Trump paused a call with Putin to make an aide explain a nuclear arms treaty

[homersapien 11,393]

He's a fast learner.  Doesn't take him long to size up a treaty, even if he wasn't even aware of it prior and he's in the middle of a phone conversation.

 

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/9/14562014/trump-putin-call-new-start-what

Thursday afternoon, Reuters reported that Donald Trump interrupted a phone call with Vladimir Putin to ask a basic question about US-Russia relations. Specifically, he asked what New START, a nuclear arms agreement inked by the Obama administration, was. Once he heard the basics, he immediately informed Putin that he was against it.

“When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was,” the Reuters reporters, Jonathan Landay and David Rohde, write. “Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity.”

Three things stick out about this report, presuming it’s accurate (both Rohde and Landay are skilled veterans of the national-security beat, and the White House has declined to comment on the report both to Reuters and when asked during a subsequent press briefing). The first is that Trump still clearly does not know basic facts about American foreign policy, like the name of a major treaty — and that this somehow leaked to the press from one of his top advisers, the only people in the room for the Putin call.

The second is that the president seems willing to make major policy changes anyway. Trump had referenced New START in an October presidential debate, though he called it “start up” and incorrectly suggested that it limited American nuclear warhead construction without similarly capping Russia’s. (The deal actually caps each country’s number of deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550.)

Months later, after winning the presidency and having daily national security meetings, Trump still doesn’t know the treaty’s name. But he decided to come out against it anyway after getting quick refresher while Putin was on hold.

 

Read the rest at: http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/9/14562014/trump-putin-call-new-start-what

[au75 75]

The sign of a leader is if he/she ask questions if they are unclear of anything.  31 years of military serve will teach you that in a heart beat.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

But I thought he knew more than the majors and generals?

[au75 75]

I guess you were wrong.  That is what thoughts do to you.  That is why you ask.

[shabby 1,958]

The leader of the free World asking what the START treaty is, is akin to a football coach asking what a football is.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 hours ago, shabby said:

The leader of the free World asking what the START treaty is, is akin to a football coach asking what a football is.  

Not much worse than a congresswoman leader (Pelosi) not knowing who the current POTUS is. or another one (Waters) refeerring to Russia's invasion of Korea.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

11 hours ago, shabby said:

The leader of the free World asking what the START treaty is, is akin to a football coach asking what a football is.  

The free world doesn't view him as their leader.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

7 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Not much worse than a congresswoman leader (Pelosi) not knowing who the current POTUS is. or another one (Waters) refeerring to Russia's invasion of Korea.

You set a high bar. I see you view those three as peers.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You set a high bar. I see you view those three as peers.

Yep, not a lot of difference between a dumb football coach and Pelosi and Waters. Their desk is clearly empty.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The free world doesn't view him as their leader.

They sure didn't view Obama as their leader. Maybe he should have turned to an advisor before making these statements.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

39 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

They sure didn't view Obama as their leader. Maybe he should have turned to an advisor before making these statements.

They did, Proud. You just stayed in your echo chamber.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

19 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They did, Proud. You just stayed in your echo chamber.

I guess so. I keep hearing these.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/top-10-dumbest-quotes-from-president-barack-obama/

[shabby 1,958]

Trump is making his first call to the Russian president as President of the United States and he doesn't know what the START treaty is before calling. 5th graders know what that treaty is. That's just plain stupid on so many levels. Then he says the treaty is a bad treaty though he knows nothing about said treaty. So basically, he has the responsibility for promoting an American agenda in world politics but couldn't bother to do even minimal preparation before making that phone call. The fact that anyone would defend this level of incompetence is just another example of how easy it is for some people to place politics above the interest of the nation. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

20 minutes ago, shabby said:

Trump is making his first call to the Russian president as President of the United States and he doesn't know what the START treaty is before calling. 5th graders know what that treaty is. That's just plain stupid on so many levels. Then he says the treaty is a bad treaty though he knows nothing about said treaty. So basically, he has the responsibility for promoting an American agenda in world politics but couldn't bother to do even minimal preparation before making that phone call. The fact that anyone would defend this level of incompetence is just another example of how easy it is for some people to place politics above the interest of the nation. 

Wonder who the credible source for this is. I suspect it is more fake news. The media is full of fake news these days and it is difficult to know what to believe anymore. I saw a senior WH advisor being interviewed today. She said a CNN reporter came to see her asking about some rumor She told the reporter there was absolutely no truth to it but the reporter went back and reported it anyhow.

[shabby 1,958]

Resorting to the whole fake news defense is just your way of saying I can't defend my point of view.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, shabby said:

Resorting to the whole fake news defense is just your way of saying I can't defend my point of view.  

No it says, like I asked, who is the credible source for this accusation regarding Trump. Maybe you will like it better if I just call it unfounded speculation.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

No it says, like I asked, who is the credible source for this accusation regarding Trump. Maybe you will like it better if I just call it unfounded speculation.

It was good enough for Reuters to publish it.

Are they part of the "lying" press?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

It was good enough for Reuters to publish it.

Are they part of the "lying" press?

"Fake news" has been morphed into a catch-all phrase aimed at anything that contradicts one's views or says anything bad about Trump.  It's just the new way of dismissing the source rather than discussing the subject.

[AUUSN 823]

Let's not forget this is the same guy that couldn't name the nuclear triad. 

[AUDub 11,158]

2 hours ago, AUUSN said:

Let's not forget this is the same guy that couldn't name the nuclear triad. 

Won't link it for length and language, but did you see John Oliver's monologue last night?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

"Fake news" has been morphed into a catch-all phrase aimed at anything that contradicts one's views or says anything bad about Trump.  It's just the new way of dismissing the source rather than discussing the subject.

I disagree. It works both ways. The media is angry at Trump and will report anything that comes close to being negative, And there are quite a number of recent examples where media/reporters have reported stuff that wasn't true. Call it what you want it is often fake news, Reuters is a respected media but they just quoted a "source." These days I'm skeptical of anyone quoting an unnamed source whether it be pro or anti Trump. As you can see in this thread, no one can say who the source for the Reuters article so I'm surprised you blindly accept it.

[homersapien 11,393]

The only constraints to Trump's power are the press and the judiciary. He is attacking them both.

And the reason there are so many leaks is that a lot of reponsible people in a position to witness his behavior fear for the country.  So thank God for these "leakers" and thank God we have a press that will report what they are leaking.

It's amazing how many people are willing to follow this psychopath like rats following the Pied Piper. Fortunately, I don't think there's enough of these zombies to make it work for Trump.  I reckon no more than 20% of the population, which is bad enough.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Won't link it for length and language, but did you see John Oliver's monologue last night?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/arts/television/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-trump.html

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

I disagree. It works both ways. The media is angry at Trump and will report anything that comes close to being negative, And there are quite a number of recent examples where media/reporters have reported stuff that wasn't true. Call it what you want it is often fake news, Reuters is a respected media but they just quoted a "source." These days I'm skeptical of anyone quoting an unnamed source whether it be pro or anti Trump. As you can see in this thread, no one can say who the source for the Reuters article so I'm surprised you blindly accept it.

I have serious doubts that you'd have as much skepticism if it was an unnamed source giving some less than flattering portrayal of Obama behind the scenes.  I get the unnamed source problems, but at the same time, if being named means you lose your job or could be seriously ruined, and you witness things that give you serious concerns, what options do you have for getting the news out?  There is a place for unnamed sources in a society like ours.  Yes, it can be abused.  But just as often it can bring to light abuses happening out of the public eye that need to come to light.

[AuburnNTexas 7,154]

Contrary to popular belief no President knows everything in a complicated document be it a treaty or any other government type document. All Presidents have people who are SME's Subject Matter Experts) on different topics. I would be more upset if a President didn't pause and get clarification on something like this. We are getting so many unnamed sources making claims that aren't able to be validated that whether Trump was just trying to get verification on a point or really had no idea what was going on we will never know. You can only cry the wolf is coming so many times before people stop listening then when the wolf comes in your door it will be to late.

When Obama was President I knew I could go to the Political forum and see 3 or 4 new posts every day on how bad he was from a couple of posters. Now that Trump is President I know I can see the same thing from a couple of different posters. The ones who continuously do it on each side start to lose credibility.