Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”

Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.

Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were misplaced.

In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.

His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment. But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he supposedly retreats from the global stage.

These are immensely dangerous developments which threaten to weaken this country’s moral standing in the world, imperil the planet and reverse years of slow but steady gains by marginalized or impoverished Americans. But, chilling as they are, these radically wrongheaded policy choices are not, in fact, the most frightening aspect of the Trump presidency.

What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Donald Trump in his own words
The US president speaks to Lionel Barber, Gillian Tett and Demetri Sevastopulo
Subscribe to read

You are the master of ‘the art of the deal’ . . . can you cut a deal with Xi Jinping when you see him in Mar-a-Lago?

I have great respect for him. I have great respect for China. I would not be at all surprised if we did something that would be very dramatic and good for both countries and I hope so.

Are you going to talk about North Korea and a way forward there?

Yes, we will talk about North Korea. And China has great influence over North Korea. And China will either decide to help us with North Korea, or they won’t. And if they do that will be very good for China, and if they don’t it won’t be good for anyone.

What is the incentive?

I think trade is the incentive. It is all about trade.

How do you bring China’s trade surplus down quickly?

By telling China that we cannot continue to trade if we are going to have an unfair deal like we have right now. This is an unfair deal.

Are you going to equalise tariffs?

I don’t want to talk about tariffs yet, perhaps the next time we meet. So I don’t want to talk about tariffs yet. But you used the word equalise. That is a very good word because they are not equalised. If you used a word other than tariff, it is not an equal. You know when you talk about, when you talk about currency manipulation, when you talk about devaluations, they are world champions. And our country hasn’t had a clue, they haven’t had a clue. The past administration hasn’t had and many administrations — I don’t want to say only Obama; this has gone on for many years — They haven’t had a clue. But I do.

How ambitious do you want to be with China? Could we see a grand bargain that solves North Korea, takes American troops off the Korean peninsula and really changes the landscape out there?

Well, if China is not going to solve North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you.

And do you think you can solve it without China’s help?

Totally. One on one?

I don’t have to say any more. Totally.

Do you start with North Korea and talk about trade, or pivot around?

I’m not going to tell you. You know, I am not the United States of the past where we tell you where we are going to hit in the Middle East. Where they say — I used it in the speeches — ‘We will be attacking Mosul in four months’. A month later, ‘We will be attaching Mosul in three months, in two months, in one month’. And why are they talking? There is no reason to talk.

Mr President, you use a language which is more abrasive than many of your predecessors . . .

I would say. I hope so.. . . 

Are you proud of that?

Well it hasn’t worked for our predecessors. Look where we are. We have an $800bn trade deficit. The Middle East is a mess. They shouldn’t have gone in. And I was totally opposed to the war in the Middle East which I think finally has been proven, people tried very hard to say I wasn’t but you’ve seen that it is now improving.

What the world can’t quite work out is whether this is the most brilliant softening-up exercise, or whether you want to fundamentally change the postwar liberal order.

This isn’t an exercise. This is a very, very serious problem that we have in the world today. And we have more than one but this is no exercise. This is not just . . . talk. The United States has talked long enough and you see where it gets us, it gets us nowhere.

It is just that when people look at the words, they are frightened. They think this president, unlike his predecessors, doesn’t really believe in the value of alliances.

Alliances have not always worked out very well for us. But I do believe in alliances. I believe in relationships. And I believe in partnerships. But alliances have not always worked out very well for us. OK?

Can you cut a deal on tax reform this year, and what would the terms be?

Well, I don’t want to talk about when and I don’t want to talk about timing. We will have a very massive and very strong tax reform. But I am not going to talk about when . . .

Right now I am working very much on the . . . You know that we didn’t take a vote but with healthcare . . .

I was surprised by that.

I didn’t want to take a vote. It was my idea. I said why should I take a vote.

Because you didn’t want to lose.

Yeah, I don’t lose. I don’t like to lose. But that wasn’t a definitive day. They are negotiating as we speak. I don’t know if you know. They are negotiating right now. There was no reason to take a vote. I said, ‘Don’t take a vote,’ and we will see what happens. But one way or the other, I promised the people great healthcare. We are going to have great healthcare in this country. Now, it will be in one form or another. It will be a repeal and replace of Obamacare which is the deal that is being negotiated now. And if we don’t get the . . . Freedom Caucus there that would be fine. They’re friends of mine. Many of them have already left, and many of them as you know have already given us their vote. But when you have zero Democrats, zero, you need close to 100 per cent of the Republicans.

Might you actually try to get some Democrats in future?

Well I will get the Democrats if I go the second way. The second way, which I hate to see, then the Freedom Caucus loses so big and I hate to see that, because . . . our plan is going to be a very good plan. When I say our plan, not phase one just: phase one, two and three added up is a great plan . . . If we don’t get what we want, we will make a deal with the Democrats and we will have in my opinion not as good a form of healthcare, but we are going to have a very good form of healthcare and it will be a bipartisan form of healthcare.

Are you still enjoying the job?

I am really liking it. I’ve enjoyed it. I’ve enjoyed it. We have done a lot . . . We’re doing great. The jobs: Ford just announced they are doing three major plants, three major expansions, thousands of jobs; General Motors, Fiat, [a] couple of them off the record because ‘Why do I need this for?’ But a couple of them were going to build in Mexico, now they are building in Michigan. Now they are building in Ohio. We got it going.

When I talk to CEOs in this country . . . half of them are saying ‘yes, this is great, we have confidence coming back, and half of it is ‘God, what happens if he tweets about us and our stock goes down’.

Without the tweets, I wouldn’t be here . . . I have over 100m [followers] between Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Over 100m. I don’t have to go to the fake media.

Do you regret any of your tweets?

I don’t regret anything, because there is nothing you can do about it. You know if you issue hundreds of tweets, and every once in a while you have a clinker, that’s not so bad. Now my last tweet, you know the one that you are talking about perhaps, was the one about being in quotes wire tapped, meaning surveilled. Guess what, it is turning out to be true . . . I predicted Brexit.

Do you think other countries will follow the UK out of the EU?

I think Brexit is very good for the UK, it is going to be very good for UK. I would have thought when it happened that more would follow, but I really think the European Union is getting their act together. It could be a very good thing for both.

So it’s an antidote, not a virus?

It is a very interesting thing. If you would have asked me that the day after the election . . . I would have said, ‘Yeah, it will start to come apart’. But they have done a very good job and — I am meeting with them very soon — they have done a very good job in bringing it back together . . . I had a great meeting with Chancellor Merkel. I had a great meeting with her, I really liked her. She said the same thing to me. I spoke to her two days ago. She said the same thing to me, we had a great meeting and the press doesn’t get it.

So the centre holds in Europe?

I think that it’s really holding. I think they’ve done a better job since Brexit. I think they have done a better job.

In what sense do you think they have done a better job?

It just seems to be that there is a different spirit for holding together. I don’t think they had that spirit when they were fighting with the UK and UK ultimately decided to go out . . . I actually think it is going to be a great deal for UK, and I think it is going to be really, really good also for the European Union.

In France, Marine Le Pen has a very similar message to you, not identical. Do you think a victory for her would validate what you have done here?

I don’t know what is going to happen. I know that some outside distractions have taken place which have changed that race. That’s going to be an interesting race. I really don’t know and I don’t know her. I have never met her. It’s going to be a very interesting election. But you know some outside things have happened that maybe will change the course of that race.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Famed anthropologist Jane Goodall took to Facebook on Friday to push back at the anti-science policies of the Trump administration, calling it disturbing that there are those who “belittle” scientists at their own peril.

With President Donald Trump appointing an EPA secretary who wants to roll back environmental protections — including the Clean Air Act — Goodall encouraged concerned voters to take part in the “March for Science” scheduled for Earth Day — April 22.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

The FBI is planning to create a special section based at its Washington headquarters to co-ordinate its investigation of Russian activities designed to influence the 2016 presidential election, according to a person familiar with the plan.

The move, a sign of how seriously the bureau is taking allegations of Russian meddling in American politics, is also aimed at giving FBI director James Comey greater visibility into the investigation’s granular details. “It’s meant to surge resources,” said one FBI agent.

Creation of the temporary unit mirrors the bureau’s approach to other sensitive investigations, including the WikiLeaks disclosure of classified US government documents and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state.

The FBI generally prefers to run investigations from one of its 56 field offices, but the high-profile nature of the sprawling Russia inquiry is seen as requiring a central manager, according to current and former officials.

“It’s getting unwieldy,” said one person briefed on the plan. “It’s too big and it’s on the front page of the newspaper every day.”

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Why Trump Lies
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-why-trump-lies/

Donald Trump did not invent the lie and is not even its master. Lies have oozed out of the White House for more than two centuries and out of politicians’ mouths — out of all people’s mouths — likely as long as there has been human speech.

But amid all those lies, told to ourselves and to one another in order to amass power, woo lovers, hurt enemies and shield ourselves against the often glaring discomfort of reality, humanity has always had an abiding respect for truth.

In the United States, born and periodically reborn out of the repeated recognition and rejection of the age-old lie that some people are meant to take dominion over others, truth is as vital a part of the civic, social and intellectual culture as justice and liberty. Our civilization is premised on the conviction that such a thing as truth exists, that it is knowable, that it is verifiable, that it exists independently of authority or popularity and that at some point — and preferably sooner rather than later — it will prevail.

Even American leaders who lie generally know the difference between their statements and the truth. Richard Nixon said “I am not a crook” but by that point must have seen that he was. Bill Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” but knew that he did.

The insult that Donald Trump brings to the equation is an apparent disregard for fact so profound as to suggest that he may not see much practical distinction between lies, if he believes they serve him, and the truth.

His approach succeeds because of his preternaturally deft grasp of his audience. Though he is neither terribly articulate nor a seasoned politician, he has a remarkable instinct for discerning which conspiracy theories in which quasi-news source, or which of his own inner musings, will turn into ratings gold. He targets the darkness, anger and insecurity that hide in each of us and harnesses them for his own purposes. If one of his lies doesn’t work — well, then he lies about that.

If we harbor latent racism or if we fear terror attacks by Muslim extremists, then he elevates a rumor into a public debate: Was Barack Obama born in Kenya, and is he therefore not really president?

If his own ego is threatened — if broadcast footage and photos show a smaller-sized crowd at his inauguration than he wanted — then he targets the news media, falsely charging outlets with disseminating “fake news” and insisting, against all evidence, that he has proved his case (“We caught them in a beauty,” he said).

If his attempt to limit the number of Muslim visitors to the U.S. degenerates into an absolute fiasco and a display of his administration’s incompetence, then he falsely asserts that terrorist attacks are underreported. (One case in point offered by the White House was the 2015 attack in San Bernardino, which in fact received intensive worldwide news coverage. The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the subject).

If he detects that his audience may be wearying of his act, or if he worries about a probe into Russian meddling into the election that put him in office, he tweets in the middle of the night the astonishingly absurd claim that President Obama tapped his phones. And when evidence fails to support him he dispatches his aides to explain that by “phone tapping” he obviously didn’t mean phone tapping. Instead of backing down when confronted with reality, he insists that his rebutted assertions will be vindicated as true at some point in the future.

Trump’s easy embrace of untruth can sometimes be entertaining, in the vein of a Moammar Kadafi speech to the United Nations or the self-serving blathering of a 6-year-old.

But he is not merely amusing. He is dangerous. His choice of falsehoods and his method of spewing them — often in tweets, as if he spent his days and nights glued to his bedside radio and was periodically set off by some drivel uttered by a talk show host who repeated something he’d read on some fringe blog — are a clue to Trump’s thought processes and perhaps his lack of agency. He gives every indication that he is as much the gullible tool of liars as he is the liar in chief.

He has made himself the stooge, the mark, for every crazy blogger, political quack, racial theorist, foreign leader or nutcase peddling a story that he might repackage to his benefit as a tweet, an appointment, an executive order or a policy. He is a stranger to the concept of verification, the insistence on evidence and the standards of proof that apply in a courtroom or a medical lab — and that ought to prevail in the White House.

There have always been those who accept the intellectually bankrupt notion that people are entitled to invent their own facts — consider the “9/11 was an inside job” trope — but Trump’s ascent marks the first time that the culture of alternative reality has made its home at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If Americans are unsure which Trump they have — the Machiavellian negotiator who lies to manipulate simpler minds, or one of those simpler minds himself — does it really matter? In either case he puts the nation in danger by undermining the role of truth in public discourse and policymaking, as well as the notion of truth being verifiable and mutually intelligible.

In the months ahead, Trump will bring his embrace of alternative facts on the nation’s behalf into talks with China, North Korea or any number of powers with interests counter to ours and that constitute an existential threat. At home, Trump now becomes the embodiment of the populist notion (with roots planted at least as deeply in the Left as the Right) that verifiable truth is merely a concept invented by fusty intellectuals, and that popular leaders can provide some equally valid substitute. We’ve seen people like that before, and we have a name for them: demagogues.

Our civilization is defined in part by the disciplines — science, law, journalism — that have developed systematic methods to arrive at the truth. Citizenship brings with it the obligation to engage in a similar process. Good citizens test assumptions, question leaders, argue details, research claims.

Investigate. Read. Write. Listen. Speak. Think. Be wary of those who disparage the investigators, the readers, the writers, the listeners, the speakers and the thinkers. Be suspicious of those who confuse reality with reality TV, and those who repeat falsehoods while insisting, against all evidence, that they are true. To defend freedom, demand fact.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

[Paranoia ...]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

We are still not conclusively able to connect the dots on the question of whether there was any coordination or collusion between members of Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians who interfered in our election to benefit him, but those dots do continue to multiply at an alarming rate.

First, and we have to keep saying this because this fact keeps getting obscured in the subterfuge of deflection, misdirection and ideological finger-pointing about what has yet to be proven: It is absolutely clear that the Russians did interfere in our election. This is not a debatable issue. This is not fake news. This is not a witch hunt. This happened.

The investigations, rightly, are seeking to figure out exactly how and to what degree, and those questions obviously depend on knowing more about campaign contacts with Russian meddlers.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[DedLift]

I cant wait to see people in the Obama administration and maybe even the man himself indicted for collecting intelligence illegally on Trumps admin for up to a year before the election. They did this under the guise of foreign surveillance but Americans caught in this type of surveillance are not supposed to be named in any report for constitutional reasons. Oops, guess they should have left Flynn alone because now their house of cards is collapsing and they will be under it when it does.
Once again, Trump was correct in his assertion that he was surveilled. Snowden told the world what was really going on a long time ago. This is the most involved ive ever really gotten in politics because it would just anger and frustrate me to even think about. I am thoroughly enjoying the events that continue to unfold here though.