Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7072
Reputation: 282
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without digging too far into this;

You have a President who has basically told the media to go and pound sand;
His approach to getting his message out is unorthodox and unlike any President Prior.

His Cabinet selections are vastly different in many cases to those who have historically filled those posts, good, bad or otherwise from either party.

And he has zero political experience.

There are going to be gaffes and there are going to be issues as with any "new" approach.

We have to be careful to not declare "news" as bias or an unfair approach to this President, but with that said there is clearly a different approach in some respects to how the media has either approach or been complacent in the way that President Trump or more specifically his family has been covered.

When the Malia Obama / Lollapalooza situation reared its head last year;
There was almost a vitriol amongst some on the major media agencies in the way the condemned some news agencies or "news sites" in the coverage.

"The Presidents family is off limits" is a term I heard on CNN, MSNBC, and even to a degree on Fox News.

In what I can only regard as an utterly cruel attack against a 10 year old over the weeks after the election on Barron Trump was handled very differently by many in the media.

News needs to be reported;
However its challenging for me to state that on some level the goal posts for this President and the last President in terms of family hasn't at least moved.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 404
Reputation: 80.6Reputation: 80.6
votes: 2
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good points and I had forgotten about the treatment of Barron. That was over the line but wasnt most of that Rosie being Rosie? (she was vilified IIRC)

Leaving the kids out of it is one thing we all agree on. I am glad we dont make any news about our leaders kids, it could get pretty ugly. Anyone who recalls Chretiens kid ? He was in a ton of trouble.

But the gloves should be off...somewhat...for Trumps adult children since they are putting themselves in the line of fire since they are active employees (except Ivanka) who work for the govt now.

And yes, it would appear so far that Trump is hiring the fox to run the henhouse. his choices are a problem to many people.
Drain what swamp?
DeVos, totally unsuitable from my readings.
Wall St honchos being set up in agencies they fought against.
Bannon being an alt right purveyor and conspiracy peddler.
Miller.....oh never mind, that man should be shitcanned tonight for his horrific attempts to explain even the simplest of things.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Media Buzz

Media escalate Trump-Russia reporting as he rips 'fake news' conspiracies

Howard Kurtz

By Howard Kurtz
·Published February 16, 2017
· FoxNews.com


The New York Times and the Washington Post have delivered a one-two punch to President Trump that cost the national security adviser his job, raised questions about his campaign’s contacts with Russia and plunged the White House into a crisis atmosphere.

And there is an air of vindication coursing through the corridors of the mainstream media, which saw Trump survive many negative barrages during the campaign and which are constantly under attack by the new president.

Both things are true. The newspaper stories are based on solid reporting, and there is a strong sense the media are pumped about getting a scalp.

This journalistic digging would not have been possible without high-level leaks from sources who are clearly trying to damage Trump. The Times story yesterday is attributed to “four current and former American officials.” The original Post story on Flynn having discussed U.S. sanctions with the Russian ambassador before the inauguration was attributed to “current and former officials.” But the stories have been accurate.

Both things are true. There has been a gusher of leaks from inside the administration, not just on the Russia mess but on the president’s calls to foreign leaders. Leakers often have nefarious motives, and ex-Obama aides seem to be involved (hence the “former officials” description). But the two papers nailed down the details, and Flynn had to apologize for misleading Mike Pence and others.

Trump went on a tweetstorm yesterday, accusing news organizations of hating him.

Well, it’s not “just like Russia,” which doesn’t have a free press. But it is illegal to leak classified information, and there is a hostile edge to much of the media coverage of this president. Both things are true.

The question now is whether the Times piece has kicked this story into the media stratosphere.

The paper said that “members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.”

This is based on intelligence intercepts that “alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.” The talks included not just Trump campaign officials but “other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services.”

Now it’s important to emphasize what the story doesn’t say. It doesn’t say there was evidence of improper collusion in these calls. It doesn’t say anyone discussed the hacking of the DNC or the Hillary campaign. And as the Times itself says,“it is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself.”

But it’s unusual, and there’s an FBI investigation, and that makes it news.

The Democrats and liberal pundits are going haywire. Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, called in to MSNBC to compare the story to Watergate. He demanded a 9/11 commission-style investigation. 9/11!

Slate’s William Saletan, in a piece ripping the Trump team’s handling of the mess, ends thusly:

“That’s why the catastrophe of this administration won’t end with Flynn’s departure, or even with an investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. It will end only when Trump is impeached and convicted.”


Well, no ambiguity on where he’s coming from.

But Commentary’s John Podhoretz issues this warning:

“The idea that Donald Trump is now inexorably on a path to impeachment has taken almost gleeful hold in the wake of the Michael Flynn resignation among liberal elites and anti-Trumpers generally—and everybody better stop and take a deep breath and consider what might arise from this. This isn’t fire we’re playing with, it’s a nuclear war.”

The media should aggressively pursue this story. And they should avoid the trap of hype and speculation. Both things are true

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....acies.html
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 404
Reputation: 80.6Reputation: 80.6
votes: 2
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO, are there severe doubts getting in to your head (and others here) about just how bad Trumps is starting to trend?

His presser today was pretty damn pathetic and while all politicians give non answers, most seem to stick to something akin to the question, but not Trump.

There is more to come out about Miller too. His friends, associates, Dept Head at his college, they are all saying he is an avowed racist/bigot and he has never had a lick of policy strategy yet here he is a SR advisor?

Worked for Michele Bachman , caimpagned for school President by stating one need not clean up their mess in the caf, 'we have Latinos and black employed to do that'

This man doesn't walk, he slithers.

Its getting bad...and not so funny anymore.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO, are there severe doubts getting in to your head (and others here) about just how bad Trumps is starting to trend?

His presser today was pretty damn pathetic and while all politicians give non answers, most seem to stick to something akin to the question, but not Trump.

There is more to come out about Miller too. His friends, associates, Dept Head at his college, they are all saying he is an avowed racist/bigot and he has never had a lick of policy strategy yet here he is a SR advisor?

Worked for Michele Bachman , caimpagned for school President by stating one need not clean up their mess in the caf, 'we have Latinos and black employed to do that'

This man doesn't walk, he slithers.

Its getting bad...and not so funny anymore.



I don't know if its really been that bad , although I'd admit its been somewhat of a challenge so far

trump has had to deal with a lot more criticism than Obama and his cabinet picks have been thru a lot more questioning than normal


personally I went into the trump presidency with low expectations , and didn't expect him to get along with the same liberal media outlets he argued with all election , why would the New York times suddenly have nice things to say about trump ?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 404
Reputation: 80.6Reputation: 80.6
votes: 2
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:


trump has had to deal with a lot more criticism than Obama and his cabinet picks have been thru a lot more questioning than normal

Methinks it best not to look at comparing Obama to Trump and what O went through.
For one, Obamas picks weren't the scourge of the USA, Bannon and Miller.

Quote:

personally I went into the trump presidency with low expectations ,

Guess what, you shot too high!

My gut feeling from back in late November is Trump will perhaps cave from the pressure.

We can all agree, being Pres is a really tough job. The wealth of knowledge one must learn is legion. The daily onslaught of people vying for attention, the daily briefings (which he isn't getting apparently) the middle of the night wake ups to deal w breaking events, finding the right people, getting policy written is huge. Overwhelmingly huge.

I dont see Trump as one who will do this. There are credible people out there who says he NEVER reads anything. His own biographer has said in 18 months Trump never opened a book, talked about a book nor had on in his possession.

We see what being Pres does. Look at Obama, Bush 1 and 2, Clinton and then look at there pics from inauguration....they age and fast.
Why?.....the job.

My gut says Trump finds an out at some point.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the latest story out of ipoltics is some bizarre anti trump rant from Michael Harris , is trump losing it ? really he is losing it , he just held a long press conference today and answered all the media's questions and now one of them claims he is losing it ? )



Is Donald Trump losing it?

iPolitics Insights

The White House is now at war with the intelligence community, the media — and reality

Michael Harris



Thursday, February 16th, 2017


There is forgetting, and then there is forgetting.

Sir Mick Jagger apparently forgot that he wrote an entire autobiography of 75,000 words and handed it to publisher John Blake in 2014. Jagger was keen to have it published, according to the London Times — until he forgot that he had written it.

Put it down to a bad case of, “I ain’t got no recollections.”

But politics at the highest level is a place where they take down numbers. It is a place where memory is as keen as it is long. Donald Trump’s former National Intelligence Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, is a good example. The military places a premium on detail — and why not? Its generals are in the life-and-death business.

So when a man like Gen. Flynn holds a conversation with the ambassador of Russia on December 29, 2016, chances seem good that he would remember what they talked about.

The odds of that happening had to increase on December 30 when Vladimir Putin decided not to invoke counter-measures to President Barack Obama’s sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2015 US election. At one level, it seems as though Flynn’s call could have stopped what would have been the normal reaction — Russian sanctions against the U.S.

In fact, everything would suggest that this call in particular would be a high point for the general to remember with some satisfaction. After all, the boss wanted better relations with Russia, so why wait until the old administration cleaned out its desks? A person would remember a day like that.

At the beginning of this latest scandal in the Trump White House, that is what Gen. Flynn appeared to do. He appeared to remember what he said on that call. He insisted, categorically, that sanctions had never come up in his calls with the Russian ambassador. Flynn seemed to believe that story, since it was the one he repeated to Vice President Mike Pence. Pence, in turn, told it to the nation.

It quickly turned out that Flynn did discuss the issue of sanctions with his Russian interlocutor. This is known because a number of U.S. intelligence operators were listening in on the calls. There were also transcripts — the kind the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees like to peruse.

What Flynn did was not the equivalent of sticking his gum under his seat, the way some Trump-branded media are reporting it. After all, here was a private citizen, not yet raised to high office in the White House, potentially undermining the official foreign policy of his own country, presumably with the approval of the president-elect. There is only one president at a time, and when Flynn spoke to the Russians about sanctions, that president was Barack Obama.

Depending on what Flynn said, the good general might just have meandered across the red line of treason. Since he chose to lie about the contents of the call, it suggests the worst case. Did Flynn tell the ambassador not to worry about Obama’s sanctions because Trump would lift them? Did he later lie to the FBI, which would be a felony offense?

In the death throes of his career, Trump’s national security advisor belatedly added that he couldn’t remember what he talked about with the ambassador. But Flynn is no Mick Jagger; no one was buying it. Faced with documented evidence that he had lied to the public and Vice-President Pence, Flynn was toast after less than thirty days on the job.

open quote 761b1bYou can bet the farm that Trump won’t be assigning a special prosecutor to look into his Russia connection. So it will be up to the Democrats to fight their way to the bottom of this swamp.

Another ringing endorsement for Trump’s judgement. How comforting that Trump’s likely science advisor recently called climate scientists “a glassy-eyed cult.”

Americans might have been momentarily confused when the White House said that President Trump “had full confidence” in the general after his lying became front page news. But we in Canada knew Flynn was a goner, right? Hadn’t Stephen Harper used the same phrase to describe the doomed Nigel Wright during the Mike Duffy affair? It took about 24 hours for Trump’s “total confidence” to lead Flynn to the gallows. He was subsequently fired after the president “lost trust” in him.

This is where the alternate universe stuff kicks in. The firing was conducted by President Trump. The next day, the other half of the presidential personality — The Donald — kicked in: Flynn was suddenly a wonderful person who had been treated badly by the “fake” media. At a press conference yesterday that looked more like primal scream therapy, Trump said Flynn was just doing his job. In fact, the president went one further. If Flynn hadn’t been phoning Russia and other countries, Trump would have ordered him to make the calls.

Not even Trump’s malapropisms can hide the truth. Flynn was fired because the intelligence community leaked what he had actually talked about to the Russians. That turned out to be a very different thing than what he told Vice-President Pence or the American people. It was not Flynn’s outrageous communication with the Russians per se that caused Trump to ditch this guy. It was getting caught in a lie that made Trump’s right-hand man look like a dork. Worse, it was the truth getting out.

And so, on to the heart of the alternate universe where the Orange One rules. Yesterday, Trump lashed out at a stunned room of reporters — most of whom haven’t had a single question at his last two press conferences because they don’t work for the Christian Broadcast Network. He told them that the real story behind Mike Flynn was the leaks that exposed his lie.

If it wasn’t for those damn leaks — Flynn could still be on Team Trump lying his brains out for America. Now Trump is threatening serious punishment for those responsible for the leaks. And to rub it in, he has appointed his fellow billionaire Stephen Feinberg to conduct a sweeping review of U.S. intelligence agencies. The spooks must be reassured. Feinberg has zero experience in the security and intelligence world — and is a close friend of Trump.

As big as the firing of Mike Flynn is, there is a much bigger narrative building here. Donald Trump’s grasp of geopolitics is no deeper than Bob the Builder’s. Yet there is one area of foreign affairs where his views have been consistently expressed — the relationship with Russia. He has publicly stated that Vladimir Putin, for all the blood on his hands, was a better leader than President Obama. He has ridiculed and threatened NATO. He even got the GOP to soften its hard stand against Russian intervention in Ukraine. And two of his top campaign workers, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, had close ties with Russia.

Now, Americans have learned that during the summer of 2016, in the election cycle, the Trump campaign was in constant contact with Russia, including members of Russian intelligence. The question is — why? Were the Russians helping with the presidential campaign? Were they trading hockey cards? What?

It will be up to Congress to answer those questions. You can bet the farm that Trump won’t be assigning a special prosecutor to look into his Russia connection. It is also safe to say that Congressional Republicans will be more anxious to look into who leaked the goods on Mike Flynn’s lie than to connect the dots between the president and the guy who doesn’t like wearing shirts. So it will be up to the Democrats to fight their way to the bottom of this swamp.

They’ve already gotten some help from some odd quarters. Evelyn Farkas, the former top Russia expert at the Pentagon, is calling for an investigation of Trump himself. Not for alleged unconventional bathing habits. She is concerned that Trump’s business and financial dealings may have left him open to blackmail. After all, the giving, lending or guaranteeing of money could be used to exercise powerful influence over a person. So far — like dead men — the Donald’s taxes have told no tales.

Coincidentally, Donald Trump owes approximately $300 million to Deutsche Bank, which has just gone through all of Trump’s business dealings with the bank to see if there were any connections to Russia. Deutsche Bank was recently fined $640 million by the U.S. and U.K. for failing to stop the laundering of $10 billion of Russian funds through its Moscow branch. The bank will not comment on the outcome of its internal review, but it is being pressured to farm out its assessment to independent auditors.

From Russia with love?

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/16.....losing-it/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 3448
Reputation: 216.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feb 16th story headlines used by Washington Post email ... called The Post Most, it is a promotional tool they use to attract readership to articles they want read. Or something like that. This was their offerings yesterday morning.

Quote:
"Admit it: Trump is unfit to serve" by E.J. Dionne. in which he makes a case the Trump is incompetent, as proven by the resignation/firing of Flynn.

"When governing beckons, Trump keeps campaigning" by Karen Tumulty., in which it is argued that the urgency of the Russian question is being ignored by the Trump gang, who view the whole thing as 'fake news'.

"'This is really unprecedented': ICE detains woman seeking domestic abuse protection at Tex. courthouse," in which a sad anecdote gives grounds for the expression of concern that the resulting "chill" will affect the willingness of illegal immigrants to use public services.

"Trump just escalated his war with the intelligence community -- bigly" since Trump is having the leaks from the 'intelligence community' investigated.

"Why Trump's rant over leaks won't help him" by Jennifer Rubin suggests that a 'Russian cloud' hangs over Trump because Trump let them "hack' the election.

"'Morning Joe' has blacklisted Kellyanne Conway. And that's not all" by Callum Borchers. Covers the shows announcement that they won't book her anymore because she's such a pest and not a good source of real news.

"Andrew Puzder withdraws labor nomination, throwing White House into more turmoil" which rep0rts the story as another sign on Trump's deteriorating relationship with Congress.

"Trump looking at New York billionaire to lead review of U.S. spy agencies" takes a critical look at a rumored Trump backer and the assignment of finding out who in the intelligence community is leaking information gathered by spies or by electronic surveillance and distributed to the public.


It goes on ... a relentless hammering out of a narrative. All of the stuff being highlighted went on in the last administration, and the one before that, but it is being presented as unique. Do you not remember the future Secretary of the Treasury that was many years in arrears on his own taxes?

If you contrast this with the 'look-away' attitude at this point in the Obama administration, you can gauge the effect of the media. Three months after the election, people can actually be punched for wearing a Trump hat! Three months into the Obama presidency, he was being lined up for a Nobel ....
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump's marathon media-bashing presser: Did he go too far?



Howard Kurtz

By Howard Kurtz
·Published February 17, 2017
· FoxNews.com


It was the most extraordinary news conference ever held by a president of the United States.

It was also the harshest indictment of the media ever delivered from the White House.

And it was riveting. You could not turn away. Trump unplugged.

And it was, like all things Trump, a Rorschach test. Those who support this president thought it was a brilliant takedown of a corrupt media. Those who oppose this president thought he seemed somewhat crazed—unhinged, as CNN anchor Jake Tapper put it.

Trump scored some points, as he always does, by denouncing fake news. And he was over the top at times. He even said, jokingly, that today’s headlines would be about him “ranting and raving”—but that actually, the administration, rather than being chaotic, is running like a “fine-tuned machine.” Okay, maybe a bit of hyperbole there.

The president is justified in complaining about an unprecedented flood of illegal leaks that are clearly aimed at damaging him. But that doesn’t mean the information is wrong. The Washington Post was accurate, based on unnamed sources, in reporting that Michael Flynn not leveling with the vice president about his past contacts with the Russian ambassador. That’s why, despite his argument that the press treated Flynn unfairly, Trump fired him.

The president is also right that the tone of his coverage has been unrelentingly negative.

But when the president criticized yesterday’s Wall Street Journal report that some spies are withholding sensitive intelligence from him, he said the paper never called him, as if you can just ring him up in the Oval Office. The story’s fourth paragraph quoted a White House official as denying the allegations. Trump also said a New York Times piece on earlier contacts with Russia by aides and associates was “discredited.” The jury is out on that, and there is, as the Times said, an FBI investigation.

Trump really went off on CNN’s Don Lemon, although not by name, saying his nightly show is stacked with anti-Trump panels. Whether that’s true or not, it feels like a small argument for the president to make.

What was most revealing, in regard to CNN and the media more generally, was Trump saying some journalists have “hatred” for him. He told me that in campaign interviews, but now he’s the commander-in-chief. So he has deep-seated grievances about the way he’s been covered since 2015.

Of course, Trump can get even – and get better press – by accomplishing some of the big-ticket items on his agenda. And that would be real news, not fake.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....o-far.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( this article has to be the most outrageous I've seen so far , It attempts to be a legitimate article about presidential health but seems to focus on the need to test trump for Dementia , is its main point , did we see similar media concern about Clinton's health when she had a health scare or two ? )




As Presidents Live Longer, Doctors Debate Whether To Test For Dementia


February 17, 2017·5:05 AM ET


Bret Stetka


At 70, Donald Trump is the oldest person to become president.

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images



In a series of recent interviews, President Donald Trump's longtime personal physician Dr. Harold N. Bornstein told The New York Times that our new commander in chief has what amounts to a pretty unremarkable medical chart.

Like about a quarter of American adults, Trump is on a statin for high cholesterol. He also takes a daily baby aspirin for heart health, an occasional antibiotic for rosacea, a skin condition, and Propecia, a pill to promote hair growth.

Bornstein also told the Times that should he be appointed White House doctor, he probably wouldn't test the president for baseline dementia risk, something many doctors have argued should be mandatory.

At 70, Trump is the oldest American president to ever take office. Couple his age with a family history of dementia — his father Fred developed Alzheimer's disease in his 80s — and one could argue that the question of baseline cognitive testing for the U.S. head of state has taken on new relevance.

An assortment of fairly simple tests exist that can establish a reference point for cognitive capacity and detect early symptoms of mental decline. One of the most common such screens is the Mini-Mental Status Examination, a series of questions that gauges attention, orientation and short-term memory. It takes about five to 10 minutes to complete.

Yet admitting vulnerability of any kind isn't something politicians have been keen to do. The true health of politicians has likely been cloaked in secrecy since the days of Mesopotamian kings, but definitely since the Wilson administration.


Disabled by polio, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president, controlled his public image to deflect attention from his paraplegia. Roosevelt is seen with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin at the Teheran Conference on Dec. 7, 1943.

Evening Standard/Getty Images


In 1919, President Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke, the after effects of which were covered up by his wife, doctor and cabinet. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's disability related to polio and John F. Kennedy's various ailments were minimized. And it's possible, some have speculated, that Reagan developed dementia while still in office that was also concealed.

But until Reagan, septuagenarian presidents at risk for dementia weren't a concern.

"Donald Trump at the time of his inauguration was older than half of our deceased former presidents at the age when they died," says Dr. Jacob Appel, a Mt. Sinai School of Medicine psychiatrist who has studied the health of politicians and presidents. "Only a generation ago, our political leaders — like the rest of us — were likely to die of heart disease or cancer in their 60s and 70s, what we now think of as late middle age."

Teddy Roosevelt died at 60, FDR at 63, and Lyndon Johnson at 64, all before dementia usually sets in. It is a cruel Darwinian yin to the yang of medical progress that as we live longer and longer, new health problems like mental deterioration can emerge.

"This is a relatively recent problem that may call for a novel solution," says Appel.

Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University's Langone Medical Center, took issue with revelations in The New York Times, saying that anyone's personal physician shouldn't divulge health information without permission — even if that person is the president. Yet Caplan says there needs to be greater transparency when it comes to presidential health.

"I think we're about 50 years overdue for having some sort of annual physical for the president and vice president, the results of which should be reported publicly," he says. "Part of this should be psychiatric and cognitive testing."

Caplan says the exam should be conducted by an independent panel of external physicians selected by a major medical society, as any internal reports from the president's personal doctors are likely to be spun for political purposes.


Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair Analysis Of Public Figures

Shots - Health News

Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair Analysis Of Public Figures

He acknowledges that plenty of past presidents have released medical information, but points out that such disclosures were likely curated by presidential handlers. What's more, these reports don't contain information about mental health, as Vice News' Alex Thompson noted in a January article for Politico that argued for the appointment of a presidential psychiatrist.

"If, say, a president is showing cognitive decline, the people and Congress should be aware of it and be able to argue it," says Caplan, "Maybe voters would care. Maybe they wouldn't. Some people might prefer a demented Donald Trump to whomever the Democrats have to offer! But at least there would be discussion."

Caplan points out that people knew about Dick Cheney's bad heart for years, and he still got elected vice president.

Mt. Sinai's Appel isn't sold on mandatory public screenings for presidents. Even with an external panel, the process would become politicized, he says. He also questions how to objectively determine what level of impairment renders a candidate unfit for office. "As a colleague of mine says, 'One candidate with half a brain may be better than the other candidate with a whole brain.' I fear that baseline cognitive screening is a rather facile solution."

This isn't to say that Appel objects to steps to ensure mentally unfit politicians are removed from office. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which outlines the succession of high office if a president dies, resigns or becomes incapacitated, provides a logical process for removing a dementia-stricken president. Yet, Appel asks, will anyone actually apply it?

"Regrettably, our current political climate makes it unlikely that such a measure will be invoked, even when necessary," he says. "Until the system is fixed, and the political culture changes, medical information is rather useless. ... To one side, it will be a smoking gun, and to the other side it will be fake news or alternative facts."

Like Appel, Caplan doesn't hold out much hope that the public would be clued in if a president's cognition, including Trump's, starts to meaningfully decline.

"What will they do if he starts to slip? Nothing!" Caplan declares. "If that were to happen, he'll be protected. ... They'll take over his Twitter feed. ... This is how it's always been."

Bret Stetka is a writer based in New York and an editorial director at Medscape. His work has appeared in Wired, Scientific American and on TheAtlantic.com. He graduated from University of Virginia School of Medicine in 2005. You can follow him on Twitter: @BretStetka.

http://www.npr.org/sections/he.....t=20170217
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( I wish I was making this stuff up , todays latest media frenzy / smear on trump is an associated press report that claimed he was going to send the national guard out to round up illegal immigrants , except the governors of the states involved have never heard of the plan and the white house itself says the story is entirely false , so it came from somewhere but we don't know where yet )



White House denies Trump weighing mobilizing National Guard for immigration roundups


The Associated Press

Friday, February 17th, 2017



The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press. The White House says the report is false.

The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.

Four states that border on Mexico are included in the proposal – California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – but it also encompasses seven states contiguous to those four – Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Governors in the 11 states would have a choice whether to have their guard troops participate, according to the memo, written by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general.

While National Guard personnel have been used to assist with immigration-related missions on the U.S.-Mexico border before, they have never been used as broadly or as far north.

The memo is addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It would serve as guidance to implement the wide-ranging executive order on immigration and border security that President Donald Trump signed Jan. 25. Such memos are routinely issued to supplement executive orders.

Also dated Jan. 25, the draft memo says participating troops would be authorized “to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States.” It describes how the troops would be activated under a revived state-federal partnership program, and states that personnel would be authorized to conduct searches and identify and arrest any unauthorized immigrants.

Requests to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment and a status report on the proposal were not answered.

The draft document has circulated among DHS staff over the last two weeks. As recently as Friday, staffers in several different offices reported discussions were underway.

If implemented, the impact could be significant. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. without authorization live in the 11 states, according to Pew Research Center estimates based on 2014 Census data.

Use of National Guard troops would greatly increase the number of immigrants targeted in one of Trump’s executive orders last month, which expanded the definition of who could be considered a criminal and therefore a potential target for deportation. That order also allows immigration agents to prioritize removing anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offence.”

Under current rules, even if the proposal is implemented, there would not be immediate mass deportations. Those with existing deportation orders could be sent back to their countries of origin without additional court proceedings. But deportation orders generally would be needed for most other unauthorized immigrants.

The troops would not be nationalized, remaining under state control.

A White House spokesman said the AP’s story is false, according to the Reuters news agency.

Requests by The Associated Press to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment and a status report on the proposal were not answered.

Spokespeople for the governors of Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon and New Mexico said they were unaware of the proposal, and either declined to comment or said it was premature to discuss whether they would participate. The other three states did not immediately respond to the AP.

The proposal would extend the federal-local partnership program that President Barack Obama’s administration began scaling back in 2012 to address complaints that it promoted racial profiling.

The 287(g) program, which Trump included in his immigration executive order, gives local police, sheriff’s deputies and state troopers the authority to assist in the detection of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally as a regular part of their law enforcement duties on the streets and in jails.

The draft memo also mentions other items included in Trump’s executive order, including the hiring of an additional 5,000 border agents, which needs financing from Congress, and his campaign promise to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The signed order contained no mention of the possible use of state National Guard troops.

According to the draft memo, the militarization effort would be proactive, specifically empowering Guard troops to solely carry out immigration enforcement, not as an add-on the way local law enforcement is used in the program.

Allowing Guard troops to operate inside non-border states also would go far beyond past deployments.

In addition to responding to natural or man-made disasters or for military protection of the population or critical infrastructure, state Guard forces have been used to assist with immigration-related tasks on the U.S.-Mexico border, including the construction of fences.

In the mid-2000s, President George W. Bush twice deployed Guard troops on the border to focus on non-law enforcement duties to help augment the Border Patrol as it bolstered its ranks. And in 2010, then-Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced a border security plan that included Guard reconnaissance, aerial patrolling and military exercises.

In July 2014, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry ordered 1,000 National Guard troops to the border when the surge of migrant children fleeing violence in Central America overwhelmed U.S. officials responsible for their care. The Guard troops’ stated role on the border at the time was to provide extra sets of eyes but not make arrests.

Bush initiated the federal 287(g) program – named for a section of a 1996 immigration law – to allow specially trained local law enforcement officials to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and check whether people held in local jails were in the country illegally. ICE trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out those checks from 2006 to 2015.

The memo describes the program as a “highly successful force multiplier” that identified more than 402,000 “removable aliens.”

But federal watchdogs were critical of how DHS ran the program, saying it was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law. Obama phased out all the arrest power agreements in 2013 to instead focus on deporting recent border crossers and immigrants in the country illegally who posed a safety or national security threat.

Trump’s immigration strategy emerges as detentions at the nation’s southern border are down significantly from levels seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Last year, the arrest tally was the fifth-lowest since 1972. Deportations of people living in the U.S. illegally also increased under the Obama administration, though Republicans criticized Obama for setting prosecution guidelines that spared some groups from the threat of deportation, including those brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Last week, ICE officers arrested more than 680 people around the country in what Kelly said were routine, targeted operations; advocates called the actions stepped-up enforcement under Trump.

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/17.....-roundups/
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox News ‏@FoxNews · 14m14 minutes ago
Fox News Poll: @POTUS's approval rating.



a new fox poll says trumps approval rating is 48 % approve , 47 % disapprove

( feb 11-13 )

can't paste it as its a picture


these numbers would indicate for all the hysteria , its mostly just the same people who voted for Clinton who disapprove of trump so highly
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the white house has commented on the crazy reports coming out today , 100% not true according to them , someone clearly made up this report and used it to go after the administration , sounds to be entirely fake news )



Sean Spicer ‏@PressSec · 58m58 minutes ago
Sean Spicer Retweeted Tamara Keith

Not true. 100% false




Sean Spicer ‏@PressSec · 59m59 minutes ago

Sean Spicer Retweeted The Associated Press

This is not true. DHS also confirms it is 100% false



The Associated Press Verified account 
‏@AP
Memo obtained by AP shows Trump considering mobilizing the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 404
Reputation: 80.6Reputation: 80.6
votes: 2
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
( this article has to be the most outrageous I've seen so far , It attempts to be a legitimate article about presidential health but seems to focus on the need to test trump for Dementia , is its main point , did we see similar media concern about Clinton's health when she had a health scare or two ? )

Yes we did.

Time for those blinkers to come off my good man.

Quote:
HILLARY CLINTON is suffering from advanced vascular dementia and has just one year to live, according to shock new medical claims.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/.....ntia-claim

Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the presidential campaign
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/11/hillary-clintons-health-just-became-a-real-issue-in-the-presidential-campaign/?utm_term=.0cf0b6124d32

Health an issue in presidential race after Clinton illness: Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article.....SKCN11I157


[/b]
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 4795
Reputation: 191Reputation: 191
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:
( this article has to be the most outrageous I've seen so far , It attempts to be a legitimate article about presidential health but seems to focus on the need to test trump for Dementia , is its main point , did we see similar media concern about Clinton's health when she had a health scare or two ? )

Yes we did.

Time for those blinkers to come off my good man.

Quote:
HILLARY CLINTON is suffering from advanced vascular dementia and has just one year to live, according to shock new medical claims.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/.....ntia-claim

Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the presidential campaign
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/11/hillary-clintons-health-just-became-a-real-issue-in-the-presidential-campaign/?utm_term=.0cf0b6124d32

Health an issue in presidential race after Clinton illness: Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article.....SKCN11I157


[/b]



its true there was some coverage about her health , think it was mostly before the campaign when she had a health scare in New York City . but there was never calls to give her tests or ever an in depth look as to her long term health .


some of the coverage about trump is just so ridiculous , the story today was already disproven as being entirely false but was still being reported on the 12 pm news anyways , on CTV after they had given the report about how he was going to send the troops out , they then mention at the end that white house said it was not going to happen , so if they already knew they story had serious flaws in its accuracy , why report it prime time to lead off the news ?

the media is so desperately looking for anti trump stories that there not doing in depth research to even determine if they are true or not , all they need is some " source " with something bad to say and that is ran with and given prime time coverage
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The media smear machine aimed at Trump

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB