(07-17-2018, 02:26 PM)Dill Wrote: I am astonished this topic does not have its own thread.

Trump's pro-Putin comments have finally generated a problem beyond the resources of Fox/Hannity truthiness--at least for a few days.

Trump himself seems baffled and angered that so many supporters do not share his view of the "success" of his recent European tour. He strengthened NATO, right? And reset our relationship with Russia!

And the result is, finally, mass Republican opposition in Congress, public statements of condemnation, questions and criticism from Fox commentators. It's like, momentarily, the veil of mystification (which, in any case, only worked only on his supporters) has been ripped away.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/17/ryan-defends-mueller-probe-after-trumps-summit-with-putin/amp/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna892061
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-putin-summit-20180717-story,amp.html

Suddenly, recognition of poor planning and execution and ignorance is not just butthurt over Hillary's loss, but a real question about Trump's ability to guarantee national security.

(07-17-2018, 02:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just don't trust that the republicans in office will "do" anything though.  They will be "disappointed" in his comments.  They will say they don't "like" what he said.  Then they will support everything they can to get their agenda through.

(07-17-2018, 03:00 PM)treee Wrote: I think the midterm elections (for the House in particular) will be a true referendum on how the US public feels about Trump representing the U.S. on the world stage. I'm pretty sure this worries a lot of R incumbents in purple states.

(07-17-2018, 03:07 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with you there. But do you think Helsinki will affect the public much? 

I find it interesting that so many Republicans have finally come out to criticize Trump--even from red states, and including the leaders of the Senate and House.

I am thinking that the fracture will be repaired over the next week, but it has made GOP resistance easier and damaged Trump's image among "weak supporters."

(07-17-2018, 02:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Questions for discussion:

Does congressional condemnation indicate a permanent realignment of Congress' relation to the president, which Trump must henceforward take into account? 

Quote:Will individuals be more willing to speak out about other issues? People on the foreign relations and intel committees HAVE to be concerned (with the possible exception of Nunes). 

Quote:Will this resistance and the public perception of failure endure speed up the downward spiral of Trump's behavior rather than correct it? (I think the former; He does not learn from errors and lashes out at friends as well as enemies. Why would that lessen rather than increase?)

Quote:What is the effect of Helsinki on foreign policy--e.g., combined with the erratic ill-treatment of our NATO allies? It has to be clear that the leader of the free world and the world's most powerful military and military alliance cannot adequately prioritize foreign policy issues or distinguish friends from enemies.  He called for a summit which embarrassed him and showed of Putin's skill at manipulation--and came away calling it a "victory."


Related to the previous question--what will be the effect on the EU and NATO. No papering it over anymore.  They have to be planning how to go it alone, or nearly alone, unable to count on US leadership and resources to the degree they used to. (I know Trump defenders want that; but outside that bubble, and outside Russia, China, and NK, that is generally bad thing)

(07-17-2018, 03:04 PM)jj22 Wrote: I've never seen Fox turn on Trump the way they did yesterday. It was significant. Now will it last? I don't know. But yesterday was noteworthy.

(07-17-2018, 02:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just don't trust that the republicans in office will "do" anything though.  They will be "disappointed" in his comments.  They will say they don't "like" what he said.  Then they will support everything they can to get their agenda through.

(07-17-2018, 03:29 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: pretty sure you just described every politician in DC Dem or Rep....

Its why some of us voted for the non politician option

(07-17-2018, 03:29 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: pretty sure you just described every politician in DC Dem or Rep....

Its why some of us voted for the non politician option

(07-17-2018, 03:29 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: pretty sure you just described every politician in DC Dem or Rep....

Its why some of us voted for the non politician option

(07-17-2018, 03:27 PM)Benton Wrote: At this point, it largely doesn't matter. There's a decent chance of midterm mashup (growing more in the left's favor every time Trump curtsey's to a foreign power). And, for the GOP, that's probably largely ok. They've got their tax breaks through, pork shoveled out, shown lobbyists they can still get the job done and gotten some very pro-business seats locked down on the SCOTUS. It's probably in their best interest to take a back seat and let Dems get some seats so that when the economic train derails (and it's going to soon judging by the writing on the wall), they can blame it on the Dems and that unstable Trump agenda, which wasn't theirs. 

Losing a relationship with the President isn't a big deal with what they've gotten done, especially if the Dems come in and he starts having to make deals to get things like his wall done. If anything, that helps them when it comes time to push a traditional RHINO.

(07-17-2018, 03:27 PM)Benton Wrote: His base has been largely easily manipulated. As long as that continues, the grass-roots blind eye, I don't think it matters. 

Those kinds of relationships are — in my limited experience — beyond the scope of the president. Take the Obama years, and the link below.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/us/politics/isis-centcom-intelligence.html

There are powers-that-be that need an end which may be completely different than what an administration wants. And they're going to make sure that end comes to pass. In that case, it was altering intel reports regarding the effectiveness against ISIS. If Trump wants to flip a switch and tell NATO to figure out its own problems, there's going to be pushback from intelligence and military communities that have worked for decades to develop allies and communication.

(07-17-2018, 03:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: The "non-politician" is the problem.

And the "politicians" from his party are protecting him.  So how'd that work out? 

(07-17-2018, 03:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can see why people would be tempted to give a non politician a shot, but I think the bloom may be off the rose on that one.  But you never know, and it wouldn't surprise me if being a celebrity with no experience continues to be a popular selling-point for the presidency.

(07-17-2018, 03:56 PM)Benton Wrote: Politicians did this to politicians by making politician a bad word.

There's nothing wrong with someone who dedicates their life to public service. There are thousands of local, state and federal level elected candidates who are good people with the best public interests in mind. But the angst over politicians and the distrust largely comes from... politicians. They do it every time they blame society's problems on "the other side" and, indirectly, when they abuse their office for personal gain. When politicians lobby to raise the retirement age to 70, vote to increase each taxpayer's debt and then announce their retirement at the ripe old age of 48, it makes it much easier for people like Trump to con the public into thinking he's different. Which, of course, he isn't, he's just abused the system in a different way.