Tag Archives: Donald Trump

This isn’t sounding ‘presidential,’ Donald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFaH9Y2Mtmo

Donald J. Trump made a lot of promises along the campaign trail, which is no surprise, given that politicians do that sort of thing while they campaign for public office.

One of them was that he would be more “presidential” if voters elected him to the highest office in America.

This video is of the president-elect’s latest “thank you” rally. It took place in Orlando, Fla.

I’m waiting for him to start sounding “presidential.” He didn’t do so at this rally. He hasn’t done so at any of these events he’s held after winning the presidency.

Trump hasn’t changed his tone one tiny bit. He’s still spouting the buffoonery that won him so many fans all along the campaign trail.

The tenor of these rallies is filling me with interest in precisely how the next president is going to address the nation after he takes the oath of office.

Donald Trump well might deliver one of the more, um, memorable inaugural speeches in the history of the Republic.

Is this one of those ‘brilliant people’?

aalcfup

Donald J. Trump promised Americans that he would surround himself with “brilliant people” as he formed his government, not to mention when he actually began governing as president of the United States.

His latest high-profile hire for his transition team, though, is a head-scratcher.

Omarosa Manigault has joined the Trump transition team. The president-elect made a bit of a show of the hire. Manigault was a contestant on “Celebrity Apprentice,” the show that Trump ran before he became a politician.

I’ll stipulate that I never watched the show. I don’t know much about this young woman, other than what I’ve read — which isn’t much.

She worked for Trump’s campaign as an African-American outreach advocate. She sought to boost the Republican nominee’s standing with black voters.

She reportedly then let slip that Trump was keeping an enemies list. We older folks remember an earlier enemies list, which President Nixon formed to keep track of those who opposed him.

“Let me just tell you, Mr. Trump has a long memory, and we’re keeping a list,” she said.

Well. There you have it.

Back to my original point. Omarosa’s role with the Trump transition has me wondering: What in the world does she bring to the forming of the next government?

Is she one of the brilliant people? Just askin’, man.

FBI joins CIA in fingering Russian hackers

bbh9xcg

What do you know about that?

FBI Director James Comey has concluded that the CIA analysis is correct, that the Russians hacked into our nation’s electoral process and might have helped Donald J. Trump win the election over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Oh, the irony is amazing.

Just to be clear, I am not going to suggest that Comey’s conduct near the end of the presidential campaign cost Clinton the victory most of us thought she would win. The letter to Congress about those e-mails may have contributed some to Hillary’s defeat. Was it decisive? Did it doom her campaign by itself? I don’t believe so.

But now we have the FBI climbing aboard the CIA hay wagon, endorsing the spook agency’s findings that the Russians sought to do the very thing Comey has been accused of doing.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/ar-AAlEvfm?li=BBnb7Kz

I don’t know all the facts about how the FBI works. I damn sure know even less about the CIA and the work its agents and analysts do to compile intelligence information. I probably don’t want to know.

When two pre-eminent intelligence and law enforcement agencies draw the same conclusion, though, that’s a huge deal.

If only the president-elect would exhibit some respect for the work these professionals do every day, rather than dissing them while denigrating their findings.

Indeed, the candidate who himself questioned the integrity of the electoral process — remember how the president-elect proclaimed the system to be “rigged” against him? — ought to be among the loudest voices demanding a full accounting of what the Russians have done … allegedly.

Smooth transition running into serious bumps

russian-hacker

There goes my trick knee again. It’s throbbing. My gut is grumbling. My fingers are tingling.

Something is telling me that the “smooth and seamless transition” from the Obama administration to the Trump administration is going to become a lot less smooth and seamless.

Why? Gosh. Let me think. Oh! It’s that Russian hacking thing, I reckon.

Donald J. Trump is dismissing — and dissing — the intelligence community’s assessment that Russian spooks hacked into our cyber network and sought to affect the presidential election.

President Obama, meanwhile, is declaring his intention before he leaves office in a little more than month to strike back at the Russians.

Who’s reacting correctly here, the president or the president-elect?

I’m going to go with the man who’s still on the watch in the Oval Office.

Trump’s stated view that the CIA is all wet and his belief that the Russians didn’t do anything wrong is a profoundly dangerous posture to take, given what we know about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s world view and his demonstrated ability to commit atrocious mischief whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Barack Obama is planning to take action against the Russians, while hoping for an easy handoff to the man who’ll succeed him.

The transition could be made a lot smoother if the new guy, Trump, would accept what the intelligence community already knows. The Russians aren’t our friends and they aren’t likely to become friends if they detect they have a patsy sitting behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

My hope, of course, is that the president retains the dignity he has brought to the office and ensures as smooth a transition as possible. If only, though, this Russian hacking matter hadn’t gotten in the way.

POTUS planning to take final shot at Russians

obama_putin

Donald J. Trump doesn’t believe the findings of the CIA and other intelligence officials that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election.

I’ll presume, therefore, that he won’t take any action against them.

But here’s the thing, dear reader: We have a president on duty who does believe the CIA analysis, who has expressed outrage at the idea of foreign intervention in our electoral process — and who has vowed that he will act “in our own time” to retaliate against the hacking nation.

President Obama is in office until Jan. 20. It is sounding increasingly likely that he’ll do something to punish the Russians for what the CIA and others have said they’ve done. The specifics of what they did remain unclear, but the president’s longtime adversary, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, also appears complicit in what has transpired.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-says-%E2%80%98we-will%E2%80%99-retaliate-against-russia-for-election-hacking/ar-AAlCY8m?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

My guess would be that Obama will act in ways that might be difficult to undo. Trade sanctions? Diplomatic pressure? Retaliatory hacking of Russian cyber activity?

Obama said on National Public Radio this morning that some of the options being considered would be public and would be reported; other options might be done in secret. That’s the beauty — if you want to call it such — of being in charge of a vast intelligence network that can do these things undercover, out of sight.

The Russians need to know that what they did cannot be tolerated by any government, let alone by the United States of America.

If the new president is going to dismiss the fact-based information gathered by the CIA, then it falls on the current president to act while he still has the stroke to do so.

Go for it, Mr. President!

The case for un-electing Donald Trump

trump

I’m such a fence-straddler on this one.

Our nation’s presidential electors are meeting Monday to choose the next president of the United States. Do they proceed with electing Donald J. Trump, who 306 electoral votes — 36 more than he needs — or do they deny him the votes and throw the election either to candidate he defeated or to the House of Representatives?

The Albany (N.Y.) Times-Union has declared in an editorial that the electors should deny Trump the presidency.

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Electors-reject-Mr-Trump-10796574.php

Oh, man. I’ve read the editorial twice; I’ll read it some more. The paper makes a strong argument for the electors to yank the presidency away from someone who is wholly unprepared, unqualified and unfit for the job.

Electors from most of the states, though, are bound by state rules that require them to remain faithful to the will of their states’ majority. Other state electors — such as those from Texas — aren’t bound by those rules.

The U.S. Constitution allows such a rebellion to occur. It doesn’t quite address the chaos that would ensue if electors were to deny the Electoral College winner the presidency.

It’s never happened in the history of the Republic, although the House has chosen a president: John Quincy Adams in 1824.

So help me, I cannot yet take that leap.

I agree with the Times-Union’s assessment of Trump’s ability to do the job. His campaign-style “thank you” rallies are troubling in the extreme; he should be spending his time learning about the details of governing a nation comprising more than 300 million citizens. He’s selecting a collection of individuals for his Cabinet who have limited experience dealing with the agencies they would lead and in some cases are openly hostile to the policies they are being asked to implement.

And we have this issue of alleged Russian tampering with our electoral process. Did the president-elect benefit directly from foreign interference?

It is true, as the editorial points out, that the founders set up the Electoral College to shield the nation against “foreign influence.”

The founders also set up a mechanism for Congress to act as a check against presidential overreach. It’s called impeachment. If a president crosses any one of the many boundaries set up to limit the power of the office, the House can intercede with articles of impeachment, followed by a trial in the Senate.

I’m going to give this some more thought. I might get to you later, before the Electoral College meets.

I’ve been watching the presidential electoral process closely for four decades and I’ve never seen questions like these raised prior to the transition of one presidency to another.

It’s beginning to stress me out.

Hoping for Trump to earn praise

150806212843-07-fox-debate-trump-0806-super-169

Those of you who read this blog regularly might be thinking: What will it take for this guy — that would be yours truly — to say something truly positive about Donald J. Trump?

I’ve said I’m trying to keep an open mind about the next president of the United States. And, no, “trying to keep an open mind” isn’t code for “not a chance in hell” I’ll ever say anything good about the guy. I mean what I am saying here.

What will it take? What can this guy do to earn my unvarnished, unqualified praise?

Let me think:

* He can order a military strike that destroys the Islamic State, forcing the terrorists to give up the fight.

* Trump can enact policies that bring jobs back to the United States of America, which he contends are fleeing this country by the thousands for places like Mexico and China.

* He can implement border policies that effectively end illegal immigration into the U.S. of A.

* The president can persuade Congress to pass laws that incentivize private businesses to hire more people, thus reducing the jobless rate even more than the dramatic reduction we’ve seen already during the Obama administration.

* POTUS can get Congress to reduce taxes on all Americans while spending money on infrastructure improvements without piling up the national debt and increasing the annual federal budget deficit.

* He can order the next attorney general to go to war against hate groups that have risen to prominence since he announced his presidential candidacy.

* Trump can issue a heartfelt apology — the real thing, man, not just some phony “If I have offended anyone …” non-apology — to the many individuals and groups he denigrated while running for the presidency.

These are the issues that come to mind immediately. I’d settle for any one or two of these things to occur. I am on board if he is able to do any of it.

My confidence remains quite low, I am saddened to say, that he’ll do any of it.

However, there’s always tomorrow.

‘Get over it’? Sure, when y’all get over your own selves

trump-wins

The “Get over it!” mantra is beginning to grate on my nerves.

It’s coming from those who are glad to see Donald J. Trump elected president of the United States. The mantra is aimed at the rest of the country — more than half of those who cast ballots, actually — who voted for someone else.

They can’t “get over it.”

I don’t quite consider myself in that category of disgruntled voter. Maybe others see me as one of the sore losers. I don’t like being perceived that way. I am doing my best to level my criticism of the president-elect in a way that focuses more on the issues as I see them.

I will admit to occasionally challenging the man’s temperamental fitness for the job, but then again, that’s an issue, too.

The annoyance over the calls to get over it stems from the eight-year bitch session that’s been under way since Barack Hussein Obama was elected president.

A lot of folks haven’t gotten over that seminal event. The election in 2008 of the first African-American as head of state and head of government of the greatest nation on Earth just hasn’t gone over with a certain segment of this nation.

Sure, they’ll respond with, “I am not a racist, but …” And, no, I am not hanging the “racist” label on all of the president’s critics.

I understand that the man’s policies themselves have angered a lot of Americans. We had that big economic stimulus package that rescued several segments of our then-failing economy; we got the Affordable Care Act, over the strenuous objections of Republicans; he granted a temporary reprieve for about 5 million illegal immigrants through the use of an executive order.

I happen to support all those aforementioned actions. That’s just me. I’m one of those Americans who voted twice for the president.

We are a sharply divided nation. The election of Donald J. Trump enhances and emphasizes that division in ways we haven’t seen in some time.

I am still struggling with the idea that Trump will become the next president. I’ll “get over it” … eventually. I promise.

Just don’t keep reminding me to “get over it.” The more you say it the more I am likely to resist.

Russia story may never go away

aala31c

CIA officials keep putting the heat on Donald J. Trump and his friends in Russia.

They now are asserting that Russian computer hackers actually did try to get Trump elected president of the United States.

What I am not yet clear about, though, is what precisely did the Russians do. How precisely did they seek to do what CIA spooks are alleging?

I happen to believe the broad outlines of what the CIA is asserting. I believe the reports that Russia tried to get their hands into our electoral process. It’s not a figment of Democrats’ imagination, as Trump says in response. It’s not the media, either, that are fomenting a lie, as Trump and his team also seem to imply.

This story is growing more legs than a centipede.

Furthermore, I am having even more trouble with Trump’s continual rebuff of what the career spooks at the CIA are saying. He’ll need these individuals, these intelligence teams, once he becomes president. They will be providing him mountains of intelligence daily — or however often Trump chooses to receive it.

When trouble erupts around the world — and it will, no doubt — the president needs the analysis.

It’s fair to wonder how this relationship between the White House and the intelligence network is going to work if the president keeps denigrating the work of the pros who toil day and night compiling information about our international adversaries.

I continue to believe the president-elect needs to get on board with the concerns being expressed and stop saying up front these concerns lack veracity.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-officials-putin-personally-involved-in-us-election-hack/ar-AAlzZQI?li=BBnb7Kz

The CIA says Russian President Vladimir Putin himself got involved. This happens to be someone who has praised Trump and who has received reciprocal praise from the president-elect. Putin also ran the KGB during the Soviet era; if you haven’t heard, the KGB was a ruthless spy organization.

Thus, this story continues to spread. It’s making me quite nervous.

What about The Wall, Gen. Kelly?

greatwalloftrump

Donald J. Trump’s very first specious campaign promise en route to his being elected president of the United States was that he would build a “beautiful wall” along the length of our nation’s southern border.

He would secure our border with Mexico against those hordes or rapists, murders, drug dealers and, oh yes, international terrorists intent on destroying the United States of America.

And he’d make Mexico pay for it, too! That, of course, drew the expected rebuke from Mexican officials who said, in effect, “Oh, no we won’t.”

Now we have a Homeland Security secretary-designate, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, on board with the still-forming Trump administration.

What about that wall, Gen. Kelly?

Are we going to build it? Do you support the president-elect on that nonsensical notion? And what about the “deportation force,” general? Are you going to hire all the thousands of homeland security agents it will take to round up the 11 million — or so — illegal immigrants living in this country?

Trump’s initial campaign pledge makes the homeland security appointment all that more important. The way I figure it, if Trump was going to make illegal immigration his signature issue — which he did when he rode down the Trump Tower elevator the day he announced his candidacy — then he meant for it to be the most important promise he’d make.

It’s interesting to me that we’ve heard nary a peep from Gen. Kelly — or the president-elect, for that matter — on the strategy we’re going to employ to build the wall.

Let’s hear it, guys!