Trump said yesterday that he does not know if he has to honor the Constitution. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exp...d-duty-uphold-constitution/story?id=121473077 He allows no restraints on his terrible behavior.
President Trump
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
In fairness, I don't know if he has to honor the Constitution either. I strongly suspect he's already done unconstitutional things, but then, I don't think he's the first President to do that either.
He swore to do so, so, yes, he has to uphold the Constitution. It literally, is his job.
Scott
Verified User
Do you think he's done so up until this point?
Scott
Verified User
A bit of good news...
www.dropsitenews.com
U.S. and Houthis reach truce—How it came together
The Trump administration and the ruling government in Yemen, known as Ansar Allah or the Houthis, reached a ceasefire agreement today.
www.dropsitenews.com
It could have been a lot worse with the lawfare thrown at him. Under the circumstances I think he's done admirably.
Scott
Verified User
So, my question with Phantasm was if Trump had upheld the Constituion up until this point. Were you answering that question?
Scott
Verified User
Substacker Mark Miller just published a good article today. It can be seen here:
markcrispinmiller.substack.com
I'm not a paid subscriber, so I can only see the first part, but it's more than enough in my view. Quoting most of said first part below:
**
May 08, 2025
Those aren’t the only issues that the left, as I remember it, addressed, before its infiltration and subversion by the state, mainly via the CIA and FBI (dirty trickery that started in the Sixties, both to divide and depoliticize the left). However, the catalogue above includes the major issues that defined the left—until things changed radically (as it were), so that the left became “the left,” a vast “woke” mob that, for all its incoherent preaching about race-and-gender, was a Bizarro version of the right, c. 1952. Aside from the deep impact of cell phones and the Internet, what thus transformed the left into its opposite was mainly the unlikely-seeming rise of Donald Trump, and then the demonic global spectre of “the virus”—a double whammy that has made “the left” pro-war, especially toward Russia, with a fierce commitment to the Nazi legions in Ukraine; belligerently “triggered” by free speech and free assembly (for anyone except themselves), and therefore hot for censorship, online and off-, with all contrary views reviled as “hate speech” and/or “misinformation”; virulent abhorrence of the working class (except its blocs of “color”), who, “the left” believes, don’t deserve due process, habeas corpus or the right to earn a living; a new belief in segregation—of blacks on campus (a consequence of Critical Race Theory). and of the “unvaccinated” (Noam Chomsky urging that they all be locked up somewhere, with or without food); a weird contempt for women’s rights, in favor of the new misogyny promoted by transgenderism; a cringing reverence for Big Pharma, and (unbelievably) absolute trust in the CIA and FBI; and a lunatic rejection of environmentalism, with its emphasis on cleansing our air, water, soil and food, in favor of the groundless and impossible objective of eliminating CO2.
Those few of us who still believe in the (real) left’s passé agenda started noticing the shift decades ago. (I myself began to doubt the left’s reliability way back in the Nineties, when I became an activist against the corporate concentration of the media, and discovered that the left could not care less about that issue; and then the same thing happened under Bush the Younger, when I shifted my attention to reform of our abysmal voting system, for which the left attacked me and my few allies.) However, it was not til 2020 that the left became “the left”—shock troops for Big Pharma (rather like ACT UP in the Eighties). Since then, it has been all too clear that there was almost no left left, since it was now suddenly the right that was resisting censorship, gathering in defense of free assembly and against the state-and-corporate juggernaut of “COVID measures,” suffering persecution, federal detention and impoverishment for their dissent and/or religion, opposing war with Russia, questioning the narratives disgorged by “our free press” (unintimidated by dismissal as “conspiracy theorists), defending girls’ and women’s rights against harassment, and displacement, by trans activists, and rightly skeptical toward the apocalyptic hooey of “climate change.”
Thus those who had formerly “identified” as being on the left were now “politically marooned” (to quote Del Bigtree), and, primarily because of COVID, gravitated toward the libertarian and Christian right, whose sanest members were as capable of civil conversation as “the left” were prone to foaming at the mouth if you should question any of their pieties. This sea-change has been vividly exemplified by Tucker Carlson’s taking Amy Goodman’s place as a trustworthy oracle (although, in fact, she wasn’t)—a shift that’s been especially disorienting for myself, since, back in the day, I found Carlson’s strict adherence to his party’s line (and preppy smirk) obnoxious, while I appeared on Amy Goodman’s show some half a dozen times, was on good terms with Michael Moore, got along with Chomsky, and otherwise misjudged the idols of the left. Another sign of the times: Goodman, Moore and Chomsky, and their followers, all jeered 9/11 Truth, turned a blind eye to the Kennedy assassinations, and, more recently, stridently condemned the protesters on “January 6,” celebrating their fascistic punishment; while it’s been Carlson—along with punching-bags like Alex Jones and Joe Rogan—who has given us invaluable truths about such pivotal catastrophes. (Carlson isn’t smirking anymore.)
While it was “COVID” that mainly drove the right’s resistance, their stance was also based, of course, on their fierce faith in Trump, especially since the “liberals” and “progressives” who dumped endlessly on him dumped almost as heavily on all the “Nazis” cheering him. (Trump is no less dangerous than “Trumpism,” Chomsky proclaimed last year, meaning the majority of the electorate—i.e., the working class.) And now that Trump is “back”—and acting largely as you would expect him to, what with his thin skin and feral court, the incessant vitriol drenching him since he first ran for president, and the sketchy “lawfare” used to drive him out—the right seems far less righteous than they did as underdogs, scorned and persecuted by “Joe Biden” and the government-and-media that (barely) propped him up. (None of “the resistance” ever took the high road against Trump: indeed, by ceaselessly and often crudely mocking him, they were not opposing him so much as emulating him.) Now that their leader is in power again, his staunchest fans support his every move as zealously as his attackers raged at everything he ever said or did, even though Trump’s moves appear increasingly to be insane.
What Trump has done, in short, is build on rational and even necessary policies—deporting foreign criminals, pushing back on DEI, protecting kids from mutilation, saving taxpayers money—to go hog-wild across the board, and without clearly saying why; Trump’s rampage seems intended mainly to project himself as mean and tough (as well as infallible), and to encourage the same bully posture in his “base.” In other words, he almost always doubles down—just like his attackers, who are now reacting to his provocations even more hysterically than they did when he first ran, and throughout his first term, and even afterward; and, far from trying to bridge the gap, his “critics” (if we can so dignify their virulence) savage anyone who dares even talk to him, as opposed to screaming at him, as we’ve seen lately with Bill Maher.
**
No longer underdogs, Trump's hardcore base should NOT act like their enemies (and neither should those enemies)
We ALL should try to take the high road (inconceivable though that may be), and join forces to bring down our REAL enemies, who are really neither left nor right, but sway them both, from high above
markcrispinmiller.substack.com
I'm not a paid subscriber, so I can only see the first part, but it's more than enough in my view. Quoting most of said first part below:
**
No longer underdogs, Trump's hardcore base should NOT act like their enemies (and neither should those enemies)
We ALL should try to take the high road (inconceivable though that may be), and join forces to bring down our REAL enemies, who are really neither left nor right, but sway them both, from high aboveMay 08, 2025
Trump and his enemies
When the world went nuts five years ago—empty hospitals hysterically reported to be “overrun”; drivers wearing masks, with no-one else in the car; sheets of plexiglass “protecting”cashiers from their customers (and vice versa); priests using squirt-guns to baptize infants; any and all gatherings forbidden as “super-spreader events,” although no law proscribed them, and so on—there was, on top of all that madness (and as many people know), a dizzying political reversal all throughout the West, as the left that, back in the day, was staunchly anti-war (above all against the war on Vietnam, but all wars, and the agencies and interests that promoted them); pro-integration; committed to free speech for all, along with free assembly (even for Nazis); for workers’ rights across the board, against the growing might of corporate power; against “free trade”; for women’s rights, and, latterly, gay rights; and dedicated to the cleansing and safeguarding of “the environment,” as it was now imprecisely called: i.e., concerned about industrial pollution of the air and soil and water, and the chemical adulteration of our food.Those aren’t the only issues that the left, as I remember it, addressed, before its infiltration and subversion by the state, mainly via the CIA and FBI (dirty trickery that started in the Sixties, both to divide and depoliticize the left). However, the catalogue above includes the major issues that defined the left—until things changed radically (as it were), so that the left became “the left,” a vast “woke” mob that, for all its incoherent preaching about race-and-gender, was a Bizarro version of the right, c. 1952. Aside from the deep impact of cell phones and the Internet, what thus transformed the left into its opposite was mainly the unlikely-seeming rise of Donald Trump, and then the demonic global spectre of “the virus”—a double whammy that has made “the left” pro-war, especially toward Russia, with a fierce commitment to the Nazi legions in Ukraine; belligerently “triggered” by free speech and free assembly (for anyone except themselves), and therefore hot for censorship, online and off-, with all contrary views reviled as “hate speech” and/or “misinformation”; virulent abhorrence of the working class (except its blocs of “color”), who, “the left” believes, don’t deserve due process, habeas corpus or the right to earn a living; a new belief in segregation—of blacks on campus (a consequence of Critical Race Theory). and of the “unvaccinated” (Noam Chomsky urging that they all be locked up somewhere, with or without food); a weird contempt for women’s rights, in favor of the new misogyny promoted by transgenderism; a cringing reverence for Big Pharma, and (unbelievably) absolute trust in the CIA and FBI; and a lunatic rejection of environmentalism, with its emphasis on cleansing our air, water, soil and food, in favor of the groundless and impossible objective of eliminating CO2.
Those few of us who still believe in the (real) left’s passé agenda started noticing the shift decades ago. (I myself began to doubt the left’s reliability way back in the Nineties, when I became an activist against the corporate concentration of the media, and discovered that the left could not care less about that issue; and then the same thing happened under Bush the Younger, when I shifted my attention to reform of our abysmal voting system, for which the left attacked me and my few allies.) However, it was not til 2020 that the left became “the left”—shock troops for Big Pharma (rather like ACT UP in the Eighties). Since then, it has been all too clear that there was almost no left left, since it was now suddenly the right that was resisting censorship, gathering in defense of free assembly and against the state-and-corporate juggernaut of “COVID measures,” suffering persecution, federal detention and impoverishment for their dissent and/or religion, opposing war with Russia, questioning the narratives disgorged by “our free press” (unintimidated by dismissal as “conspiracy theorists), defending girls’ and women’s rights against harassment, and displacement, by trans activists, and rightly skeptical toward the apocalyptic hooey of “climate change.”
Thus those who had formerly “identified” as being on the left were now “politically marooned” (to quote Del Bigtree), and, primarily because of COVID, gravitated toward the libertarian and Christian right, whose sanest members were as capable of civil conversation as “the left” were prone to foaming at the mouth if you should question any of their pieties. This sea-change has been vividly exemplified by Tucker Carlson’s taking Amy Goodman’s place as a trustworthy oracle (although, in fact, she wasn’t)—a shift that’s been especially disorienting for myself, since, back in the day, I found Carlson’s strict adherence to his party’s line (and preppy smirk) obnoxious, while I appeared on Amy Goodman’s show some half a dozen times, was on good terms with Michael Moore, got along with Chomsky, and otherwise misjudged the idols of the left. Another sign of the times: Goodman, Moore and Chomsky, and their followers, all jeered 9/11 Truth, turned a blind eye to the Kennedy assassinations, and, more recently, stridently condemned the protesters on “January 6,” celebrating their fascistic punishment; while it’s been Carlson—along with punching-bags like Alex Jones and Joe Rogan—who has given us invaluable truths about such pivotal catastrophes. (Carlson isn’t smirking anymore.)
While it was “COVID” that mainly drove the right’s resistance, their stance was also based, of course, on their fierce faith in Trump, especially since the “liberals” and “progressives” who dumped endlessly on him dumped almost as heavily on all the “Nazis” cheering him. (Trump is no less dangerous than “Trumpism,” Chomsky proclaimed last year, meaning the majority of the electorate—i.e., the working class.) And now that Trump is “back”—and acting largely as you would expect him to, what with his thin skin and feral court, the incessant vitriol drenching him since he first ran for president, and the sketchy “lawfare” used to drive him out—the right seems far less righteous than they did as underdogs, scorned and persecuted by “Joe Biden” and the government-and-media that (barely) propped him up. (None of “the resistance” ever took the high road against Trump: indeed, by ceaselessly and often crudely mocking him, they were not opposing him so much as emulating him.) Now that their leader is in power again, his staunchest fans support his every move as zealously as his attackers raged at everything he ever said or did, even though Trump’s moves appear increasingly to be insane.
'He's gone': Attorney 'shocked' after Trump admin 'disappeared' delivery worker (April 22, 2025) (source: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/worl...admin-disappeared-delivery-worker/ar-AA1Dpwnm(
And thus Trump’s (and, until recently, Elon Musk’s) attempts to cut “wasteful” federal funding have included cutting back on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that Trump and Musk will surely never need, but that keep countless Americans alive. And thus Trump’s stand against transgender “healthcare” for children has entailed the targeting of trans adults. And thus, in spite of his apparent preference not to go to outright war, and his assurances that he can always “make a deal” to end hostilities, his (weakening?) support for Netanyahu’s ongoing massacre in Gaza maintains Biden/Harris/Clinton’s bloody policy, as does the attack on Yemen (the second-poorest country in the Middle East and North Africa). And thus, intent on payback as he is, Trump is blowing off the Supreme Court, and going after judges whose rulings have annoyed him. And thus he has imposed whopping tariffs to revitalize domestic manufacturing, regardless of its economic impact on real people, and without much bothering to explain their rationale. (Now Trump has imposed a tariff of 100% on movies made abroad.) And so on—especially including federal harassment and economic clout against protesters, and the schools that respect, or did respect, the latters’ First Amendment rights.What Trump has done, in short, is build on rational and even necessary policies—deporting foreign criminals, pushing back on DEI, protecting kids from mutilation, saving taxpayers money—to go hog-wild across the board, and without clearly saying why; Trump’s rampage seems intended mainly to project himself as mean and tough (as well as infallible), and to encourage the same bully posture in his “base.” In other words, he almost always doubles down—just like his attackers, who are now reacting to his provocations even more hysterically than they did when he first ran, and throughout his first term, and even afterward; and, far from trying to bridge the gap, his “critics” (if we can so dignify their virulence) savage anyone who dares even talk to him, as opposed to screaming at him, as we’ve seen lately with Bill Maher.
**
Yakuda
Verified User
I don't see where it's trumps job to bring peace to Ukraine and Russia. We are nI thought it might be a good idea to make a thread on President Trump, seeing as how I definitely think he's a subject that's worth talking about, being the President of the United States. People here certainly found a previous thread I made on something Trump had done here to be interesting, so I know that there is potential in a thread that covers Trump in general.
As some here know, I'm not a fan. That being said, I had had hopes that he could help facilitate a peace deal in Ukraine. At this point, I just hope he continues to not escalate that war and I think that hope is justified. I just read an article about him from Michael Brenner, which I thought was quite good. It can be seen here:
Michael Brenner: Core Trump
“For the U.S. president, the truth has no claim” — Michael Brenner scrutinizes the effects of Trump’s behavior on foreign policy over the past 100-plus days.scheerpost.com
From the article, this is the desription given of Michael Brenner:
**
Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (The Politics of International Monetary Reform), and the Brookings Institution (Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era).
**
I don't agree with everything Mr. Brenner has to say in his article, specifically his views on Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, a man who some here know I admire for the most part. He only dedicates a single sentence to the Kennedy, however, without even mentioning his name, whereas I think that much of the rest of what he says may well be true. With that said, quoting from the introduction and conclusion of his article below:
**
So, President Donald Trump’s heralded intervention to bring resolution to the Ukraine conflict has fallen flat. Rejected by Russia, by the EU states, by Kiev. An unprecedented trifecta of failed foreign policy.
His contrived scheme designed to skirt the core issues and interests at stake was a non-starter from Day One. That should have been obvious. There was no serious thinking in the White House that might produce a coherent diplomatic strategy.
There manifestly was no understanding of Moscow’s position rooted in post-Cold history and events since the U.S.-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 — nor of the intransigence among the ultra-nationalists who pull Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s strings.
Instead, what we got was vintage Trump. An impulsive reaching for a quick triumph to punctuate his brilliance as a statesman. The fixing of an objective without a thought-out plan how to achieve it.
A reliance on bullying, intimidation and underhanded dealing — the hallmark of his entire career; its apparent successes rooted in corruption, cronyism, and criminality — facilitated by the deference of other parties who lacked his ruthless cold-bloodedness. In his record of failures, as testified by six bankruptcies, he contrived to stiff his partners and creditors in each instance.
Against this background, his ability to cast himself as a winner owes more to the perversity of contemporary American society that invites chicanery than to any genius on his part.
On Ukraine/Russia Trump was grandstanding. There is an element of self-promotion in everything that he does publicly. The idea of being celebrated as a great peacemaker captured his imagination — not because he had any concern about the destruction and human cost or Europe’s long-term stability.
Admittedly, he also seemed to have been sold on the fashionable notion that the U.S. should mute its confrontation with Russia so as to be in a position to concentrate all our resources for the titanic struggle with China. The role of warrior-in-chief potentially could be just as appealing as that of peacemaker.
In fact, he had it both ways for a while: a Nobel Prize candidate for mediating in Ukraine; laurels from Israel’s American legions for reinforcing Washington’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide. What counts for Trump is the limelight and the exaltation.
So, he fixates on the one step that could stop the Ukraine fighting quickly — a ceasefire. None of the necessary and suitable preconditions exist; it amounts to calling a timeout of indeterminate length in a war that the other side is winning.
Yet, for three months that is the centerpiece around which everything pivots — futile proposals hatched by Trump’s virally anti-Russian advisers that only a fantasist images could lead to a settlement of the conflict.
The package presented to the Kremlin on a take-it-or-leave-it basis included such zany ideas as the U.S. taking over the critical Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station now under Russian control. This from a government that relentlessly for the past decade has pulled out all stops in its campaign to isolate and undermine the Russian state.
[snip]
So, Donald Trump is repositioning his foreign-policy people. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is exiled to the United Nations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio becomes interim national security adviser – warming the seat until Steven Witkoff has completed his failed special-envoy missions in Moscow and the Middle East and available to take over.
In a normal government, led by a normal person, such a move so early in an administration would be seen as having considerable practical significance. It might reflect the outcome of a dispute fueled by serious policy differences. It might impend important changes in the structure and process of decision-making. Neither is likely in this instance.
There is no organized process for setting foreign-policy objectives, for choosing among strategies, for formulating the appropriate diplomacy. Structured, orderly deliberation is absent and alien. Decisions are made by Trump on an ad hoc basis. He listens at random to advice from the principal officeholders, from his White House entourage, from golf pals, from FOX TV personalities. From whomever.
The appointment of the hapless numbskull Pete Hegseth to head the Pentagon happened because Trump relished the crude inanities that he uttered at FOX. (During Trump’s first term, he habitually chatted late in the night with Sean Hannity about what the latter had broadcast in that evening’s segment).
Whatever impresses him he adopts — even if the ideas are contradictory or ephemeral. Hence, the changeability of what he tweets or says from day-to-day — re. Zelensky, Putin, Ukraine in or out of NATO, grabbing Greenland/Panama/Canada, trade negotiations with China versus new sanctions, negotiations with Iran vs Trump fatwa forbidding anyone in the world from buying its oil. All of this is transparent and repetitious. Yet, elided by the media and most commentators.
Frankly, there is a case to be made that the psychology of Trump’s unhinged behavior is less of an analytical challenge than is the behavior of all those analysts who insist on normalizing it by ascribing to Trump’s words and actions design and coherent strategy that simply do not exist.
**
concerned observers no doubt but do we really need to involve ourselves in more conflicts? What's happening in this country is a far greater priority to me. There has been so..much corruption at the top levels of this country we have no business telling other countries what they should or shouldn't do. Sadly trump is a polarizing character and this is just another distraction by people at one of the poles.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Trump will go down in history as the worst President in the 21st century if not at of all time. He's a presidential example of a bull in a China shop who claims he's simply cleaning up the place.I thought it might be a good idea to make a thread on President Trump, seeing as how I definitely think he's a subject that's worth talking about, being the President of the United States. People here certainly found a previous thread I made on something Trump had done here to be interesting, so I know that there is potential in a thread that covers Trump in general.
As some here know, I'm not a fan. That being said, I had had hopes that he could help facilitate a peace deal in Ukraine. At this point, I just hope he continues to not escalate that war and I think that hope is justified. I just read an article about him from Michael Brenner, which I thought was quite good. It can be seen here:
Michael Brenner: Core Trump
“For the U.S. president, the truth has no claim” — Michael Brenner scrutinizes the effects of Trump’s behavior on foreign policy over the past 100-plus days.
From the article, this is the desription given of Michael Brenner:
**
Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (The Politics of International Monetary Reform), and the Brookings Institution (Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era).
**
I don't agree with everything Mr. Brenner has to say in his article, specifically his views on Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, a man who some here know I admire for the most part. He only dedicates a single sentence to the Kennedy, however, without even mentioning his name, whereas I think that much of the rest of what he says may well be true. With that said, quoting from the introduction and conclusion of his article below:
**
So, President Donald Trump’s heralded intervention to bring resolution to the Ukraine conflict has fallen flat. Rejected by Russia, by the EU states, by Kiev. An unprecedented trifecta of failed foreign policy.
His contrived scheme designed to skirt the core issues and interests at stake was a non-starter from Day One. That should have been obvious. There was no serious thinking in the White House that might produce a coherent diplomatic strategy.
There manifestly was no understanding of Moscow’s position rooted in post-Cold history and events since the U.S.-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 — nor of the intransigence among the ultra-nationalists who pull Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s strings.
Instead, what we got was vintage Trump. An impulsive reaching for a quick triumph to punctuate his brilliance as a statesman. The fixing of an objective without a thought-out plan how to achieve it.
A reliance on bullying, intimidation and underhanded dealing — the hallmark of his entire career; its apparent successes rooted in corruption, cronyism, and criminality — facilitated by the deference of other parties who lacked his ruthless cold-bloodedness. In his record of failures, as testified by six bankruptcies, he contrived to stiff his partners and creditors in each instance.
Against this background, his ability to cast himself as a winner owes more to the perversity of contemporary American society that invites chicanery than to any genius on his part.
On Ukraine/Russia Trump was grandstanding. There is an element of self-promotion in everything that he does publicly. The idea of being celebrated as a great peacemaker captured his imagination — not because he had any concern about the destruction and human cost or Europe’s long-term stability.
Admittedly, he also seemed to have been sold on the fashionable notion that the U.S. should mute its confrontation with Russia so as to be in a position to concentrate all our resources for the titanic struggle with China. The role of warrior-in-chief potentially could be just as appealing as that of peacemaker.
In fact, he had it both ways for a while: a Nobel Prize candidate for mediating in Ukraine; laurels from Israel’s American legions for reinforcing Washington’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide. What counts for Trump is the limelight and the exaltation.
So, he fixates on the one step that could stop the Ukraine fighting quickly — a ceasefire. None of the necessary and suitable preconditions exist; it amounts to calling a timeout of indeterminate length in a war that the other side is winning.
Yet, for three months that is the centerpiece around which everything pivots — futile proposals hatched by Trump’s virally anti-Russian advisers that only a fantasist images could lead to a settlement of the conflict.
The package presented to the Kremlin on a take-it-or-leave-it basis included such zany ideas as the U.S. taking over the critical Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station now under Russian control. This from a government that relentlessly for the past decade has pulled out all stops in its campaign to isolate and undermine the Russian state.
[snip]
So, Donald Trump is repositioning his foreign-policy people. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is exiled to the United Nations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio becomes interim national security adviser – warming the seat until Steven Witkoff has completed his failed special-envoy missions in Moscow and the Middle East and available to take over.
In a normal government, led by a normal person, such a move so early in an administration would be seen as having considerable practical significance. It might reflect the outcome of a dispute fueled by serious policy differences. It might impend important changes in the structure and process of decision-making. Neither is likely in this instance.
There is no organized process for setting foreign-policy objectives, for choosing among strategies, for formulating the appropriate diplomacy. Structured, orderly deliberation is absent and alien. Decisions are made by Trump on an ad hoc basis. He listens at random to advice from the principal officeholders, from his White House entourage, from golf pals, from FOX TV personalities. From whomever.
The appointment of the hapless numbskull Pete Hegseth to head the Pentagon happened because Trump relished the crude inanities that he uttered at FOX. (During Trump’s first term, he habitually chatted late in the night with Sean Hannity about what the latter had broadcast in that evening’s segment).
Whatever impresses him he adopts — even if the ideas are contradictory or ephemeral. Hence, the changeability of what he tweets or says from day-to-day — re. Zelensky, Putin, Ukraine in or out of NATO, grabbing Greenland/Panama/Canada, trade negotiations with China versus new sanctions, negotiations with Iran vs Trump fatwa forbidding anyone in the world from buying its oil. All of this is transparent and repetitious. Yet, elided by the media and most commentators.
Frankly, there is a case to be made that the psychology of Trump’s unhinged behavior is less of an analytical challenge than is the behavior of all those analysts who insist on normalizing it by ascribing to Trump’s words and actions design and coherent strategy that simply do not exist.
**
Scott
Verified User
If Trump were to truly leave the conflict in Ukraine, forgoing any further efforts at trying to find a peaceful resolution to it, I would certainly applaud him for that alone. However, that's not what's actually happening. I just read an article from Paul Craig Roberts that gets into this:
Are the Peace Deals Real? |
www.paulcraigroberts.org
I have my doubts on certain parts- for instance, I've seen no indication that Putin isn't fighting the war in Ukraine to win it. I -can- believe that he is hoping that this war can result in some negotiations that result in a new security framework in Europe. He also says some things that I definitely agree with. I'll quote most of it below, since it's rather short:
Quoting from it:
**
Some Russian journalists, such as the astute Ekaterina Blinova, are wondering about the reality of the Ukraine “peace negotiations.” Trump’s promised peace in 24 hours has been replaced with Trump sending more weapons to Ukraine and more threats to the Kremlin. Journalist Blinova notes that two US Patriot air defense systems, one from Israel, are on the way to Ukraine along with US $310 million for support of the US F-16s sent to Ukraine, and another $50 million in arms. How, Blinova asks, is this in support of peace negotiations? Isn’t it instead encouragement to Zelensky to continue the conflict? https://sputnikglobe.com/20250505/is-trump-selling-out-to-zelensky-and-neocons-1121984537.html
In this way Blinova raises the question whether Trump’s “peace negotiations” are intended to fail so that war can continue.
Previously, Blinova had raised the question: “Did US Deep State Allow Trump to Win?” https://sputnikglobe.com/20241112/did-us-deep-state-allow-trump-to-win-1120861699.html
Blinova noted that the institutionalized American establishment preferred Trump to Kamala, because Trump has the pro-American image, unlike Kamala, and Trump can marshal support for America’s profitable wars for hegemony. Blinova wrote:
“Some commentators presume that the US establishment sees Trump and his popularity as a convenient vehicle for new overseas campaigns as part of his efforts to ‘make America great again’. Patriots often think of greatness in terms of military dominance, they say.”
One doesn’t get this kind of reality analysis in the American or Western media where the presstitutes conform to the official narrative.
My question is whether Russian journalists, such as Ekaterina Blinova, can succeed in penetrating the Kremlin’s consciousness where to be included in the Western world sometimes seems to be a greater achievement than the defense of Russian sovereignty.
For more than three years Putin has steadfastly refused to fight a war in order to win it. I have suggested that he hoped to use the war for negotiations that would deliver his goal of a new Yalta, a mutual understanding with the West. I have said that, if this is Putin’s goal, it is a delusion that ignores Washington’s doctrine of hegemony.
If Putin has such a fixed idea, it will serve him and Russia badly. Perhaps Putin should listen to Russian journalists instead of to his advisors.
**
Yakuda
Verified User
Putin is no different than any other leader they seek power. That by itself is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me is what they do with the power once they have it. Putin will do what he does Im more concerned about what trump does with the power he has. If we are strong I'm less concerned about what Putin does.If Trump were to truly leave the conflict in Ukraine, forgoing any further efforts at trying to find a peaceful resolution to it, I would certainly applaud him for that alone. However, that's not what's actually happening. I just read an article from Paul Craig Roberts that gets into this:
Are the Peace Deals Real? |
I have my doubts on certain parts- for instance, I've seen no indication that Putin isn't fighting the war in Ukraine to win it. However, there are other things that I definitely agree with. I'll quote most of it below, since it's rather short:
Quoting from it:
**
Some Russian journalists, such as the astute Ekaterina Blinova, are wondering about the reality of the Ukraine “peace negotiations.” Trump’s promised peace in 24 hours has been replaced with Trump sending more weapons to Ukraine and more threats to the Kremlin. Journalist Blinova notes that two US Patriot air defense systems, one from Israel, are on the way to Ukraine along with US $310 million for support of the US F-16s sent to Ukraine, and another $50 million in arms. How, Blinova asks, is this in support of peace negotiations? Isn’t it instead encouragement to Zelensky to continue the conflict? https://sputnikglobe.com/20250505/is-trump-selling-out-to-zelensky-and-neocons-1121984537.html
In this way Blinova raises the question whether Trump’s “peace negotiations” are intended to fail so that war can continue.
Previously, Blinova had raised the question: “Did US Deep State Allow Trump to Win?” https://sputnikglobe.com/20241112/did-us-deep-state-allow-trump-to-win-1120861699.html
Blinova noted that the institutionalized American establishment preferred Trump to Kamala, because Trump has the pro-American image, unlike Kamala, and Trump can marshal support for America’s profitable wars for hegemony. Blinova wrote:
“Some commentators presume that the US establishment sees Trump and his popularity as a convenient vehicle for new overseas campaigns as part of his efforts to ‘make America great again’. Patriots often think of greatness in terms of military dominance, they say.”
One doesn’t get this kind of reality analysis in the American or Western media where the presstitutes conform to the official narrative.
My question is whether Russian journalists, such as Ekaterina Blinova, can succeed in penetrating the Kremlin’s consciousness where to be included in the Western world sometimes seems to be a greater achievement than the defense of Russian sovereignty.
For more than three years Putin has steadfastly refused to fight a war in order to win it. I have suggested that he hoped to use the war for negotiations that would deliver his goal of a new Yalta, a mutual understanding with the West. I have said that, if this is Putin’s goal, it is a delusion that ignores Washington’s doctrine of hegemony.
If Putin has such a fixed idea, it will serve him and Russia badly. Perhaps Putin should listen to Russian journalists instead of to his advisors.
**
Scott
Verified User
It seems to me that what you'd -like- is for Trump to leave the Ukraine war to Russia and the Europeans. As I've said, I would applaud him if he were to actually do this. The problem is, he's not doing this- as the article I quoted shows, it looks like various forces have persuaded Trump to start ramping up support for western Ukraine's war. At this point, I'm just -hoping- that he doesn't escalate things to the point that Biden did.
Yakuda
Verified User
I can't control what trump does I can only restate that I don't think we should be involved. I want trump to focus more on America than Russia/Ukraine but most presidents do lots of things I dont like. I just try to vote for the one I think will do the most good for America.
Scott
Verified User
I suspect you'll like this skit from comedian John Mulaney. Perhaps you've already seen it and it actually inspired your second sentence
...
Stupid essay filled with TDS that ignores the failure of the previous president and now wants to blame Trump if the idiots killing each other don't want peace.I thought it might be a good idea to make a thread on President Trump, seeing as how I definitely think he's a subject that's worth talking about, being the President of the United States. People here certainly found a previous thread I made on something Trump had done here to be interesting, so I know that there is potential in a thread that covers Trump in general.
As some here know, I'm not a fan. That being said, I had had hopes that he could help facilitate a peace deal in Ukraine. At this point, I just hope he continues to not escalate that war and I think that hope is justified. I just read an article about him from Michael Brenner, which I thought was quite good. It can be seen here:
Michael Brenner: Core Trump
“For the U.S. president, the truth has no claim” — Michael Brenner scrutinizes the effects of Trump’s behavior on foreign policy over the past 100-plus days.
From the article, this is the desription given of Michael Brenner:
**
Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (The Politics of International Monetary Reform), and the Brookings Institution (Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era).
**
I don't agree with everything Mr. Brenner has to say in his article, specifically his views on Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, a man who some here know I admire for the most part. He only dedicates a single sentence to the Kennedy, however, without even mentioning his name, whereas I think that much of the rest of what he says may well be true. With that said, quoting from the introduction and conclusion of his article below:
**
So, President Donald Trump’s heralded intervention to bring resolution to the Ukraine conflict has fallen flat. Rejected by Russia, by the EU states, by Kiev. An unprecedented trifecta of failed foreign policy.
His contrived scheme designed to skirt the core issues and interests at stake was a non-starter from Day One. That should have been obvious. There was no serious thinking in the White House that might produce a coherent diplomatic strategy.
There manifestly was no understanding of Moscow’s position rooted in post-Cold history and events since the U.S.-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 — nor of the intransigence among the ultra-nationalists who pull Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s strings.
Instead, what we got was vintage Trump. An impulsive reaching for a quick triumph to punctuate his brilliance as a statesman. The fixing of an objective without a thought-out plan how to achieve it.
A reliance on bullying, intimidation and underhanded dealing — the hallmark of his entire career; its apparent successes rooted in corruption, cronyism, and criminality — facilitated by the deference of other parties who lacked his ruthless cold-bloodedness. In his record of failures, as testified by six bankruptcies, he contrived to stiff his partners and creditors in each instance.
Against this background, his ability to cast himself as a winner owes more to the perversity of contemporary American society that invites chicanery than to any genius on his part.
On Ukraine/Russia Trump was grandstanding. There is an element of self-promotion in everything that he does publicly. The idea of being celebrated as a great peacemaker captured his imagination — not because he had any concern about the destruction and human cost or Europe’s long-term stability.
Admittedly, he also seemed to have been sold on the fashionable notion that the U.S. should mute its confrontation with Russia so as to be in a position to concentrate all our resources for the titanic struggle with China. The role of warrior-in-chief potentially could be just as appealing as that of peacemaker.
In fact, he had it both ways for a while: a Nobel Prize candidate for mediating in Ukraine; laurels from Israel’s American legions for reinforcing Washington’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide. What counts for Trump is the limelight and the exaltation.
So, he fixates on the one step that could stop the Ukraine fighting quickly — a ceasefire. None of the necessary and suitable preconditions exist; it amounts to calling a timeout of indeterminate length in a war that the other side is winning.
Yet, for three months that is the centerpiece around which everything pivots — futile proposals hatched by Trump’s virally anti-Russian advisers that only a fantasist images could lead to a settlement of the conflict.
The package presented to the Kremlin on a take-it-or-leave-it basis included such zany ideas as the U.S. taking over the critical Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station now under Russian control. This from a government that relentlessly for the past decade has pulled out all stops in its campaign to isolate and undermine the Russian state.
[snip]
So, Donald Trump is repositioning his foreign-policy people. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is exiled to the United Nations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio becomes interim national security adviser – warming the seat until Steven Witkoff has completed his failed special-envoy missions in Moscow and the Middle East and available to take over.
In a normal government, led by a normal person, such a move so early in an administration would be seen as having considerable practical significance. It might reflect the outcome of a dispute fueled by serious policy differences. It might impend important changes in the structure and process of decision-making. Neither is likely in this instance.
There is no organized process for setting foreign-policy objectives, for choosing among strategies, for formulating the appropriate diplomacy. Structured, orderly deliberation is absent and alien. Decisions are made by Trump on an ad hoc basis. He listens at random to advice from the principal officeholders, from his White House entourage, from golf pals, from FOX TV personalities. From whomever.
The appointment of the hapless numbskull Pete Hegseth to head the Pentagon happened because Trump relished the crude inanities that he uttered at FOX. (During Trump’s first term, he habitually chatted late in the night with Sean Hannity about what the latter had broadcast in that evening’s segment).
Whatever impresses him he adopts — even if the ideas are contradictory or ephemeral. Hence, the changeability of what he tweets or says from day-to-day — re. Zelensky, Putin, Ukraine in or out of NATO, grabbing Greenland/Panama/Canada, trade negotiations with China versus new sanctions, negotiations with Iran vs Trump fatwa forbidding anyone in the world from buying its oil. All of this is transparent and repetitious. Yet, elided by the media and most commentators.
Frankly, there is a case to be made that the psychology of Trump’s unhinged behavior is less of an analytical challenge than is the behavior of all those analysts who insist on normalizing it by ascribing to Trump’s words and actions design and coherent strategy that simply do not exist.
**
Scott
Verified User
Well, we clearly agree in regards to where Trump should put his focus and I hear you in regards to who to vote for.
Thinks he is one of them.
Washington Post?
So, we will presume that "behind the scenes" means anonymous source while fabricating a dumb narrative.
Scott
Verified User
Stupid essay filled with TDS that ignores the failure of the previous president and now wants to blame Trump if the idiots killing each other don't want peace.
Not sure what TDS means. As to Biden, since the essay is about Trump, I'm alright with him not mentioning him. I -suspect- that, like Yakuda, you'd be happy if Trump were to walk away from the war in Ukraine. I myself would be quite happy if he did. Unfortunately, it looks like various forces have persuaded him to start ramping things in between the U.S. and Russia there again.