I though we could discuss, but by the utter contempt and lack of understanding that is brought by Trump supporters for those who hold opposing views.
Here is an analogy: I know a lot of people who consider abortion murder. I disagree with those people quite strongly. But I really respect their position and I have a lot of understanding for their views, which I know come from a good and thoughtful and genuine place. I don't have contempt for them. I do understand their concerns.
Why on this board are the concerns of people who have worries about the changes in American society that Trump *might* yet institute dismissed with such venom? Surely you can see that the things I worry about - like, say, freedom of speech - are things we can agree on, even if you think I'm wrong to be worried.
Dust Bunny Queen;
Do we need to go beyond the story in the New York Times? The Times -- that avatar of anti-Trump bias, reported the story fairly. Maybe a little slant in tone. But they certainly didn't do what the Trumpkins here claim; that nobody mentioned that the dinner conversation was seen by 50 or 60 or more people.
I think "secret" is a lousy and misleading term to apply to the meeting. What mainstream media outlet did that? And if they did it, was it because the Trump administration never disclosed the conversation until the press was onto it?
Chuck
You are failing to do the homework I told you do. The point is that those headlines are misleading, probably intentionally, and giving the impression that this casual meeting was clandestine, nefarious, and actual collusion taking place behind doors. No right wing person trusts the headlines. Only stupid progs go no further and thus we find the meme that there was a secret meeting . With Putin and Trump and an interpreter and no one else. Don't pretend to be thick it makes you appear to be thick.
A fopdoodle has requested a story that doesn't make the Trump-Putin meeting out to be secret. A fopdoodle cannot understand that the tactic of saying what they wish people to misinterpret in the opening paragraphs, while only admitting the inconvenient facts in the last few paragraphs, is a strategy.
A fopdoodle remains willfully ignorant. A fopdoodle cannot understand why social conservative stances are not all the rage. A fopdoodle cannot understand how Trump wins. A fopdoodle must believe multiple things that are not so.
And the fopdoodle demands that we forget our own common sense if we engage in the Althouse comments.
I decline.
Trump has gone from the guy who will negotiate the greatest deals to the guy whose white house has to assure us was just making social pleasantries to the ex kgb agent.
Dishonest vichy ignores the fact the top line result with photos are the NYT, WaPo and CNN - all prominently displayed and sporting misleading headlines. That is why I purposely used "secret meeting" to prompt Google, you asshat. I write clearly so obviously your reading comprehension is once again (unexpectedly!) the weak link here. Keep looking for that truthy turd in there, man!
Now that you managed to take control of the Althouse blog, Chuck, I think it's time you start one of your own. I'n sure you'll get a few visitors. Maybe that Indian/Arabic chap that sells ball cream.
KittyM,
You're trying to use reason with these people here, you're wasting you're time. You're not dealing with reasonable people, you're dealing with Trump sycophants.
KittyM
So sorry that you are "frightened." Suggest you see someone about it. I happen to be concerned by our Presidents and I would have been right to have been terrified by our most recent one, even worse than "frightened", but I was not. Because I am a grown man.
You are riding a mighty high horse. Careful you don't get bucked off.
"Why on this board are the concerns of people who have worries about the changes in American society that Trump *might* yet institute dismissed with such venom?"
-- While I disagree with people being "venomous" to each other, the reason that people who are afraid of what Trump *might* do in some dystopian, Hand Maiden-y future are dismissed by moderate to far right people is simple. Because we're tired of people saying Bush would put people in FEMA camps, that Romney wanted to put slaves back in chains, etc., etc., that Bush would prevent the election by declaring martial law, etc., etc., so-on, so-forth.
We've heard this song and dance before; we will hear it again with the next Republican in power.
Putin has his useful idiot, fortunately for him, unfortunately for America.
KittyM
I am perfectly willing to concede that you have nightmares about nightmarish scenarios that are impossibly unlikely to eventuate and that your sort of malady is one that logic and reason cannot convince you is not real. Some people are irrationally scared of the number 13. I concede those people exist. I don't spend much time worrying about them either.
Happy?
Chuck: "I think "secret" is a lousy and misleading term to apply to the meeting. What mainstream media outlet did that? And if they did it, was it because the Trump administration never disclosed the conversation until the press was onto it?"
Also, Trump should not have been wearing such a short skirt if he didn't want to get raped by the NYT.
Fuck you, Chuck. You keep changing the game. You asked for ONE mainstream media person. Christiane Amanpour is one, but asshole/Lefties are legion. You have a mirror and can that, can't you? Play your own reindeer games and do your own fucking searches. State your shit and then shut up. You notice you were wrong about the meeting headlines, too. "Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation." The G20 dinner was listed in the Press kit--the definition of disclosure. The NYT lies again. The conversation wasn't private. The NYT lies again. And so on and so on and so on.
I think we have come to the stage where the left would happily bomb Russia. Because Trump. Hilarious.
Because we're tired of people saying Bush would put people in FEMA camps, that Romney wanted to put slaves back in chains, etc., etc., that Bush would prevent the election by declaring martial law, etc., etc., so-on, so-forth.
I heard the first and the third (granted, not the second) about Obama, perhaps on this very blog.
And BTW, the American translator was there for Japanese translations. Trump was officially paired with the Japanese PM.
Maybe Kitty and Unknown can tell us what happened to all those adherents of the "reality-based community" that were all the rage in 2012? Because now the very same people, the journolisters and TV presenters and political hacks who told us how they represent -- REPRESENT! -- reality and truth and science unlike all those icky christianist republicans, all THOSE people are now the hair-on-fire chicken littles of politics. Why the whipsaw from "reality" to cold war-era Russia freakouts and implausible conspiracy theories?
And if your fears about Trump are so meaningful, consider this. Every executive order and foreign policy change made since 1/20/2017 has been to reduce Russian power, challenge their geopolitical moves, end their dominance of the energy markets in Europe, and smack down their ally Syria for violating international law. If Hillary had been elected would we have the XL and Dakota pipelines? Would we have increased fracking and the disruption of OPEC and Russia's grip on other countries? No we wouldn't.
All of these changes contradict the "Russia Russia Russia" narrative of the dishonest Press and their Democrat lackeys (and vichy republicans too). What facts and changes in policy have helped Russia at all this year? Show me just one!
Which only further shows why people may be tired of the "Sky is falling" and "Trump will throw people in camps" narrative. I'm sure I heard nonsense about Obama on blogs and the Internet; I heard those things about FEMA camps, stopping the election and re-introducing slavery to America from left politicians and pundits, not just the Internet. Maybe it is because I never listened to Glenn Beck, though, that I didn't hear some of the wackier anti-Obama stuff.
"Undisclosed?" The horror.
As of today, all Trump's conversations as President will be registered by him in advance with WaPo and NYT. No exceptions!
Unknown said...
Putin has his useful idiot, fortunately for him, unfortunately for America.
How has this worked out fortuitously for Putin (other than Hillary's plan that is destroying American confidence in election integrity due to the dishonest reporting of the DNC-Media complex)?
"How has this worked out fortuitously for Putin...."
We'll never know if we don't know what was discussed at that hour long meeting, now will we? Use some common sense.
You see the brilliance of Trump here?
He knew Don Jr was going to be in trouble. So he took this meeting g with Putin, secretly, surrounded by G20 leaders, cameras and the media, in order to release the info at just the right time to get people off of his son, whom he despises, because he is a narcissist.
And you Trump hating fools fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Sad!
You need to focus like a laser beam on don jr. Don't let him get away!
All of you who have or had some affection for Robert Cook have been fooling yourselves. He is a Leftist. Like every Leftist ever, if he had the power he would exercise that power of you. He would be cruel and unjust, comforted at night with thoughts of his own righteousness. Examples abound.
"Trump held secret hour-long meeting with Putin at G20 with only Russian translator present" . Independent UK headline
@Michael: Sorry, how am I riding a mighty high horse??? Because I am concerned about President Trump? I don't get the connection at all.
I am frightened about how Trump could damage the US. I care about America and would not like it to be damaged. Do you think that is ridiculous?
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"What is the reference Sablan is making? I don't know it."
Typical leftist cocoon dweller speaks, confirming suspicions.
Kitty says: Can't you understand my point of view in the same way? In other words, can't you imagine that I might really be genuinely concerned about the changes that Trump might make to..........
Concern does not equal frightened. One is a rational reaction to change that you may not like. Frightened is a hysterical response and one that is non productive.
It is hard to have rational discussions with people who react in irrational ways.
The others there at that dinner were not privy to the discussion between Putin and Trump, unless they stood close enough and /or leaned over Putin and Trump as they were speaking to each other. It's not surprising to see Trumpists once again making excuses for the stupid at best, and traitorous at worst, behavior by their President. This is going to bite you people in the ass one day. You'll never live down supporting the only US President to ever become a Russian asset.
'If Trump didn't collude with Russia, why all the secret meetings' . Headline in Chicago Tribune
"TRUMP DESCRIBES REPORTS ON SECRET PUTIN MEETING AS 'SICK'" . Headline in Newsweek
"Trump Had Secret Meeting With Putin In Germany" Headline in BlackAmericaweb
"
"I am frightened about how Trump could damage the US. I care about America and would not like it to be damaged. Do you think that is ridiculous?"
Yes, of course they do. They want you to sit down and shut up. They want you to become the same sort of nodding doll they are. You can only nod yes, yes, yesssss to The Golden God with feet of clay.
Once again Chuck lies by saying...... But they certainly didn't do what the Trumpkins here claim; that nobody mentioned that the dinner conversation was seen by 50 or 60 or more people.
The HEADLINES of the stories give the impression that the conversation between Trump and Putin was a single, one on one, nefarious etc event.
I certainly didn't claim that NO one further explained that there were other people present and I don't believe that anyone else maid that claim. Although I do admit to not reading every comment here or any place else.
The IMPRESSION that the media is spinning by the dramatic HEADLINES is a false narrative.
Kitty
I think "frightened" is a girlish feeling about a serious grown-up woman topic. It diminishes your seriousness and suggests you might be overwrought unnecessarily. Being "frightened" about a president suggests you think the president has powers that he does not possess. It suggests an hysteria that is unsupported by real events, things that have actually occurred and is evidence that the real world frightens you less than what could possibly be. And by high horse I mean that you appear to believe you possess concerns that lesser commenters do not possess. In that you would be wrong. We love our country. We do not want to see the poor starve or be poor at all. And so forth and so on.
made not maid
I'm sorry KittyM.
Are you frightened of spiders too? The number 13? Asteroids that might incinerate life as we know it?
See? I care.
"And by high horse I mean that you appear to believe you possess concerns that lesser commenters do not possess. In that you would be wrong. We love our country. We do not want to see the poor starve or be poor at all. And so forth and so on."
What utter bullshit.
Unknown:
Yes, you're absolutely correct, we "Trumpists" should have more flexibility when it comes to evaluating claims that Trump is a "Russian asset" - it is, after all, safely past the election.
It is now traitorous to have a conversation with another head of state at a dinner party unless you have a court reporter in attendance. LOL.
exiledonmainstreet said...
What utter bullshit.
7/19/17, 11:48 AM
One hysterical, obsessed leftist fool assures another hysterical that yes, she's right to be hysterical. Because Trump's gonna blow up the world, or sell America to Putin, or something!
Just like Ronald Raygun was going to nuke the universe! That's when we heard about how Russians love their children too.
You leftists are so amusing. Well, not so much when you get violent and start shooting up baseball fields or beating people with bike locks, but online, your inflated fears are quite entertaining.
@Kitty: It is fascinating that the lefties here have apparently decided that world leaders ought not to have private conversations with one another. You even go so far as to suggest that the media has some First Amendment right to listen and not to be criticized for fake news, or that the media has some sort of derivative "right to know."
These concerns are apparently recent and were not expressed here by you or other lefties during the tenure of the last Administration - the least transparent in history. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-least-transparent-administration-in-history/
Tell us, Kitty, how is it that Trump's relationship with Russia is now "frightening, but Hillary's "reset," Uranium One deal, Obama's off mic declaration of "flexibility," Bill's half mil Moscow speeches and Russian $thousands, if not $millions, to the Clinton Foundation were not?
Do you Dems prefer hostile relations with Russia, the second largest nuclear power, to detente?
Russian asset!! Hilarious mutterings of a demented creature. On the other hand I have it from a pretty good source that Trump promised to stop fracking to boost oil prices for the Russians and to cede New Jersey to the Crimea if Putin would promise that Russians would promise to stay in Trump hotels and buy Trump condos. LOL
I heard those things about FEMA camps, stopping the election and re-introducing slavery to America from left politicians and pundits, not just the Internet.
Then kindly provide some links to these statements by politicians and pundits.
I think you are full of shit.
Blogger William Freiman said...
"I seem to be alone with the opinion that a relationship with Russia would be a good thing, after all, it has been our policy in the past that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Perhaps some of the more enlightened here can explain it to me. Our mutual efforts in the space program stand as a small example of what could be."
The absurd thing here is that we want our President and his people speaking with the Russian leadership. A lot. With the Chinese leadership. With the British, French, German, Japanese, South Korean, Saudi Arabian, etc. But, esp the Ruskies. They have maybe even more nukes than we do, a lot of oil and esp gas, which the sell to our NATO allies, a big Muslim problem, are involved in Syria, with Iran, are actively interfering with a number of their former subject republics, even those that are now formal NATO allies. We want our President on a first name basis with Putin, and our Sec of State on such with theirs, etc. and, even now, in the Internet age, the best way of doing this is face to face. Should we be surprised that Trump tried to charm and bluff Putin there, and Putin the same to Trump? Of course not. This was their first chance to size each other up, mano a mano. And, I have little doubt that Pootin came away with the feeling that there was a new sheriff in town, one he probably couldn't push around as much as he had Trump's predecessor.
But so many on the left, the MSM, etc have so much invested in the Russian collaboration/conspiracy narrative, that they have to force the normal job of our President, what we want him doing, as one of his highest priorities, into the mold of this narrative. Sure, down in the article, you find that there was nothing untoward about the second "secret" meeting with Putin. It was just the two most powerful men on the planet getting a little more time together, surrounded by maybe the other 18 most powerful people on the planet, and a lot of their top minions. But the damage was done. The narrative was pushed a bit further, and snowflakes like Kitty panicked a bit more.
Unknown: "Yes, of course they do. They want you to sit down and shut up."
Wow, "useful idiots," "SD&SU." Projection abounds, complete with conservative dialogue about lefties. Will "snowflake" be next?
In reality, we don't want you to shut up. You secular progressives, etc., are insane, silly and probably evil as well. It is gratifying to see it advertised. That's why we feed the trolls.
"I am frightened about how Trump could damage the US. I care about America and would not like it to be damaged. Do you think that is ridiculous?"
I don't think that not wanting your country to come to harm is unreasonable, I certainly had the same fears about Hillary being elected. I am unsure what you mean by damaged though. Perhaps you have some specific concerns? Economic, foreign policy?
Freder:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/vp-biden-says-republicans-are-going-to-put-yall-back-in-chains/
That is VP Biden.
Check. Mate.
Unknown: See Bruce Hayden's 12:17 for the correct use of "snowflake." Read Mona Charon for the correct use of "useful idiots" and R. Reagan or W Buckley for the "sit down and shut up" bit.
Try some originality, if possible.
"Are you frightened of spiders too? The number 13? Asteroids that might incinerate life as we know it?"
Frankly, I hope, for her sake, that I never meet her (Kitty). I was born on Friday the 13th. They even have names for these fears - "Triskaidekaphobia" (13) and "Praskevidekatriaphobia" (Friday the 13th).
And yeah, Matthew Sablan's was good. Succinct.
Freder: "Please provide an example when the president and the Soviet Premier met with the only other person participating in the meeting was the Soviet translator."
"Off mic" conversation between Medvedev and Obama, March 26, 2012, where Obama promised "more flexibility" about missile defense "after the election."
"The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room." Reuters.
Any questions?
@hombre - the problem here is that "snowflake" alludes to irrational fear, which Kitty seems to be debilitated by. Yes, you could probably are that she also probably qualifies as a "useful idiot", esp since she seems unaware of the real source of her fears. But "snowflake" seems to me to better characterize her (apparently almost debilitating) fear of Trump and everything related to Trump.
Sorry, should have been "Yes, you could probably ARGUE that she probably qualifies as a "useful idiot", esp since she seems unaware of the real source of her fears". IOS spellcheck strikes again.
Freder: "Please provide an example when the president and the Soviet Premier met with the only other person participating in the meeting was the Soviet translator."
I am trying to figure out why Trump meeting all by himself with Putin was a bad thing. My view (as I made obvious above) is that it was a good thing. Meeting alone with Putin meant, to me, that Trump wasn't scared of being pushed around or bullied by Putin (we know that Putin wasn't scared of being bullied by previous American Presidents). Having to have your aids along is, in my view, indicia of weakness. Which Trump didn't show, but Obama clearly did.
Bruce Hayden
Trump did not meet with Putin "alone." He was in a room full of people at a dinner for the top 20 of the world's leaders.
Kitty @10:16 AM:
Thank you for your response. I think we can all agree that the president should support a free press. But your criticism of Trump's behavior completely ignores the manifest failure of the mainstream press to live up to its own obligations and duties to the free society it pretends to support.
Trump's criticisms, while highly negative, in no way prevent the press from publishing what it pleases. The idea that "the press" in the contemporary West comprises relatively powerless actors struggling against far more powerful elected officialdom is simply false. The mainstream press is a power center in itself, run by wealthy and powerful interests, and as subject to corruption and as prone to tyrannically abusing its power as any other human organization. There is nothing magical about a press credential. Why should the people who hold them not be accountable for their failures and the abuses of their very real power?
I find it frightening when President Trump makes statements like that, because I don't like how similar it sounds like the kind of statements that authoritarian dictators such as Erdogan and Putin make.
I find it frightening when citizens of free nations uncritically accept self-serving, hysterical announcements from a "free" press that criticizing their obvious failings and biases is just like Erdogan and Putin!
You know what's just like Erdogan and Putin and other authoritarian thugs? Invoking lèse-majesté and other such thug-regime notions when criticized. Not a good look on people who complain so much about that other guy's thin skin and over-developed amour-propre.
I like it when the leaders of Western democracies make it clear how different our societies are from such closed and repressive regimes.
Kitty, "Western democracies" are throwing people in jail for daring to merely express negative opinions of their leaders' policies, with either the full support of the "respectable", "free" press behind them, or, at best, its very half-hearted demurral. Unlike you, I feel nothing but disgust when "leaders of Western democracies" hypocritically mouth support for "freedom of speech" while merrily implementing speech-suppressing policies, all merrily backed by the "respectable" press.
The press (and this is true all over the West) is failing badly at holding up its end of the bargain. Leaders can afford to "stay above the fray" when they belong to the same political machine that runs the press. The press should not be, ahem, colluding with the politicians and political organizations they happen to favor, and that is very much the case in Western countries, including ours, today.
I mean, wouldn't you report it if you were the editor of a paper?
I trust other commenters have made clear to you why they found this "reporting" deficient.
Its it possible the media really wants us to tune them out? If that wasn't the object what would they do differently? From the 24/7 non-stop Russia hysteria to obsessing about getting 2 scoops of ice cream when others got 1 they must stick their heads up every once and a while and see no normal person gives a crap. Not only doesn't give a crap but is now avoiding them and their advertisers as well. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
News report:
A statement released by the separatist Donetsk News Agency declared the formation of a new state called Malorossiya, or Little Russia - a name once used to refer to Ukrainian lands within the czarist empire. The new state, the declaration said, would include all the regions of Ukraine except Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014.
"'We agree that the new state will be called Little Russia, since the very name 'Ukraine' has discredited itself,' the statement said."
I wonder if Putin gave the Trumps a heads up over dinner.
"It just doesn't make any sense to me."
Like Gk1 I am having a hard time understanding the press's overreaction to President Trump. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I believe there is something darker going on than any explanation I've heard. How deep do the Clinton machine tentacles run? We aren't anywhere near normal behavior by the power structure. If Mueller doesn't come up with something the left can use for the impeachment narrative you can color me one suprised puppy. Meanwhile the circumstantial bodies just keep piling up. There is something more here than somebodies ox being gored. And, like Kitty, I am alarmed and concerned for the Republic.
Regarding Mathew Sablan's comment: LMAO
Althouse comment threads are far more educational than SJW reporters 'spoon feeding Casanova the spoiled guts of birds'.
@Angel-Dyne, Thank you for your long and thoughtful response to my post. I'm on this board to engage with people who hold differing viewpoints to my own, especially on the fraught topic of the current American administration, and I am grateful to you for taking the time to expand on some of your own views. I would love to take this discussion a bit further, if you're up for it.
Firstly, I can see that even here, there are points of agreement between us. For example, I think you are right when you say: "Trump's criticisms, while highly negative, in no way prevent the press from publishing what it pleases." And I like the way you put it when you write that "every human organisation" is "prone to tyrannically abusing its power". I totally agree.
But I have to assure you that I didn't draw the comparison between Erdogan, Putin and Trump because I "uncritically accepted self-serving, hysterical announcements" of the press. I genuinely (you'll just have to believe me!) find that there are many unnerving similarities between the ways in which all three men talk about the press, and in the way in which they stoke a "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality.
Could you expand on "You know what's just like Erdogan and Putin and other authoritarian thugs? Invoking lèse-majesté and other such thug-regime notions when criticized. Not a good look on people who complain so much about that other guy's thin skin and over-developed amour-propre"? I don't follow you here.
I don't know who you are referring to when you write, ""Western democracies" are throwing people in jail for daring to merely express negative opinions of their leaders' policies". On the face of it, if that is happening, then I am with you that this is very very wrong and disturbing.
"The press (and this is true all over the West) is failing badly at holding up its end of the bargain." Not sure what you mean? What bargain? In what way?
Finally, I end on another point of agreement, "The press should not be, ahem, colluding with the politicians and political organizations they happen to favour." The press in a free society is independent but it doesn't mean they have to be impartial.
Sorry to be so long. Thanks again for your thoughts.
@DustBunnyQueen: "Concern does not equal frightened. One is a rational reaction to change that you may not like. Frightened is a hysterical response and one that is non productive."
Thank you for this response. I do see your point and rather regret using the term "frightened" as I can understand that that makes me sound a bit hysterical or emotional.
"It is hard to have rational discussions with people who react in irrational ways."
Of course I don't think I reacted in an irrational way, by using the word "frightened" or even by actually being "frightened". I hope my choice of words doesn't put you off having a rational discussion with me. I'm not very used to this forum and am finding it quite a challenge to say what I mean in plain language.
I think President Trump represents a real shift in the way we think about how political power works in America and this shift might be dangerous. For example, I worry about the rise in hate crime and just plain old open hate and bigotry when the President likes to use quite violent and crude and hateful language of division, rather than the classic "let's all try to get along, let's unite the country"-type language of previous presidents of both parties. I suppose at the end of the day, I think the President does set the tone for a lot of the mood of the country at large.
Obviously, for those here who are attracted to such language, these tweets will be seen as a good thing: full of energy and passion, maybe "giving as good as he gets". I can see that. But can you see that a person might also be turned off and worried (concerned? frightened? whatever) by this tone?
@pacwest: "I don't think that not wanting your country to come to harm is unreasonable, I certainly had the same fears about Hillary being elected. I am unsure what you mean by damaged though. Perhaps you have some specific concerns? Economic, foreign policy?"
Thanks so much for the question. It's great to read someone who gets what I'm saying and I'm particularly pleased that you draw the comparison to your fears about Hillary because that's exactly what I meant to get across.
To answer your question: I think that the United States, Britain and Western Europe have developed from the ashes of WWII and slavery and colonialism and the Holocaust, etc etc etc the most amazing, thriving, functioning free societies. We enjoy a free press, rule of law, free pluralistic societies in which we can live how we want - whether that be religious or atheist, large family or single life. And I know things are not all marvellous and we have major issues to tackle (you and I might have different ideas about the biggest problems facing society but we probably agree that there's loads of things wrong and lots that could be improved) but still - what an amazing achievement.
And I look at Russia and at Turkey and at China and at the Middle East and I thank God that I'm here in peace and freedom. I so so don't want to live in those scary, dangerous autocracies.
But Trump is cosying up to Putin. He's friendly to Erdogan. He's not that far from those guys, it seems, in his flirting with authoritarianism. No, of course, the US is not like those places. That's my point.
When Trump goes on and on about the press being the enemy, for example, he seems to be parroting the language of these dictators. When he attacks NATO and cosies up to Putin, then I think it damages the US because it chips away at American values that are the guarantees for the great life here.
I'm rambling. But do you see what I mean?
Oh good grief Kitty,
While I admire your patient, clear and consise explanation of The Problem With Trump, these people are not going to see things from your (our) perspective. They will only throw your polite and reasonable comments back in your face and tell you that you are among the insane Left. You must be very new here.
KittyM
In reading your reply to pacwest you note that Trump is "cosying up to Putin." What do you mean by this? Should American presidents refrain from interacting with our potential enemies? Would you have the same problem if Trump spent an equivalent amount of time with the North Korean leader? And what distinguishing discussion from cosying?
Hi Unkown. Yeah. This is indeed my first day posting and I'm just finding my feet. I liked it that Anne writes "don't make personal attacks on other commenters" above the comment box but i have already found that not to be true.
I did go a bit over board. Sorry.
No need to be sorry Kitty. It just pains me to see such an honest broker such as yourself laying out the very reasonable argument that the Left sees as of utmost importance to the well being of our nation and the danger Trump presents to our country, being shat upon, by most commenters here. We've presented these same arguments to these Trumpists here many times in the past year. You are throwing pearls before swine, sorry, I've been here a long time and unfortunately that is what it comes down to.
"I liked it that Anne writes "don't make personal attacks on other commenters" above the comment box but i have already found that not to be true."
Yes indeed, what she says and does are two different things.
"What...you think Trump gives a shit about his grandkids?!"
Good. Let that hate completely infest every part of your body.
Let it eat you up inside.
You deserve it.
@Michael: You are of course right: all leaders in Western democracies find themselves visiting, and dealing with, leaders of all kinds, including very unpleasant and bad people who run terrible dictatorships, and it is naive to imagine a world in which our good guys just have nothing to do with the bad guys over there. Totally get you and agree with you.
But nonetheless, there are subtle and unsubtle ways in which talented democratic leaders make their positions known. For example, they choose to talk about human rights or bring up other uncomfortable subjects in public speeches. Or they work with their diplomatic staff behind the scenes and then let something leak.
One thing, Michael, that I have noticed as I have read this blog is that a lot of the pro-Trump analysis, both from the commenters but also from Anne, is very, ummm, "face-value-ish" (sorry, can't think of the right word). What I mean is, a lot of defence of Trump depends on sticking rigidly to what he actually says without accepting the reality that a lot of political theater is subtle. So, the whole world sees Trump being very very overtly friendly to Putin, when he doesn't have to be, but some Trump defenders point out that Trump hasn't actually come out and said, "I'm supporting Putin against the EU". It's quite hard to then agree on really obvious things, like the fact that Trump *is* unusually supportive of Putin.
(Even as I type, I am reading that Trump has ended a covert programme which backed Anti-Assad rebels, giving Putin a big win).
I still find it hard to believe that you and I could disagree that Trump likes Putin a lot. But in my opinion, Putin is still our enemy and Russia is still a hostile power whose goal is to drive a wedge between Europe and America in order to weaken us both.
Thanks for the question, though. It's interesting to think these things through.
"At the very least, Trump should have had his own translator there."
Maybe he should've brought a Reset Button.
"Good. Let that hate completely infest every part of your body.
Let it eat you up inside.
You deserve it."
What drove Trump to hound Obama about Obama supposedly being born in Kenya?
@Michael: This is going to be too much - but I see that I didn't really answer all your questions, which seemed rude of me and also as if I was avoiding them which is not good for an open discussion.
"Would you have the same problem if Trump spent an equivalent amount of time with the North Korean leader?"
OMG yes, I would have a massive problem if Trump (or Merkel, or May, or Macron etc etc) spent an equivalent amount of time - friendly time - with the NK leader. Not sure why you would think I wouldn't.
"And what distinguishing discussion from cosying?"
That is such an interesting question which I think I partly addressed in my last answer. This sounds like a cop out, but you just do know it. The EU is currently in discussions with GB over Brexit. How do we know that things are definitely not cosy? We're not in the room! Well, we get some information through reporters and some from the public statements from the main players, we get it from the body language and finally we get it from the actual outcomes.
Similarly, with Trump and Putin: we get the closeness from reporting behind the scenes, from Trump's own public statements (through what he says and what he doesn't say), we get it from body language and from the actual outcomes (such as the Syrian news today).
That's why (back to the post topic) this second meeting was of interest. If Trump was being cautious with Putin, (as I believe he should be because Russia = hostile power), he might have a second meeting, but he wouldn't be alone without back up, without a translator at least. It just doesn't look like "tough talk". It looks like Putin owns him. And frankly, even if you disagree with my analysis - i.e. even if you think I am wrong, and Trump was being tough in the meetings - you have to admit it *looks* bad and in geo-politics, looks are really really important.
"Putin has his useful idiot, fortunately for him, unfortunately for America."
Coming from you? Someone who openly sided with the Soviet Union during the entire Cold War?
That's rich.
KittyM: I'm on this board to engage with people who hold differing viewpoints to my own, especially on the fraught topic of the current American administration, and I am grateful to you for taking the time to expand on some of your own views. I would love to take this discussion a bit further, if you're up for it.
Thank you for your thoughtful, civil responses to me and everyone else. I don't have any more time to play on the internet this evening, but I'm sure these issues aren't going anywhere and can be taken up again. I hope you stick around.
"Putin has his useful idiot, fortunately for him, unfortunately for America."
---------------------
"Coming from you? Someone who openly sided with the Soviet Union during the entire Cold War?
That's rich."
Huh? Delusional.
@Angel-Dyne Wow! Thank you for your lovely comment. That means a lot. I've gotta get off, too but I'll try and make the time to brave the boards again. Have a great evening!
"Thank you for your thoughtful, civil responses to me and everyone else. I don't have any more time to play on the internet this evening, but I'm sure these issues aren't going anywhere and can be taken up again. I hope you stick around."
I can't wait for Angel-Dyne to show her true face to the very reasonable Kitty. Nice act, lol. It's only a matter of time.
"Einstein, disguised as Robin Hood
With his memories in a trunk
Passed this way an hour ago
With his friend, a jealous monk
NOW, he looked so immaculately frightful
As he bummed a cigarette
Then he went off sniffing drainpipes
And reciting the alphabet
You would not think to look at him
But he was famous long ago
For playing the electric violin
On Desolation Row."
Every famous, and not so famous, establishment figure was famous long ago. The foreign policy types made their bones during the cold war. The economists wrote a book that got them noticed and that is who they are. The politicians got elected the first time with a little help from their friends and they are owned. They are on top and want to stay on top. Any deviation whatsoever from the status quo threatens them.
That's why we can't have nice things - like a rational relationship with Russia.
"That's why we can't have nice things - like a rational relationship with Russia."
What is rational about having a relationship with a dictatorship that hacked our election just a year ago? We should be sanctioning them, not kissing their ass.
"Good. Let that hate completely infest every part of your body.
Let it eat you up inside."
Ha! I don't have any feelings of personal hatred for Trump. I think he is a boor and a bully and a narcissist, and I think he will be a disaster for America, to the extent he is able to actually accomplish many of the things he seeks (or claims to want) to accomplish, (though I agree with his attempt to reopen the cooperative relationship we had with Russia until the Obama administration decided to become belligerent toward them--a sign we see them as a serious impediment to our futile attempt to rule the world--even though I'm sure he's doing it for self-serving business reasons, but still...).
But then, Hillary would have been a disaster for the country as well. The travesty is that neither party serves the people's interest, though they each claim to in their respective ways. Their obvious loyalty is to the corporate overlords who own and are destroying our country.
Of course, our country has been transformed into a police state already, so anything that goes on in Washington is in the nature of a ghastly Punch and Judy show for us to be hypnotized by. In other words, things will get worse, not better, and all we can do is watch things fall apart.
I guess I do hate them all, but in a dispassionate, detached way, as one hates a natural disaster that one knows is coming but that cannot be avoided.
"I guess I do hate them all,"
Very good, Cookie. You finally said something honest and true.
I tend to agree that we have a crappy ruling class but have zero interest in your Socialist solutions.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा