Never mind the falling polls; never mind the winning cards that Nancy and Chuck hold; never mind the Mueller investigation -- all of which seem to be closing in on a losing Donald Trump.
The sharks who know him best -- Barbara Rez, his former VP for construction in the Trump Organization, and Tony Schwartz, who officially co-authored The Art of the Deal, but who in reality actually wrote the book for Trump -- were both on MSNBC's Ari Melber news show Thursday night.
Rez, who for years oversaw Trump's construction projects and thus had intimate knowledge of his deals, had this to say: "I never thought he was a great dealmaker, to be honest with you. . . . In terms of taking the responsibility for the buck, he just would never do it. It's not in his DNA. He's never responsible. It is always someone else's fault."
Schwartz, also looking back to his early association with Trump, says that he now looks back at the business deals he described for Trump's book 30 years ago, and he realizes that "most of the deals in that book were failures." . . . And the number of deals he's made over the years since then "have overwhelmingly been failures." Schwartz concludes that Trump was "really one of the worst" dealmakers he's ever come across.
It's called "piling on." It's also very likely quite true. Donald Trump is proving to be a terrible negotiator, an ineffective deal maker, and a horrible businessman, who has a bad reputation for not paying his bills. We've known for years that no U.S. based bank will lend him money.
Now we're seeing all those (lack of) skills playing out in the Oval Office. And the nation -- and the world, really -- are paying for the folly of electing this con man to be the most powerful leader in the free world.
Tragedy? Farce? Yes, both.
Ralph
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Thursday, January 10, 2019
The cruelest cut of all.
Perhaps this is what set off Donald Trump's temper tantrum Wednesday afternoon when he walked out of the negotiating meeting with Pelosi and Schumer.
Overnight polls showed that the Pelosi/Schumer televised response to President Trump's Oval Office speech drew a larger audience than did the president's speech itself.
Ralph
Overnight polls showed that the Pelosi/Schumer televised response to President Trump's Oval Office speech drew a larger audience than did the president's speech itself.
Ralph
Government shutdown, national emergency, border wall; Trump walks out of meeting
What a farce! . . . created solely by Donald Trump.
Karl Marx is credited with the saying: "The world repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce."
Donald Trump is turning that around. Up until now, it's been a farce; but beginning Friday, it will become a tragedy for all those federal workers who won't get their paychecks, who may lose their homes, their cars, their credit . . . for not paying their bills. It never had to come to this.
Months ago, President Trump called congressional leaders together to the Oval Office and told them he wanted a bill that would fund national security and also set up a protection for the DACA kids to be able to stay permanently in the U.S.
The legislative leaders dutifully came back with a bipartisan bill that did what he asked -- and Trump refused to approve it. In another go at a bipartisan solution, just before Christmas, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill by voice vote -- meaning unanimous, without dissent.
But the House, still under Republican control, refused to take it up. Since the Democrats took charge last week, they have tried to revive that bill; but now Mitch McConnell says he won't bring up a bill in the Senate that the president won't sign.
So now we have the government shut down and nearing the end of the third week of limited services and no pay for certain workers.
According to Rachel Maddox's theory, President Trump realized that he had not been at the center of the news cycle for a few days; so he announced that he would be addressing the American people from the Oval Office -- amid dire warnings that he might claim emergency powers that would allow him to declare a national emergency and mobilize the Army to build his wall. That should put him back in the spotlight.
Basically, Rachel is suggesting that it was a stunt; that Trump doesn't really want a settlement; he wants to keep the issue alive for the political gain he gets. It didn't work, first because of the most inept reading of his speech.
One thing that's been causing him to lose the PR battle is that even Republican journalists have begun fact-checking Trump's lies -- and speaking about it. [See ShrinkRap Monday, Jan. 7th] Most everything that he says to justify the "crisis at the southern border" is based on lies.
Here's are some facts and other thoughts:
1. The number of non-citizens coming into the US across the southern border has been declining for the past decade or more. Trump claims that we're being over-run, that hordes are coming. He even has Mike Pence and Kirstjen Nielsen talking about 3,000 t0 4,000 terrorists or suspected terrorists apprehended there. In fact, fact-checkers say there have been a total of 6 in the first half of 2018.
2. He claims that there is a "pipeline" of drugs coming across the border. That is totally false. More drugs come across the border with Canada than with Mexico; and those that do come through the normal checkpoints; they're just concealed. A wall won't help that.
3. Trump cites horror stories of brutal murders committed by those coming from the countries to our south. There have been a few notorious actual murders. But statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes of all sorts than native-born citizens. That's been true for a long time, it is well-established truth, and Trump and his minions are simply lying to make people fearful of immigrants.
4. Trump has given up saying that Mexico will pay directly for the cost of the wall. He's now saying that they will pay it "indirectly" through the great trade deal that only he was able to work out with Mexico. He doesn't explain, however, how this works. U.S.taxpayers would have to pay for the wall but then would get the money back by increased profits from trade deals with Mexican corporations? But how does the extra money get from the corporations' increased profits to pay back the U.S. taxpayers? Huh? Yes, corporations will pay taxes on the increased profits, but how does that benefit the average tax paying citizen?
5. Trump read the speech prepared for him. He has a problem about speeches. If he free-wheels it, he says wild and crazy things. When he needs to be serious, he has a script-writer; but then it doesn't sound like him. Trump just doesn't talk like that, so he sounds insincere and inauthentic when he reads in an affectless monotone: "It touches our hearts and touches our souls."
6. Besides, he said nothing new. All that was different was that, stung by recent fact-checkers, he omitted his claims that we need a wall to keep out terrorists. He didn't mention terrorists at all; now it's common criminals, rapists and murders. He still dangled the emergency powers thing, but he didn't invoke it. If you listened carefully to what reporters asked him the next day, he couldn't really say what would have to change to make him invoke the emergency powers -- except if he couldn't get the Democrats to do what he wanted. In other words, it's not the conditions at the border, but the conditions of the negotiations. He simply using this threat, like he's using the shutdown -- as a bargaining chip.
7. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer gave a response to his speech -- sounding both fact-based and compassionate and . . . well, like themselves. They pointed out that there is a crisis at the border; it's a humanitarian crisis created by Trump's own policies of separating children from their parents and not providing for the people's needs.
Pelosi had the best line of the evening when she said:
"The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a wall."
Ralph
Karl Marx is credited with the saying: "The world repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce."
Donald Trump is turning that around. Up until now, it's been a farce; but beginning Friday, it will become a tragedy for all those federal workers who won't get their paychecks, who may lose their homes, their cars, their credit . . . for not paying their bills. It never had to come to this.
Months ago, President Trump called congressional leaders together to the Oval Office and told them he wanted a bill that would fund national security and also set up a protection for the DACA kids to be able to stay permanently in the U.S.
The legislative leaders dutifully came back with a bipartisan bill that did what he asked -- and Trump refused to approve it. In another go at a bipartisan solution, just before Christmas, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill by voice vote -- meaning unanimous, without dissent.
But the House, still under Republican control, refused to take it up. Since the Democrats took charge last week, they have tried to revive that bill; but now Mitch McConnell says he won't bring up a bill in the Senate that the president won't sign.
So now we have the government shut down and nearing the end of the third week of limited services and no pay for certain workers.
According to Rachel Maddox's theory, President Trump realized that he had not been at the center of the news cycle for a few days; so he announced that he would be addressing the American people from the Oval Office -- amid dire warnings that he might claim emergency powers that would allow him to declare a national emergency and mobilize the Army to build his wall. That should put him back in the spotlight.
Basically, Rachel is suggesting that it was a stunt; that Trump doesn't really want a settlement; he wants to keep the issue alive for the political gain he gets. It didn't work, first because of the most inept reading of his speech.
One thing that's been causing him to lose the PR battle is that even Republican journalists have begun fact-checking Trump's lies -- and speaking about it. [See ShrinkRap Monday, Jan. 7th] Most everything that he says to justify the "crisis at the southern border" is based on lies.
Here's are some facts and other thoughts:
1. The number of non-citizens coming into the US across the southern border has been declining for the past decade or more. Trump claims that we're being over-run, that hordes are coming. He even has Mike Pence and Kirstjen Nielsen talking about 3,000 t0 4,000 terrorists or suspected terrorists apprehended there. In fact, fact-checkers say there have been a total of 6 in the first half of 2018.
2. He claims that there is a "pipeline" of drugs coming across the border. That is totally false. More drugs come across the border with Canada than with Mexico; and those that do come through the normal checkpoints; they're just concealed. A wall won't help that.
3. Trump cites horror stories of brutal murders committed by those coming from the countries to our south. There have been a few notorious actual murders. But statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes of all sorts than native-born citizens. That's been true for a long time, it is well-established truth, and Trump and his minions are simply lying to make people fearful of immigrants.
4. Trump has given up saying that Mexico will pay directly for the cost of the wall. He's now saying that they will pay it "indirectly" through the great trade deal that only he was able to work out with Mexico. He doesn't explain, however, how this works. U.S.taxpayers would have to pay for the wall but then would get the money back by increased profits from trade deals with Mexican corporations? But how does the extra money get from the corporations' increased profits to pay back the U.S. taxpayers? Huh? Yes, corporations will pay taxes on the increased profits, but how does that benefit the average tax paying citizen?
5. Trump read the speech prepared for him. He has a problem about speeches. If he free-wheels it, he says wild and crazy things. When he needs to be serious, he has a script-writer; but then it doesn't sound like him. Trump just doesn't talk like that, so he sounds insincere and inauthentic when he reads in an affectless monotone: "It touches our hearts and touches our souls."
6. Besides, he said nothing new. All that was different was that, stung by recent fact-checkers, he omitted his claims that we need a wall to keep out terrorists. He didn't mention terrorists at all; now it's common criminals, rapists and murders. He still dangled the emergency powers thing, but he didn't invoke it. If you listened carefully to what reporters asked him the next day, he couldn't really say what would have to change to make him invoke the emergency powers -- except if he couldn't get the Democrats to do what he wanted. In other words, it's not the conditions at the border, but the conditions of the negotiations. He simply using this threat, like he's using the shutdown -- as a bargaining chip.
7. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer gave a response to his speech -- sounding both fact-based and compassionate and . . . well, like themselves. They pointed out that there is a crisis at the border; it's a humanitarian crisis created by Trump's own policies of separating children from their parents and not providing for the people's needs.
Pelosi had the best line of the evening when she said:
"The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a wall."
* * *
And then there was the planned meeting between Trump and the congressional leaders Wednesday afternoon. Trump walked out when Pelosi still refused to promise to give him the money to pay for his "wall or border security." There's also a leak circulating about a phone call between Trump and the president of Mexico in which Trump tells him that he realizes he's made a big mistake and doesn't know how to get out of it -- the mistake being his promise to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. It's unclear whether the Mexican president was sympathetic; in any case, he did not offer to bail him out by paying.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Quotes of 2018
Each year, Yale Law School librarian Fred Shapiro compiles his choice list of quotes from public figures during the preceding year. Here are some selections from his top ten choices, the #1 spot going, not to Donald Trump but to his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, whose job seems to be to add more obfuscation to the chaotic, confusing world of Donald Trump's mind.
So 2018's top quote from the Yale Law School Librarian goes to Rudy Giuliani:
Other selections from Mr. Shapiro's Top 10"
James Comey: "Our country is led by those who will lie about anything, backed by those who will believe anything, based on information from media sources that will say anything."
President Donald Trump: "I am a stable genius."
Drug Company spokesperson, in response to a defendant who claimed as a defense that his racist act was the result of taking their medication: "While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."
Judge Brett Kavanaugh: (during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court): "I liked beer [when I was in high school]. I still like beer."
So 2018's top quote from the Yale Law School Librarian goes to Rudy Giuliani:
"Truth isn't truth."
James Comey: "Our country is led by those who will lie about anything, backed by those who will believe anything, based on information from media sources that will say anything."
President Donald Trump: "I am a stable genius."
Drug Company spokesperson, in response to a defendant who claimed as a defense that his racist act was the result of taking their medication: "While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."
Judge Brett Kavanaugh: (during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court): "I liked beer [when I was in high school]. I still like beer."
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
What Trump's 88% favorability among Republicans really means
Trump touts his high favorability poll numbers among Republicans. The latest poll shows 88% among "Republicans."
But what does that actually mean in view of the number of people who have left the party because they dislike Trump?
If those who are disgusted by him enough to leave their party are no longer polled as "Republicans," then it would falsely appear that his approval is going up (as a % of those left) when, in fact, they may actually be going down if you include former Republicans who left the party because of Trump.
As a hypothetical explanation, let's say there were 1 million Republicans, 600,000 approved of Trump and 400,000 disapproved. He would have a 60% approval rating (600,000 divided by 1,000,000).
But then, if half the 400,000 who disapproved (200,000) left the party and all 600,000 who approved stayed in the party, then his approval rating among the remaining 800,000 "Republicans" would go up to 75% (i.e. 600,00 divided by 800,000).
The tricky part here is that you're not measuring a change in approval/disapproval of Trump; you're measuring identity as a Republican. For a truer measure of approval/disapproval, you need to poll everyone -- or at least the independents.
Ralph
But what does that actually mean in view of the number of people who have left the party because they dislike Trump?
If those who are disgusted by him enough to leave their party are no longer polled as "Republicans," then it would falsely appear that his approval is going up (as a % of those left) when, in fact, they may actually be going down if you include former Republicans who left the party because of Trump.
As a hypothetical explanation, let's say there were 1 million Republicans, 600,000 approved of Trump and 400,000 disapproved. He would have a 60% approval rating (600,000 divided by 1,000,000).
But then, if half the 400,000 who disapproved (200,000) left the party and all 600,000 who approved stayed in the party, then his approval rating among the remaining 800,000 "Republicans" would go up to 75% (i.e. 600,00 divided by 800,000).
The tricky part here is that you're not measuring a change in approval/disapproval of Trump; you're measuring identity as a Republican. For a truer measure of approval/disapproval, you need to poll everyone -- or at least the independents.
Ralph
Monday, January 7, 2019
Deliberate misleading the public about "terrorist threat" at our southern border.
If you listen to President Trump talking about the "need for a wall" because of the "national security threat" at our southern border; if you listened to Secretary of Homeland Securitgy Kirstjen Nielsen at Trump's press briefing in the Rose Garden a few days ago claim there had been over 3,000 terrorists trying to enter; if you paid attention to what Vice President Mike Pence told the Washington Post last October (that we "apprehended more than 10 per day" of "terrorists or suspected terrorists at our southern border") -- you'd get the impression that we have a big problem that needs to be fixed right away -- Right?
It's all false. And Fox News host Chris Wallace called press secretary Sarah Sanders on it when she appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and tried repeating the same lies. What's more, Wallace used the administration's own data to challenge her claims -- the same claims being peddled by Trump, Nielsen, and Pence.
Wallace asked Sanders about Nielsen's claim in the Rose Garden, where she had said the Customs and Border Protection "has stopped over 3,000 what we call 'special-interest aliens' trying to come into the country in the southern border. Those are aliens who the intel community has identified are of concern."
I was watching the briefing live on TV; I heard her say it. And, although I had heard that the administration was making claims that had been refuted by others, I didn't know the true facts. And nobody -- most especially the president, standing there -- corrected her. In fact, she said what she said because he had called on her to explain the threat and why we must have The Wall that he insists we need.
OK. Now back to Sunday morning and Chris Wallace and Sarah Sanders. Quoting from the CBS News report:
"Wallace pointed out that special-interest aliens are those hailing from 'countries that have ever produced a terrorist. They're not terrorists themselves." Wallace cited a State Department report stating there is 'no credible evidence' of terrorists crossing the border with Mexico."
Mind you, this is taking place on Fox News, where Chris Wallace sometimes stands up and speaks the truth to power. Sanders came back with her once-removed claim: "We know that roughly, nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border," she said.
First, let's be clear what Wallace revealed about this category "special-interest aliens." If, say, a single terrorist from Somalia has ever been caught trying to enter the U.S., then everybody from Somalia is put on this watch list and called a "special-interest alien." That's it. No other reason required. That's the source of the 4,000 people they're talking about -- anybody from a country that's produced one terrorist trying to enter our country.
Then Wallace said he had "studied up" on these statistics; and he asked Sanders. "Do you know where those 4,000 people come [from], where they're captured? Airports," he said.
Sanders then backed down. "I'm saying that they come by air, by land and by sea. I'm not disagreeing with you that they're coming through airports."
OK. If you admit that most of them come through airports, then why do we need to build a wall between us and Mexico?
OK. So here are the stats, quoted by Wallace, from the Departments of Justice and from Homeland Security: In fiscal year 2017, 2,554 people on the FBI's terrorist screening list were stopped trying to enter the country. The majority -- 2,170 -- attempted to come through airports; 49 attempted to enter by sea.
Of the 335 attempting to enter by land, the State Department said it had no indication that any terrorists had tried entering the U.S. through Mexico. There is also no credible evidence that international terrorists groups have bases in Mexico, or that they have worked with Mexican drug cartels, or that they have sent operatives through Mexico into the U.S. That's our own State Department's statement.
But President Trump tells this bizarre tale about terrorists just driving right up along the border wall where it's built in California and Arizona, then when they come to where the wall ends, they just "turn left" and drive right into our country.
He's lying. And Kirstjen Nielsen must know he's lying. And Vice President Pence must know he's lying, and so must Sarah Sanders -- and they just go along with him, repeating the lies to please him.
It's time someone called them out. And Wallace, a Fox News anchor, had the opportunity with Sanders (none of them come on MSNBC) -- and he called her on it.
Ralph
It's all false. And Fox News host Chris Wallace called press secretary Sarah Sanders on it when she appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and tried repeating the same lies. What's more, Wallace used the administration's own data to challenge her claims -- the same claims being peddled by Trump, Nielsen, and Pence.
Wallace asked Sanders about Nielsen's claim in the Rose Garden, where she had said the Customs and Border Protection "has stopped over 3,000 what we call 'special-interest aliens' trying to come into the country in the southern border. Those are aliens who the intel community has identified are of concern."
I was watching the briefing live on TV; I heard her say it. And, although I had heard that the administration was making claims that had been refuted by others, I didn't know the true facts. And nobody -- most especially the president, standing there -- corrected her. In fact, she said what she said because he had called on her to explain the threat and why we must have The Wall that he insists we need.
OK. Now back to Sunday morning and Chris Wallace and Sarah Sanders. Quoting from the CBS News report:
"Wallace pointed out that special-interest aliens are those hailing from 'countries that have ever produced a terrorist. They're not terrorists themselves." Wallace cited a State Department report stating there is 'no credible evidence' of terrorists crossing the border with Mexico."
Mind you, this is taking place on Fox News, where Chris Wallace sometimes stands up and speaks the truth to power. Sanders came back with her once-removed claim: "We know that roughly, nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border," she said.
First, let's be clear what Wallace revealed about this category "special-interest aliens." If, say, a single terrorist from Somalia has ever been caught trying to enter the U.S., then everybody from Somalia is put on this watch list and called a "special-interest alien." That's it. No other reason required. That's the source of the 4,000 people they're talking about -- anybody from a country that's produced one terrorist trying to enter our country.
Then Wallace said he had "studied up" on these statistics; and he asked Sanders. "Do you know where those 4,000 people come [from], where they're captured? Airports," he said.
Sanders then backed down. "I'm saying that they come by air, by land and by sea. I'm not disagreeing with you that they're coming through airports."
OK. If you admit that most of them come through airports, then why do we need to build a wall between us and Mexico?
OK. So here are the stats, quoted by Wallace, from the Departments of Justice and from Homeland Security: In fiscal year 2017, 2,554 people on the FBI's terrorist screening list were stopped trying to enter the country. The majority -- 2,170 -- attempted to come through airports; 49 attempted to enter by sea.
Of the 335 attempting to enter by land, the State Department said it had no indication that any terrorists had tried entering the U.S. through Mexico. There is also no credible evidence that international terrorists groups have bases in Mexico, or that they have worked with Mexican drug cartels, or that they have sent operatives through Mexico into the U.S. That's our own State Department's statement.
But President Trump tells this bizarre tale about terrorists just driving right up along the border wall where it's built in California and Arizona, then when they come to where the wall ends, they just "turn left" and drive right into our country.
He's lying. And Kirstjen Nielsen must know he's lying. And Vice President Pence must know he's lying, and so must Sarah Sanders -- and they just go along with him, repeating the lies to please him.
It's time someone called them out. And Wallace, a Fox News anchor, had the opportunity with Sanders (none of them come on MSNBC) -- and he called her on it.
Ralph
Sunday, January 6, 2019
Wall St. Journal's sharp rebuke of Trump's fake history comments on Afghanistan
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which is now owned by Trump ally Rupert Murdoch and which has been historically conservative in its own right, has ripped into the president for comments he made in that rambling press opportunity during a recent cabinet meeting.
The comments focused on by the Journal were about the Soviet Union's prolonged war in Afghanistan -- and the WSJ editors blasted Trump for his "reprehensible" version of the conflict and his "slander" of U.S. allies.
As reported by Politico, Trump's comments "belittled the role of U.S. allies in the Middle Ease, accusing them of sending minimal resources to back up U.S. troops in comparison with the American presence there."
The editorial continued: "This mockery is a slander against every ally that has supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan with troops and often died." And "just as reprehensible . . . was Mr. Trump's utterly false narrative of the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan."
Trump had made the "bizarre claim" that Russia was in Afghanistan in 1979 "because terrorists were going into Russia," and he seemed to blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on it's involvement in Afghanistan.
But the Journal editorial says that "this retelling of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been strongly disputed by historians, who say the invasion was an attempt to prop up the communist regime and compete with the U.S. in the region." Trump also disputed the long-held U.S. government view of the Soviet invasion by claiming that Russia was "right to be there."
The editorial board concluded its excoriation of Trump's comments with this:
The comments focused on by the Journal were about the Soviet Union's prolonged war in Afghanistan -- and the WSJ editors blasted Trump for his "reprehensible" version of the conflict and his "slander" of U.S. allies.
As reported by Politico, Trump's comments "belittled the role of U.S. allies in the Middle Ease, accusing them of sending minimal resources to back up U.S. troops in comparison with the American presence there."
The editorial continued: "This mockery is a slander against every ally that has supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan with troops and often died." And "just as reprehensible . . . was Mr. Trump's utterly false narrative of the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan."
Trump had made the "bizarre claim" that Russia was in Afghanistan in 1979 "because terrorists were going into Russia," and he seemed to blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on it's involvement in Afghanistan.
But the Journal editorial says that "this retelling of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been strongly disputed by historians, who say the invasion was an attempt to prop up the communist regime and compete with the U.S. in the region." Trump also disputed the long-held U.S. government view of the Soviet invasion by claiming that Russia was "right to be there."
The editorial board concluded its excoriation of Trump's comments with this:
"We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President."
* * *
When the conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal criticize a conservative president with such scathing words, it's time for that president to be very worried -- and time for a round of consultations with his wise and experienced advisers toward re-examining his positions.
Which is exactly what Donald Trump is incapable of doing it, even if he had wise and experienced advisers. So the slow march toward impeachment takes another step.
This hasn't been proved yet, but Rachel Maddow raises the question of where Trump got this idea about terrorists coming into Russia as their reason for Russia's was with
Afghanistan back then. Rachel says that the only place in the world where this theory -- as well as three or four others floating around about geopolitical issues -- is being talked about is the Kremlin. And then Trump just throws them into his public prattlings. Is Putin feeding him these ideas? Is Trump naive in repeating them? Or is he a willing collaborator?
Ralph
This hasn't been proved yet, but Rachel Maddow raises the question of where Trump got this idea about terrorists coming into Russia as their reason for Russia's was with
Afghanistan back then. Rachel says that the only place in the world where this theory -- as well as three or four others floating around about geopolitical issues -- is being talked about is the Kremlin. And then Trump just throws them into his public prattlings. Is Putin feeding him these ideas? Is Trump naive in repeating them? Or is he a willing collaborator?
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
