Summit with Putin

[subgard]

Trump mirrors.

He simply adopts the worldview of whomever he is interacting with.
Unless they are adversarial to Trump personally. Then he takes the exact opposite worldview.

After meeting with Kim Jung Un, he agreed to stop "provocative war games", which is what North Korea calls them, and not "necessary military exercises", which is what the US and S. Korea calls them.

After being criticized by John McCain, Trump amazingly took the opposite worldview that POWs were not war heroes.

This may seem a little dangerous, as he will agree with whatever worldview Putin puts forward.
But that's only while face to face with Putin. When he's back in the White House, he re-adopts Mike Pompeo's worldview.

Republican lawmakers actually get nervous whenever he meets with a Democratic delegation, because they know from experience that he'll just agree with whatever they tell them. But they shouldn't fear. As soon as the Democrats leave, he's back to his advisor's worldview.

Dealing with someone like this, you go through these stages.
1. This person is extremely reasonable and intelligent (after all, they have the same worldview as myself.)
2. Wait a minute, they're just extremely influenceable. I guess I'll just have to use my powers of persuasion to influence them to my way of thinking.
3. Arghh!!! They're the most unreasonable person ever! They disagree with exactly everything in my worldview.

I'm sure not a few folks working in the White House have gone through these stages.

Most people have strong opinions that they are trying to prove, and are unprepared for dealing with someone who really has no opinions at all, but instead, just gives the appearance of having opinions.

So when people try to figure out "What is Trump's intent?" they are asking the wrong question.
They should ask "What is the intent of the last person who met with Trump?"
Depending on whether Trump considers that person a personal friend or foe (and that changes with the breeze), Trump will either have the exact same, or the exact opposite intent as them.
Until he meets with someone else.

When you realize this, it's interesting to watch his positions change on a day to day (or hourly) basis, and try to guess who influenced him this time. The hilarious ones are when he gets pissed off at some advisor, and publicly does the exact opposite of what they wanted him to do. Or when he has one of those televised meetings of his, and agrees with whoever he's talking with, even though it's the exact opposite of the White House's official line.

[TimeTravel]

Yes, all the flip flopping. Remember the one after the shooting in Florida how Trump talked like he was about to take on the NRA, then the next day or so totally changed positions. That's just one of the many from the very start of his campaign. Describing his behavior as constantly changing world views or being a pathological liar pretty much describing the same.

Remember those murder cases. Joran van der Sloot, then Casey Anthony where they told lies upon lies. I see Trump in a similar fashion in that what he says means zero. He will say one thing then next moment the next. For folks like that, the way to access them is to look at actions and behavior as words mean zilch.

His arm got twisted to say he agrees with US Intelligence. Now he's ready to invite Putin to the White House. Of course this could be a case of Putin says "Jump" and Trump says "how high?".

[Jason]

You can go throughout history and find Presidential hypocrisy. But it has to be historically contextualized. There is a difference between Thomas Jefferson owing slaves in a period when everyone owned slaves and Jefferson Davis wanting to perpetuate a system when public sentiment was rising against it. Yes Lincoln was not a strict abolitionist and considered Liberia as an option, but considering his time he was not a virulent racist and was somewhere on the moral side of the curve. It was an acceptable policy suggestion at that moment in history to create a political compromise. Getting voters drunk was just on a small scale having a big party in Madison Square Garden waving flags and blowing streamers and plying the electoral college with bennies.

I think the issue with Trump is that at this stage of the game, he has not inspired through words. Whether its Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Regan, Obama, they said things of high moral import that elevated aspirations and at least on a symbolic level spoke to a higher purpose even though everyone knew it was bullshit. JFK made everyone forget about his father buying Chicago once he gave them a "Ask not what your country can do for you" moment. I cannot think of anything Trump has so far said that is worthy of being etched in stone although "Grab em by the pussy" is fucking brilliant in its own Deadwood kind of way. I think that's the basic problem. People want him to say the right or appropriate thing in the moment. The fact that he is hedging on what he said in Helsinki shows he's not beyond criticism but you just want him to say it when it counts. Then he can go on with whatever he wants to do. I believe he actually does not trust his base enough to know that they can figure out when he is saying the right thing with his fingers crossed behind his back.

[Kriegsspiel]

After meeting with Kim Jung Un, he agreed to stop "provocative war games", which is what North Korea calls them, and not "necessary military exercises", which is what the US and S. Korea calls them.

Regardless of the other stuff you wrote, some Americans might be inclined to side with Trump on that one. In this article by William Lind, prior to a training exercise, a Marine pilot is briefed that, "Everyone needs to realize this is NOT a tactical exercise. This is a political exercise..."

[IlliniDave]

For folks like that, the way to access them is to look at actions and behavior as words mean zilch.

Of course this could be a case of Putin says "Jump" and Trump says "how high?".

But how many people really do that (look at actions) on an ongoing basis?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... es-n863271

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/worl ... lsion.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17225190/ ... e-response

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-and-fri ... ina-though

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ussia.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 37582.html

[TimeTravel]

For folks like that, the way to access them is to look at actions and behavior as words mean zilch.

Of course this could be a case of Putin says "Jump" and Trump says "how high?".

But how many people really do that (look at actions) on an ongoing basis?

...

With Trump, since he lies, lies, then lies some more not a whole lot of other options. If I recall right, he even said that wasn't him on the Access Hollywood video.

The way I see things, have to treat him like a child that tells fibs upon fibs.

When I saw him and Putin together at the press conference, they looked like two kids who met earlier trying to get their story straight before facing the principal .

[ThisDinosaur]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 15161.html

77 per cent of Trump voters believe he should remain in office if the collusion claims are proven true

Putting aside that the pollsters were "left leaning," how do you all feel about this?

For those of you who voted for him, would it change your opinion of him if you believed he colluded? Do you think he should be impeached if he did?

Also, +1 subgard. Completely agree.

[ThisDinosaur]

@ffj
Assume for the sake of argument that I agree with you that they have not proven collusion, that that poll is useless, and that Hilary is as bad or worse in every relevant way. Assume I also agree with you that "collusion" is not a legal term, and treason can only occur during wartime.

Would you defend him if it was discovered he knew about the DNC hack before the emails were released? And didn't inform law enforcement? Would you vote for him again then? What about if he actually agreed to enact Russia-friendly policy in exchange for their help?

I don't know if he colluded. But I think its overstating the case to say there is "no evidence. None." There is circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, the Russians favored Trump, attempted to recruit assets inside the campaign, and used propaganda to influence voters. Its very possible that this is all routine for the Russians and it just didn't work this time / no one took the bait. I don't take the "it was all Seth Rich" argument very seriously, though.

[IlliniDave]

I don't know if he colluded. But I think its overstating the case to say there is "no evidence. None." There is circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, the Russians favored Trump, attempted to recruit assets inside the campaign, and used propaganda to influence voters. Its very possible that this is all routine for the Russians and it just didn't work this time / no one took the bait. I don't take the "it was all Seth Rich" argument very seriously, though.

I didn't vote for him so I can't answer the question, but where i have a problem with the collusion narrative is the nearly staggering irony given that we know that one campaign paid a foreigner--a former foreign intelligence officer--who then paid Russians for scandalous disinformation about her opposition which was then used in an attempt to discredit the opposition and thereby influence the election; and furthermore that the same spurious Russian-sourced information was used by executive branch intelligence and justice officials of the party whose candidate procured it to obtain (arguably dishonestly) a FISA warrant predicated on a notion that the guy who'd been the victim of an election-year character assassination attempt by Russians was somehow "colluding" with the Russians to influence the election *for* him. In that scenario it doesn't matter who is wearing red and who is wearing blue, to my mind it has the making of the biggest government scandal in my lifetime, and I remember Watergate and watched Nixon resign on live TV.

[TimeTravel]

Every time when Trump is asked if he thought there was Russian meddling and he answers that he didn't collude makes his look like is hiding something. In his mind, he can't separate the two. It is possible that Russia meddled and there was no collusion.

The latest is he now says the Putin/Trump Summit #2 is off until the "Witch Hunt" is over. Putin probably ordered him to keep a low profile for now .

[ThisDinosaur]

Does anyone care to defend the White House's decision to omit the Reuters reporter's question from the official transcript?

Also, @ffj & IlliniDave, what news sources do you read/watch?

[daylen]

Has anyone read George Lakoff's article "Understanding Trump"?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/georgelako ... ump-2/amp/

I am not really interested in what he says progressives should do, but I am curious if his description of Trump and politics in general is consistent with what others think.

[IlliniDave]

Does anyone care to defend the White House's decision to omit the Reuters reporter's question from the official transcript?

Also, @ffj & IlliniDave, what news sources do you read/watch?

In terms of habits, I don't read or watch any. Depending on my work schedule I listen to NPR news in the mornings on the way to work, and catch a little of either Hannity or Levin (neither are news sources, strictly speaking) on the way home. So I get my daily shot of purple. The building I work in has CNN playing in the lobby all day so I'll catch an occasional banner headline on it, but the volume is muted.

When I'm interested in a current topic I'll Google it. I linked a representative sample in a post above, but it varies. There's a lot of editorial selection bias out there.

No comment on the transcript thing because I don't know what you are talking about.

[ThisDinosaur]

@Dave
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... pt/565385/
Atlantic was the first to report on this, but its been making the rounds. WH cut out a part of the press conference transcript. A Reuters reporter had asked Putin if he wanted Trump to win, and if he directed people to make it happen. Putin answers "Yes" because Trump was pro-Russia. Both the WH and Russian official online transcripts edit that part out.

My impression was that Putin was answering that, Yes, he preferred Trump, but was ignoring or didn't hear the part about whether he influenced the election. But the way the two transcripts were edited makes it more suspicious.

@daylen
First I've seen it. Good find.

Empirical research has shown that conservatives tend to reason with direct causation and that progressives have a much easier time reasoning with systemic causation.
...
Many of Trump’s policy proposals are framed in terms of direct causation.
...
All this makes sense to direct causation thinkers, but not those who see the immense difficulties and dire consequences of such actions due to the complexities of systemic causation.

I agree with this part. One reason I don't trust Trump to be in charge is his apparent lack of nuanced thinking. I have my disagreements with Obama and (Bill) Clinton, but the fact that they were articulate at least led me to believe they understood that things are complicated. I know that their detractors see that as proof they are slick, sleazy, liars.

All they have to do is support and vote for Trump and they don’t even have to express their ‘politically incorrect’ views, since he does it for them and his victories make those views respectable. He is their champion. He gives them a sense of self-respect, authority, and the possibility of power.

This is the part of the Trump phenomenon I completely understand. That the far left is responsible for Charlottesville and MRAs and divisive partisanship. Calling everyone who disagrees with them Nazis, while simultaneously saying straight white men's opinions are irrelevant because of Privilege. Its so absurdly reminiscent of post WWI Germany that I can't understand why the "educated, elite" left hasn't made the connection.

[Gilberto de Piento]

Has anyone read George Lakoff's article "Understanding Trump"?

I thought it was a good article at the time. His book "Moral Politics" presents a framework that I think explains a lot of US politics. Most people here would probably like it. If I remember correctly the article includes a summary of the book for those that don't have time to read it.

[IlliniDave]

ThisDinosaur,

Thanks. I have no opinion on the matter. It was broadcast live across the world and the unedited version is out there. That some edits get made when interested parties are making records for themselves doesn't rise above the noise to me. When I watched the thing I thought the live translation of Putin->English wasn't always clear, and a couple times I didn't think he was answering the exact question I heard enunciated by an English questioner. The question in question was one of them. I took his answer similar to what you did--that he personally favored Trump because Trump spoke of improving US/Russia Relations. It would be interesting to see a transcript with a non-in-the-moment translation of both the interpreter's rendition of the English questions (what Putin was actually asked) and what Putin actually said (whether it was nuanced different than how the real time interpreter interpreted).

Regarding would/wouldn't, like I said above, only DT knows, but those sorts of misstatements are pretty common. Since that day I listened to that PC, I've listened to Jordan Peterson do the same thing (say the opposite of what he meant by adding or omitting a negative) at least three times, and Peterson is immensely more eloquent than Trump. That was sort of a trap question for Trump, and I thought in poor taste given the situation. The only thing we really learned is Trump is no more skillful of giving a diplomatic non-answer (what decorum probably called for) than he is any other answer.

[ThisDinosaur]

I don't know why the transcripts are different but due to the fact that the entire thing was televised and easily fact-checked I kinda don't see the scale of the problem here.

Well, the implication is that Putin slipped up. And both 'colluding' administrations tried to cover it up in exactly the same way. For both countries to "accidentally" omit different parts of the same incriminating exchange is extremely unlikely. The hitch was that editing an official transcript works better in Russia because the state controls the media.

I can only assume that the reason you dont find any of this suspicious (and I do) is because both of us kind of have our minds made up about this guy. I mean, if Hillary Clinton got caught editing an embarrassing exchange out of a transcript, I am assuming you and I would both be calling her bullshit.

The reason i asked about your news sources is because I'm trying to understand why trump supporters weigh the same facts differently than I do. I'm assuming my opinion has been heavily influenced by the leftward bias of most journalists, but I dont find fox or Breitbart very persuasive wrt Trump. Both side heavily curate facts to fit a narrative.

[prognastat]

If the Dems continue to make this a moral issue then they are going to lose hugely in the mid-terms and in 2020.

Don't you mean bigly? jk.

I definitely agree though. It seems the Democrats don't want to acknowledge why they lost so much that they would rather keep losing...

[Riggerjack]

It seems the Democrats don't want to acknowledge why they lost so much that they would rather keep losing...

And on that note, has the DNC gone through a quiet Reformation, or can we expect more of the same? I went to the local primary, voted Bernie, like everyone else (I saw 2 Clinton votes on paper, no Clinton supporters publicly present, I judged the crowd to be 90+% Bernie supporters, so of course Clinton took the state.). It was my first Dem primary, so maybe it's always like this. I expect it to be my last.

FWIW, the reds played the same game with Ron Paul, but they were at least a bit less obviously corrupt. Which is not to say less corrupt.

[IlliniDave]

Riggerjack, I think it's pretty clear the Blue Team is doubling down.