Search results: "against trump" (Page 1 of 15)

Editor on Trump’s threats against Iran

The greatest strategic mistake by the United States in the opening decades of the 21st century has been to get stuck in unwinnable wars in the Middle East, a region with declining strategic importance relative to Asia.

At the time when a predecessor, George W. Bush, invaded Iraq, Donald Trump supported the war. Later, during the 2016 presidential campaign he pretended – loudly and without shame – that he had opposed the war. What would he do if he had a similar decision in front of him as president? We may well get to know sometime soon.

Trump unleashed his vitriol against Iran on July 22, threatening war in an all-caps screed on Twitter.

“To Iranian President Rouhani,” he said. “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”

Trump practices “honor politics.” Please take note that the cause of the Trump’s outburst wasn’t anything Iran had actually done vis-à-vis America, but rather words used by his Iranian counterpart Trump took as a “threat.”

Rouhani had issued a boilerplate statement in response to Trump’s previous provocations, declaring: “Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.” Sniping back and forth is nothing unusual in U.S.-Iranian relations and certainly nothing for the American leader to get angry about. However, Trump seems to have chosen to believe Rouhani’s words were something the U.S. should “not stand for.”

Were Trump’s empty rhetoric the only thing on display, that would be worrisome enough for what it says about the mindset of the commander-in-chief of the largest military in the world. What is more concerning, however, is that Trump has been stoking the flames against Iran since he was elected, and his provocations have intensified of late.

On May 9, he made good on his pledge to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran. Now, he is warning other countries not to import Iranian oil, or else he will impose sanctions against them. Sanctioning a country that continues to comply with the nuclear deal – respected by all signatories except the United States – is an inherently provocative act.

Iran is already facing economic problems and unrest. Now, European companies, including France’s largest oil producer, Total, are reluctantly pulling out of Iran in order to avoid problems. Is it any wonder that Trump’s escalatory actions began shortly after neoconservative hardliner John Bolton became National Security Adviser in April?

Read full article: Column: Trump threatening war with Iran

Trump: Fraud case against me will drag on for years

At the Republican primary debate in Detroit, Donald Trump said that the fraud case against him will likely drag on for three years of so.

Questioned by moderator Megyn Kelly and attacked by opponent Marco Rubio, Trump said, “Let’s see what happens in court. This is a civil case. Very easy to have settled. Could have settled it now. Let’s see what happens at the end of a couple of years when this case is over, okay.”

Hit by further questioning from Rubio, who said Trump “refused to give them their money back,” Trump said, “I gave many people their money back.”

Then Trump continued: “We will see who is right at the end of a few years. … Let’s see what happens at the end of three years.”

There are less than five months until the Republican National Convention starts on July 18 and nine months until the 2016 general election. The final pretrial conference is scheduled for May 6.

Fascism, incompetence, and disgrace: Why Bombs and Dollars takes a stand #AgainstTrump

There are many candidates running for president. Anyone make an argument for why one is better than the rest, and Americans will have that chance starting February 1 when Iowa caucuses. But almost all of the candidates who have a shot at winning pass the very basic test of being competent enough to govern. Almost all of them know about the policies, try to understand how to fix the country’s problems, and care to even a minimal degree about being respectable, discussing the issues, and working with all Americans. All but one.

This week the esteemed conservative magazine National Review put out its “Against Trump” issue, and we have heard from the usual suspects at Fox News and in the establishment that we need to “get in line.” “How dare they trash the frontrunner!”

How dare we indeed? Donald Trump has never trashed anyone, after all!

But telling the truth isn’t the same as being a vulgar hot mess who randomly attacks people for no reason or for speaking truth to power. The fact is, Trump is an extraordinarily unqualified, classless, and authoritarian wannabe who could do great damage to the country if elected. As I am an opinion journalist, who writes columns, it is my job to point that out. There is no contradiction between taking a stand and being an opinion journalist—indeed, having and expressing an opinion is what opinion journalists are supposed to do. The best of them took on arrogant and corrupt leaders. George Orwell took up his pen against imperialism, pacifism, and fascism (not to mention his gun in Spain); Hunter S. Thompson took on Nixon in Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ‘72; Chinese intellectuals were persecuted for writing about the mania, violence, and starvation under the Mao’s campaigns and Cultural Revolution; and of course William F. Buckley spent a career making the intellectual argument for conservatism, supporting the spread of individual freedom around the world via anti-Communist foreign policy and at home, including critiquing the narcissism of Trump.

Here we have a candidate who threatens to sue newspapers for reporting on his bankruptcies, who said

Read More

#AgainstTrump

Hello, everyone.

My name is Doug Welch, and many online will know me as Stix or Stix1972.  I  have been involved in conservative politics online for the past 15 years or so for the most part.  Politics has become a tribal warfare between factions of  the cults that follow a certain politician.  It has come down to “Either you like my candidate or you are a RINO.”  UGH.

But it has come time to come out of the woodwork and get behind the NRO’s #AgainstTrump campaign. Trump has taken this primary season to a new low and we must make a stand against his brand of populism and keep it out of the Republican Party.

Trump goes against almost everything the GOP and conservatives hold dear. He is for eminent domain for his own gain.  He is pro-choice. He is for raising taxes. He likes universal healthcare. And the list goes on and one…

 

This does not even go into the vile and crude followers of his on Twitter and Facebook, about whom I will mention in a moment.

Read More

“How Democracies Die”: What it says about Trump

“We’ve engaged him for ourselves. … Within two months, we will have pushed [Hitler] so far into a corner that he’ll squeal.” – Franz von Papen

“He’s an asshole, but he’s our asshole.”Duncan Hunter on Donald Trump

Why does the Republican Party continue to stand behind Trump when his approval rating is at 40 percent, he just bowed down to Putin, and it looks more and more like he is going to cost Republicans their control of the House of Representatives? Why did the Republicans allow him to run in their party’s primary in the first place, and why did they use their party mechanisms to support his candidacy in the general election?

In their book How Democracy Dies, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt point out that demagogues often need the support of legitimate political parties and elites to legitimize them. Hitler was appointed chancellor by president Paul von Hindenburg. Hugo Chavez had charges (stemming from his attempted 1992 coup) dropped by then-president Rafael Caldera in 1994. Caldera didn’t think Chavez would ever win a presidential election and was sadly shocked when he did in 1999.

In 2012, the Republican Party candidates courted Donald Trump’s endorsement. Mitt Romney ultimately accepted it. Romney came out against Trump during the 2016 election.

Read More

On Trump’s meltdown at the G7

On the day the G7 started, Donald Trump was agitating for Russia to be allowed to join the G7/G8, despite the fact that Russia still occupies Ukrainian land and interfered in the American election (and the U.S. has a nominal trade deficit with Russia, an issue Trump makes of G7 members). Then after Trump had already agreed to the G7 joint statement and left the meeting early, he withdrew his agreement in a fit of social media rage after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a statement against Trump’s tariffs.

Initial reactions from B+D Facebook page and Editor:

Korean corruption scandal and Donald Trump

When Korea’s former president Park Geun-hye was in the midst of being impeached over a corruption scandal, in December 2016, “T.K.”, the anonymous blogger behind Ask A Korean, wrote,
“[W]hat we are seeing in Korea now is the future of Trump. Korean politics already had its own Trump, and it is now showing the world what is going to happen next.”

I, too, noticed similarities between Korean politics and American politics while I was in Seoul in February and March, as the Constitutional court was ruling on her impeachment. Park’s supporters attacked the media. “The press = liars. Mass media = murder weapons,” a sign at a rally read. Some even posted signs praising Trump.

Now it’s more than a year since impeachment proceedings against Park began, and look at the news in America:

Financial records reviewed by The New York Times show that Mr. Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime fixer, used the shell company, Essential Consultants L.L.C., for an array of business activities that went far beyond what was publicly known. Transactions adding up to at least $4.4 million flowed through Essential Consultants starting shortly before Mr. Trump was elected president and continuing to this January, the records show.

Firm Tied to Russian Oligarch Made Payments to Michael Cohen
Trump’s lawyer pitched himself as a fixer to Novartis and got paid $1.2 million
AT&T Paid Cohen For Advice On $85 Billion Time Warner Merger
South Korean defense company that paid Trump lawyer Cohen $150,000 is poised to win part of a $16 billion Pentagon deal
AT&T Paid Cohen Up to $600,000 for Trump Insights, Source Says

Wow. What does this sound like?

Media outlets reported that Choi and President Park’s senior staff members, including both Ahn Jong-bum and Jeong Ho-sung, have allegedly used their influence to extort ₩77.4 billion($60 million) from Korean chaebols—family-owned large business conglomerates—and set up two culture- and sports-related foundations, Mir and K-sports foundations.

Choi was found to have had used her presidential connections to pressure conglomerates – including electronics giant Samsung – for millions of dollars in donations to two non-profit foundations she controlled.

BBC

Reuters reports that in 2015, Samsung paid $18 million (£14.8 million) to Core Sports International, a consulting firm owned by — you guessed it — Choi Soon-sil.

Put it this way:
Donald Trump is Park Geun-hye, an incompetent, self-dealing heir of a dynastic family who is surrounded by corrupt loyalists.
Michael Cohen is Choi Soon-sil, a long-time associate of the president who was given way too much access, which he sold for profit.
AT&T and the other companies are Samsung and the rest.

We know what will likely happen next.

State of the Union highlights: Trump’s unpatriotic appropriation of the flag

Donald Trump attacked free speech in his first State of the Union address (and second speech to Congress) on January 30. As usual, he tried to claim the mantle of patriotism by referencing acts and words of others whose values he himself doesn’t appear to share.

In one case, he returned to one of his greatest hits tracks: the national anthem and attacking those NFL players who have been taking a knee to protest.

Preston’s [referring to a 12-year-old boy, Preston Sharp, who put flags in front of veterans’ graves] reverence for those who have served our nation…

It is worth noting here, that reverence for veterans is not something Trump shares with Preston. Trump has diminished the sacrifices of veterans, referring to John McCain as a “loser” for having served something larger than himself, and saying of prisoners of war, “I like people who weren’t captured.”

Trump doesn’t understand why anyone would be an official, because he doesn’t understand serving the public

…reminds us why we salute our flag, why we put our hands on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance, and why we proudly stand for the national anthem.

Context and subtext are inseparable from meaning. That’s why Trump can say, “It’s big enough. Believe me,” and people know what he’s meaning without him saying it directly. Communication would be an impossible task if people didn’t include context and subtext in their analysis of meaning. (And, indeed, Trump’s speechwriters and supporters do so, too, even if they feign otherwise when it suits them.)

In this case, the context is clear. Trump has been attacking Colin Kaepernick and other football players who have been taking a knee to protest, both in support of #BlackLivesMatter and, later, in protest to Trump’s attacks on free speech. Trump lashed out and called for the firing of any player who takes a knee. He has also issued words of support for criminalizing burning the flag with punishments up to loss of citizenship.

In this case, by proclaiming “stand[ing] for the national anthem” as something “we” do, he is saying anyone who does otherwise is deviantly violating the rules and norms of our society. In fact, the vast majority of people already do stand, and it wouldn’t even be an issue in the NFL anymore if Trump hadn’t made it an issue (the number of players kneeling in solidarity increased hugely after his attacks), and anyone who kneels isn’t actually disrespecting veterans or causing any material harm. (The only potential harm they might be causing is offending—or annoying—people who are offended by words and speech, and Trump says he is against political correctness.)

Trump doesn’t have to say he’s specifically attacking those who protest, nor does he need to issue the threat, which he has already made clear in the past, any more than a triad collector needs to spell out what happens if you don’t pay your protection fee.

Of course the Republicans gave Trump a standing ovation for this bit of low brow refuge-seeking.

Even divorcing the words from all context, they are empty drivel not worthy of applause, much less ovation. Any president and any politician and the vast majority spectators do the ceremonial standing at the sound of the anthem. It doesn’t require any sacrifice. It doesn’t help the soldiers injured in Iraq and those still serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere. At best it is a symbolic gesture, and at worst, as in Trump’s State of the Union, it is a manipulative appropriation of a symbol of patriotism used to prop up a man who values the flag only for what political value it might bring him.

Feature photo by Shealah Craighead, official White House photographer. Public domain.

Responding to Daniel Kim: What he gets wrong about Trump and immigration

This past month and a half, Bombs + Dollars has published an immigration-related argument by our Korea analyst Daniel Kim. The topic of immigration has been in the news since Donald Trump referred to some countries as “shitholes” and called for cutting down on immigration in a meeting with senators. I have discussed my views with Kim and now join the discussion in a response piece.

I find myself sympathetic to Kim’s argument that it should be made easier for foreign students to stay and work in America after graduating and for qualified foreigners in general to be able to obtain work visas in the United States. Unfortunately, those positions run exactly counter to the narrative and policies put forth by the Trump administration. Kim’s biggest mistake, in my view, is mischaracterizing the Trump position to be more pro-immigration than it actually is.

Kim starts his article by telling us, “Trump has been called an ‘anti-immigrant’ extremist, but I’m telling you, as a Korean aspiring to immigrate to the United States, that is simply not true.” He simply wants to change America to a completely merit-based system that tries to attract talent with high levels of education and skills. There are valid arguments for and against such a system.

First and foremost, however, I believe this interpretation of Trump’s and the Republican Party’s position is misleading, or at least incomplete. The bill that Republican Senator Tom Cotton introduced and that Trump supports, the “Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act”, would not only introduce a points-based system (at a time when there is already a system in place for employers to sponsor those immigrants who possess necessary skills for their jobs), it would also cut the number of green cards in half. And it would require that applicants for immigration calculate the points their spouse would score, despite the fact that the person immigrating would already have to have a job that pays well more than enough to take care of a family. At the same time, it would cut refugee admissions and cap them at 50,000, end the visa diversity lottery, and make it harder for extended family members to immigrate.

Taken as a whole, the Cotton immigration bill is a restrictionist measure. Even if one agreed with changing the criteria for acceptance of immigrants, this bill does much more than that. In fact, the Cotton bill would decrease the number of spots open for skilled immigrants. It would cut the number of H-1B visas by 500,000.

The bill and the rhetoric surrounding it is nothing more than a push to cut legal immigration while dressing it up in innocuous language. For all the talk from the anti-immigration right about enforcing America’s immigration laws, they actually want to change the laws themselves, to restrict the flow of immigration. They are not just opposed to illegal immigration but to legal immigration, too. Trump had in fact called on the campaign trail for an indefinite end to all green cards.

Kim talked about how hard it is for companies to hire qualified workers who happen to be of different nationalities. Trump wants to make it harder. He has campaigned for a “hire Americans” policy and pushed it in his inaugural address, too. He proposed raising the prevailing wage for workers to qualify for H-1B visas, making it more expensive and burdensome to hire them. In fact, the NY Times reports that even without any new immigration measures having been passed by Congress, issuance of work visas has slowed down and hit road blocks, suggesting a possible administrative push by the Trump administration to decrease immigration.

So Kim might be right about making it easier for foreign nationals to work in America, but he’s assuredly not right that Trump or Trump’s policies would help with that. Just the opposite.

One note, also, about Kim’s opposition to any kind of amnesty or in-state tuition measures for illegal immigrants: The amnesty plans and in-state tuition plans all have some kinds of merit-based qualifications attached. For example, in Texas, illegal immigrants must have resided in Texas for attended at least 3 years of high school in Texas (so it’s not like they have no connection to the state), same as in Colorado, California, New Jersey, Nebraska, Maryland, Minnesota, and Illinois. Most of these people are going to be living in America for the rest of their lives—even Trump doesn’t have the political capital nor ability to deport 12 million people—so wouldn’t it be better for America to encourage those who would be in America to get an education and become legalized?

Maybe it is a question about fairness versus pragmatism.

Just a reminder: Trump is unhinged

Donald Trump went off on another gibberish-filled rant at 5 am EST today, as he does most days. I would like to say this is “bad even by Trump’s standards,” but that would be a cliche and not true. His ordinary level of discourse is extremely coarse.

But that doesn’t mean we should ignore reality just because some of the press that covers Trump wants us to define down deviancy. If you saw this message and didn’t know who wrote it, you would think that person was an extremely thin-skinned, ill-tempered, vain man with no self-control.

He doesn’t respond to the charges. He doesn’t sound original or unaffected. His message contains precisely no useful information to reflect poorly on his presumed target (and no truthful information whatsoever). The only person who would be moved to support the message is someone who values the power of emotional charisma, the low-brow “dominance” politics of a tyrant, and “loyalty” to a political leader.

Trump’s attacks on the foundational tenets of republican democracy are important. The health of our republican form of democracy is not trivial. The American system is based on rational-legal authority. Revolutionary systems like fascism and communism are often based on the charismatic authority of a Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Chavez or Duterte. The megalomaniac in charge asserts someone hasn’t been “loyal” to him personally, and that is taken as a criticism–and grounds to rise up in fury–by the leader’s cultish followers.

Trump’s purposeful divide strategy is contributing to the biggest partisan division Pew has found on record. The president attacking the legitimacy of his political opponents–who make up a majority of the country–and acting in a manner undignified of his office, or of anyone speaking in society, really, is a recipe for creating social strife.

Read More

Page 1 of 15

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Get the most important and interesting articles right at your inbox. Sign up for B+D periodic emails.