Thank you for mouthing off please stop
Even Trump’s semi-friends, such as Theresa May, aren’t thanking him for his “proactive!” tweets.
British officials rebuked President Donald Trump on Friday for claiming that the individuals responsible for setting off explosives in the London subway had been “in the sights of” law enforcement who failed to be “proactive.”
Prime Minister Theresa May reproached Trump for his rhetoric in the wake of what police are investigating as a terrorist attack that injured at least 18 people.
“I never think it’s helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation,” she said. “As I’ve just said, the police and security services are working to discover the full circumstances of this cowardly attack and to identify all those responsible.”
And Donald Trump, in particular, is a stupid loudmouth bully who knows nothing about the situation. Even if he’s been briefed he knows nothing, because he doesn’t pay attention, or care, or listen, or remember.
A White House official said on Friday that chief of staff John Kelly wasn’t with the president when he fired off his tweets about “loser terrorists” before 7 a.m. Kelly has tried to bring structure to the West Wing and contain some of the president’s impulses by serving as a gatekeeper to what people and what information make it into the Oval Office.
But there is of course a limit to what Kelly can do. He can’t sleep on a cot in the Trump bedroom and he can’t barge in at 6 a.m.
Nick Timothy, a former aide to May, echoed the prime minister’s sentiment. He said the tweet is “so unhelpful from leader of our ally and intelligence partner.”
Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden later Friday morning that the attack is “a terrible thing” and reiterated his calls for America to “be very smart” and get “very, very tough.”
With all the eloquence of a three-year-old.
“We’re not nearly tough enough,” said Trump, who added that he would call May on Friday. “That is just an absolutely terrible thing.”
With all the thoughtfulness of an enraged ten-year-old boy. “WE’RE NOT TOUGH ENOUGH. WE HAVE TO HIT MORE PEOPLE.”
Earlier on Friday Trump had followed up his tweets on the London incident with one criticizing the administration of former President Barack Obama while claiming success against fighting terrorists.
“We have made more progress in the last nine months against ISIS than the Obama Administration has made in 8 years,” he said in the tweet. “Must be proactive & nasty!”
He’s got the nasty part down.
I’m torn on the whole control Trump thing. Controlling Trump is important to not have stupidity like his “fire and fury” bombast, but at the same time, this loudmouthed brat is laying bare the nasty underbelly of this country. It may hurt us in international diplomacy, but it might eventually allow enough people to wake up and smell the sewage. .
Or…most of those people will attribute Trump to a one-off, anti-great man, single player like they do Hitler and other nasties that have been public throughout history. They may not do the work to see the mirror he is holding up to this country, and reflecting back the worst that is among us. They may continue, like so many of my liberal friends, to say that Trump has been fooling the people, and they just are tired of being outsiders and unemployed, and refuse to see that there is a toxic thread of nastiness in this country. In which case, Trump’s bombast will only make things worse, because it will lead to a diplomatic shunning, and possibly a hot war with a nuclear power, without really changing any of the horrible things that have been humming along since the founding of European colonies on this continent.
Did I miss something?
Iknklast,
I understand the dilemma, ie either let Trump become buried in his own crap or control him within certain parameters. Unfortunately, Trump isn’t the president of Lower Slobbovia but of the mighty United States of America. As to whether he’s a symptom of or the cause of US decline, only history will tell. This is an outsider’s perspective, however I have an uncomfortable feeling that Trump is viewed as the man for the job by sections of the US oligarchy.
RJW, I agree. That’s where the dilemma arises. Allowing Trump to continue being Trump could lead to disastrous consequences, not just for the US but for the entire world. But at the same time, controlling Trump could lead people to accept that he is a normal president with a bit of an eccentric streak. Get complacent, you know?
In short, I don’t think this is a question with a right answer, only wrong answers. The question is, which one is more wrong? I wish I had a clue. I could argue it both ways, and still have no idea which is worse, because my crystal ball is broken (in fact, has never worked. I use it for a cat toy).
musubk, no, I doubt you missed anything. Unlike Trump, who seems to have missed his English class the day they were taught how to write in the past tense. ‘…has made….’ No, Donnie, it’s ‘had made’ or simply ‘made’ for crying out loud.
Wut? There’s nothing wrong with “have made” in that sentence – and “had made” wouldn’t make any sense unless he added an “until” or similar.
Ophelia, it’s the declension in the subordinate clause what’s causing the consternation, with the Obama admin and all
Ha!
Trump was talking of a lack of progress made until he took office. Logically, Obama’s admimistration could make no more progress once he had left office so any reference has to be to progress that had been made when it was possible for Obama to make it.
Funny how Trump could not react immediately to Charlottesville because he never tweets before he knows all the facts and so on, but can tweet so soon concerning this again.
PS:
And funny that you deal with this in your next post (which I did not see before…)