The W(why)TF did Trump do this? thread

"Trump signs order to protect U.S. networks from foreign espionage, a move that appears to target China":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.11f4f211858d

 

"Trump Lifts Tariffs on Mexico, Canada, Delays Auto Tariffs." excerpt:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bogged down in a sprawling trade dispute with U.S. rival China, President Donald Trump took steps Friday to ease tensions with America’s allies — lifting import taxes on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum and delaying auto tariffs that would have hurt Japan and Europe.

By removing the metals tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump cleared a key roadblock to a North American trade pact his team negotiated last year. As part of Friday’s arrangement, the Canadians and Mexicans agreed to scrap retaliatory tariffs they had imposed on U.S. goods.​

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...mexico_canada_delays_auto_tariffs_140369.html

 

LOL!!!! Who was it that put those tariffs in place last year? So basically now that Trump is over his head with the China debacle he is admitting that he was mistaken with his previous tariffs against America's allies.

Is this anyone's idea of good leadership?

 

So he went back to square zero. Brilliant negotiating. The Best Deals!

 

Does he even want to be reelected?D

Stuff like this will keep people from voting who would usually vote Republican.

The sad part is that he really thinks a major part of America agrees with this.

Owning the Libs can only take you so far.

i can't wait to read all about how much money he got for these pardons.

 

Eh...I think he honestly doesn’t care. He’s doing the campaign to get the donations and to bill the government; he’ll then take all that and put it in his own coffers. He only cares about being rich and he’s making tons of money right now.

Hell, he might make more money if he loses. He can sit back on Twitter and do what he did before he was elected and his base will clamor and shout for him the whole time while still pouring money into his pockets. Maybe they try to get him to run again in 2024 if his legal issues haven’t forced him to flee the country by then (still trying to figure out if he’ll allow the Secret Service to guard him after he leaves office). On one hand, he’ll probably make more money off them by making them stay in his properties; on the other, going to be hard to trust them if he needs to make a getaway.

That’s all assuming the Dems show some teeth and actually do something about the mounting pile of evidence against him (on top of the already mountainous pile).

 

This is so WTF that I think there must be a mistake and the story is wrong... but sadly if I think hard about this, it’s possible. He did said kill the whole family including children of terrorist so it is not inconsistent with his ugly views in that he might be sending messages to US forces to not worry about war crimes. So backward and small

 

an alternative view on the war crimes pardon issue. just putting it out there, don't shoot the messenger. excerpt:

Yet a pardon doesn’t signal that the object of executive mercy and compassion is innocent, or did not do wrong. Thinking back on my conversations with my father, I can conceive of him saying that such pardons could be defended. They would state, he might have argued that having been trained to fight and kill, having put themselves in peril for their country, having been subjected to intense hostility from a populace and finally yielding to anger, hate, and perhaps fear, these soldiers deserved to be told by their country, not that they did the right thing, but that its gratitude for their service and sacrifice should be expressed in forgiveness.​

https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/05/19/ethics-quiz-pardons-for-war-criminals/

 

Do you agree with this view?

I think it's hogwash.

 

There might be a pardon waiting, though.

 

Solid article (except for the unneeded shot at the “resistance” that feels out of place). Comments below the article are very good as well; this one especially:

I’m a retired JAG who consulted on what was then referred to as “LOAC” (Law of Armed Conflict) and taught the subject at service special operations courses to people who were involved in exactly these types of incidents.

Unfortunately, the type of conflict in which the US has been engaged for the last two decades is rife with situations in which the usual guidelines given to soldiers are either totally inapplicable or very difficult to apply, especially in the heat of a combat operation. When an enemy refuses to follow the Law of War by, for example, using its civilian population as a shield or as a way to camouflage itself, acts that are easy to characterize after the fact as “war crimes” are inevitable.

But there are, legally, no exceptions for things like shooting unarmed prisoners, torturing captives, and deliberately targeting civilians. Once an enemy is “hors de combat”, he is in a special status and must be protected. And civilian targets are always to be avoided because such targeting turns what is at its essence a political event into a brutal horror. Absent some type of extenuating circumstance, I can’t support pardoning people who knowingly and willingly violate these proscriptions. The standards themselves represent important lines of reason for men placed in the most unreasonable situations. Our national interests are generally served by adherence to these standards- a country whose civilian population is decimated intentionally is not one that will be pacified by any means, and although proper treatment of POWs has not worked generally to our advantage, our mistreatment of captives has damaged our international reputation badly.

The situations faced by our people in the GWOT also raise an interesting legal issue–at what point do the war crimes violations of our enemies excuse violations committed by our own troops? Generally, tit-for-tat is not allowed, but it certainly can be a consideration in assessing legal and moral responsibility. A unit subjected to repeated, deadly ambushes by individuals wearing civilian clothes may get some benefit of the doubt when it unleashes deadly fire against a target that wasn’t checked out as thoroughly as required.
I hope that these cases are being carefully vetted for those special circumstances that might merit a pardon. I have tried military cases where the president of the panel (a military jury) told me that the members voted to convict because that was what the law required, but they also fervently hoped that the convening authority (the general officer who reviews all convictions and sentences) would mitigate or reverse their decision. I’m hoping that these cases are similar to those. If they aren’t–if there isn’t either real doubt about the conduct, or some mitigating circumstance that causes reasonable people to say that it is unfair and improper to punish a soldier in this particular situation–then I think the pardons are a mistake.​

Having been in the military, I can tell you that the decisions that have to be made daily, in combat and out of combat, often can’t be held to a strict interpretation of the law on the books. Our effectiveness as a military and national defense entity would be severely hampered if it was.

However, I wish that the decision to pardon these individuals was done on an individual basis where the reasons behind pardoning them was laid out in detail so that the public could understand.

Dumping this out like this feels like another “squirrel” stunt to juice the news cycle away from other topics. It’s working, as always, but it’s such a callous way of dealing with a nuanced and sensitive subject. Par for the course in politics these days.