Trump Can Be Manipulated - And Most World Leaders Now Know It!

The United States has had a variety of presidents from different political parties. Some had great leadership abilities. Some were exceptionally smart. Others recognized their limitations and surrounded themselves with intelligent people. And others used their long experience in government to benefit their presidencies.

They were not all successful domestically, but they all had one thing in common - none of them were controlled or manipulated by foreign leaders or governments.

Until now.

Donald Trump is different. He has no government experience. He has no leadership ability (beyond using his bigotry to control his own base). He has limited intelligence (which is fading even more as he ages). He has surrounded himself with sycophants instead of competent and intelligent aides. And he has a massive ego.

These dubious assets have combined to make him vulnerable to being manipulated.

The first to recognize this was Vladimir Putin. In Trump's first term, Putin took advantage of this in Helsinki. By holding the line in a non-combative way and using a massive amount of flattery, he easily manipulated Trump - causing Trump to doubt his own intelligence agencies and accept the Russian line of thinking. Trump left Helsinki thinking Putin was his friend.

Kim Jong Un was the next to manipulate Trump in that way.

In this second term, Netanyahu has used the same technique to manipulate Trump into siding with Israel instead of pursuing a Mideast peace (as Trump had promised to do).

Western leaders were the last to recognize Trump vulnerability. They were used to rationally discussing facts with U.S. presidents and coming to reasonable conclusions and agreements. But facts mean nothing to Trump (he makes up his own "facts") and he is incapable of a rational intellectual discussion. The result was our allies were being treated worse by Trump than our enemies.

But they are beginning to learn. Recently, the UK's prime minister and the EU's president both used excessive flattery and a non-combative manner of disagreeing to win lower tariffs than expected (without actually having to sign any agreement).

And after watching Putin again manipulate Trump at the Alaska summit, the leaders of several Western nations schooled Zelensky on how to manipulate Trump. Zelensky's last White House visit, in which he tried to discuss facts with Trump, had been a disaster.

This time was different. Visiting the White House with several other European leaders, Zelensky showed he had learned well. He, and the other European leaders, opened the discussions with lavish praise for Donald Trump. Then they presented their views in a non-combative way. The result was Trump agreeing to a security guarantee for Ukraine - something he had been refusing to do in the past.

It's sad and very worrying that Trump can be so easily manipulated by foreign leaders. But at least our friendly allies now know how to counter the manipulation of Trump by our enemies. That may be the best we can hope for, since Trump is not smart enough to know when he is being manipulated.

The U.S. Needs To Realize Saudi Arabia Is NOT Its Friend

 

The following op-ed is by Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner:

The news today that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are slashing oil production is a boon for Russia and a slap in the face of the United States. And especially President Biden. It is the result of a dysfunctional relationship long in the making. And it ushers in a new era of America’s interactions with the Middle East.

 

Gas prices will likely rise, just in time for the midterm elections. Was this the point? It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to start putting some troubling pieces together. 

You have a regime in Riyadh that was chummy with Donald Trump and his inner circle, especially son-in-law Jared Kushner, with whom the Saudis “invested” $2 billion. And let’s be clear, nobody who is actually looking for a return on their investment would invest in Jared. What was that really about? 

The Saudis are led by Mohammed bin Salman, a young autocrat with a reputation for ruthlessness, whose treatment of his own people is marked by atrocious human rights abuses. U.S. intelligence says he personally gave the go-ahead for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and critic of the regime who wrote for TheWashington Post. What a “prince” (well, he’s technically a prince, but you get the point).

The Saudis have been forging stronger ties with Russia, which desperately wants higher energy prices to help it evade Western sanctions and put more pressure on the West to back away from support for Ukraine. So this move clearly reflects the triumph of Putin’s interests over America’s (again bringing us back to the specter of Trump).

Then there is the matter of the missing top secret documents Trump had at Mar-a-Lago. We have seen no proof that the Saudis are involved in that saga, but it’s understandable that so many conspiracy theories would revolve around such speculations. 

After all, there is so much about America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia that is shady, and this is just what we know about.

One thing is certain: Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states have made a very strong statement in rebuffing requests from the United States not to cut production at a perilous time for the world economy. You could try to use the vocabulary of diplomacy to put what happened into context. But another way of looking at it is that the United States sent a long text message to its supposed “friend” group in the Middle East imploring them not to do this and got in return a single emoji with a raised middle finger. 

For decades, the United States has walked a tenuous line — dependent on Saudi crude (and happy for a bulwark against Iran) while overlooking a human rights record that is among the worst in the world. 

Along the way, the U.S. saved the Saudis from Saddam Hussein and Iraq when they were severely threatened near the end of the last century. And more recently has been protecting them from Iran. 

These dynamics offer a real-world example of realpolitik, a foreign policy based on a cost-benefit analysis measured in energy prices and the complexities of the Middle East instead of the values of freedom and democracy that the United States has long espoused. Critics who say all this talk of American values represents rank hypocrisy often have pointed to Saudi Arabia as example 1A. 

So where do we go from here? One imagines that the Biden administration had to be planning for this contingency. The president traveled to Saudi Arabia in July to try to ward off the kind of action we saw today — a trip for which he was heavily criticized by those rightly outraged by the Kingdom’s atrocities. Now, that effort has obviously failed. 

It is past time for a reckoning between the United States and Saudi Arabia, something that should have happened long ago — such as after 9/11 (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi). Any notion that the Faustian bargain we’ve forged with the Kingdom makes sense should be shattered by this latest development.

 

All options are now, or should be, on the table. Should we halt military sales to Saudi Arabia? Should we find ways to break up the power of OPEC? There is reporting from The Wall Street Journal that the Biden administration may be turning to Venezuela. What other pressure points can be exerted?

 

What is also clear is that we are seriously overdue to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels — for the sake of the planet, as well as our national and economic security. The Saudis have played their hand. Have they overplayed it? Perhaps they can ask their friend Vladimir how things are turning out.

Public Disagrees With Trump About Who Is Friend Of U.S.

The charts above reflect the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between October 13th and 15th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 2.7 point margin of error.

The countries that Donald Trump are the friendliest with are Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey -- all ruled by a strong dictator (or king). He actually seems to think these countries are our friends and allies.

The American public does not agree. A clear majority (66%) does not think Russia is a friend, and a plurality says Saudi Arabia (40%) and Turkey (43%) are not our friends. Americans do think the Syrian Kurds are our friends though (a plurality of 46%) -- but sadly, these are the people Trump has betrayed.

Public Says Trump Differs W/Them On Friends And Enemies

As these charts show, the public doesn't think Donald Trump shares their views on who is a friend and who is an enemy of the United States. Trump is perceived as having a lower opinion of our friends and a higher opinion of our enemies than the American public does. And Trump's recent blasting of our allies at the G-7 combined with his embracing of North Korea's dictator has done nothing to change that perception.

The charts were made using information in the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 10th and 12th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a margin of error of 3.2 points.

Donald Trump Has Failed His First Foreign Policy Test

The chart above is from a recent Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between December 10th and 13th of a random national sample of 1,465 adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 points.

It shows that most Americans think Donald Trump is out-of-step with public opinion on Russia. Only 21% of Americans (and 28% of Trump's own voters) say Russia is a friend or ally of the United States -- while 58% (and 56% of Trump voters) say Russia is unfriendly or an enemy of the United States.

But those same respondents think Trump has a very different view of Russia. About 54% of Americans (and 47% of Trump voters) think Trump views Russia as a friend or ally -- while 21% (and 29% of Trump voters) think Trump views Russia as unfriendly or an enemy. There are reasons why they believe this -- namely Trump calling Putin a great leader, refusing to believe Russia interfered with the U.S. election by hacking and releasing the hacked information, and choosing a Secretary of State a man who signed a $500 billion dollar deal with Russia and received Russia's highest commendation.

This certainly does not inspire confidence in how Trump will handle foreign policy, and in fact, Dan Balz (in The Washington Post) says Trump has failed his first foreign policy test. Mr. Balz has written:

Presidents often are tested early, by unexpected crises or provocations by foreign adversaries. President-elect Donald Trump’s first test has come even before he is sworn in, and so far, he has responded with denial, equivocation and deflection.

The test has come over Russia’s brazen intrusion into the U.S. election process through its hacking of the servers at the Democratic National Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

Contrary to what Trump said last week, the Russian intrusion was known long before the election. The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima reported in June that the Russians had penetrated the DNC network. Then on Oct. 7, intelligence officials publicly stated that the hacking had occurred, that the Russians were behind it and that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.” That was an obvious reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump may have missed the October announcement. He was preoccupied with the infamous “Access Hollywood” video, which The Post had released the same afternoon. At the time, the video captured most of the media attention. It seemed to present a dire threat to Trump’s chances of winning the election. Trump weathered that storm and is a month away from being sworn in as president. Now he has a bigger problem awaiting him when he takes office, one he seems resistant to addressing.

In the past week, intelligence officials have added to their findings, concluding that the motivation behind Russia’s hacking was to help Trump win.

The findings about Russian interference and the motive behind their actions will not change the outcome of the election. On Monday, the electoral college’s electors will cast their votes in the states, and no doubt Trump will have his comfortable majority secured.

Throughout the campaign, Trump described his philosophy as one of “America first.” He drew an enthusiastic response from his supporters for signaling that he would refocus U.S. foreign policy away from the course pursued for the past eight years by President Obama and seemingly abandoning a broader consensus that has guided presidents of both parties for decades.

But if standing up to Russian attempts to interfere with American democracy isn’t a foundational principle of an “America first” policy, what is? Trump’s response has suggested a different focus and different philosophy, one that might be described as “Trump first,” rather than “America first.” His instincts appear to be aimed at shielding himself.

The hacking has become the elephant in the room since the election. It is a significant national security threat that Trump will have to deal with and also a roiling political debate that has threatened to complicate the transfer of power.

Trump’s posture toward Putin and to the hacking long has puzzled and alarmed current and former government officials who have experience in these areas. His friendly attitude toward Putin is contrary to the views of officials in both parties about the man behind Russian aggression in various parts of the world.

His invitation to Russia to try to hack Clinton’s emails, issued last summer during the Democratic National Convention, was inexcusable, even if in jest. He has long resisted embracing the evidence that the Russians were behind the hacking. He said it could have been done by other countries or by “somebody sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds.”

When it was reported about a week ago that the CIA had concluded that the Russians were trying to help him win the election, he responded with a tweet slamming the intelligence community for claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq War. The CIA was tragically wrong in that case, but was it necessary for the incoming president to publicly rebuke and provoke the agency?

All of this has put Trump at odds with the intelligence community he will soon oversee as commander in chief. That should be as worrisome to the incoming president as it is to the intelligence professionals. It has also put him at odds with many Republicans in Congress who are joining Democrats in their call for a thorough investigation and who already question whether Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil chief executive nominated by Trump to become secretary of state, is too friendly toward Putin.

Meanwhile, the political implications of the hacking have added to the raw emotions left behind by an election outcome that surprised people in both parties. Clinton is on record as believing that the combination of the Russian hacking and especially the interference of FBI Director James B. Comey over her emails cost her the election.

Caught in the middle is Obama, who is obviously loyal to Clinton and disappointed that Trump will be his successor. During his Friday news conference, he skirted some direct questions, showing the degree to which he is trying to maintain a working relationship with Trump during the transition while still trying to highlight the findings of the intelligence community. As he put it, “not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin.”

Since the election, Trump has rejected what would seem to be the obvious course to follow in light of the conclusions of the intelligence community. The simpler reaction would have been to respond the way many in Congress did, which was to express outrage at the interference and call for an investigation to examine exactly how the cyber-intrusion happened and how similar activities can be prevented in the future. Instead, he has continued to question the intelligence community and to suggest partisan motivations of those who accept the findings.

Perhaps his fear is that the more legitimacy is given to the conclusions that the Russians were motivated by their desire to help him or hurt Clinton, the less his victory will be seen as legitimate.

Or perhaps all of his tweets and statements are a prelude to Monday’s electoral college vote, after which he will feel freer to reverse course and join others in calling for a congressional investigation to go along with the review and report ordered by Obama.

In recent days, some of his advisers appeared to be preparing for that kind of shift. But the American people — and Trump advisers — have learned that no one safely speaks for Trump other than Trump himself. And they have learned how difficult it is for Trump to admit error.

On top of all this is the president-elect’s apparent lack of interest in receiving daily intelligence briefings, a standard procedure for presidents. That raises questions about how he plans to conduct foreign policy. Will he seek all available evidence as he weighs decisions? Whom will he listen to and trust? And will he ever have a trusting relationship with the vast intelligence-gathering resources at his command?

Trump is still a month away from occupying the Oval Office. But he is already caught up in a controversy that will define the opening of his presidency and is struggling to find his way.

France And The United States

These two gentlemen are French -- but they are also American heroes, because they helped the Continental Army to fight the British during The American Revolutionary War. The gentleman on the left is the Marquis De La Fayette, and the gentleman on the right is General Rochambeau.

They were not the only French assistance to the American colonies during that war. The French also supplied money, helped the U.S. form a navy, and went to war with the British (diverting British attention away from the American rebellion). In fact, a very good case could be made that without French help the American Revolution might well have failed.

For their part, the Americans have also helped the French in their time of need. This was especially true during the two World Wars. My point in recounting this history between the two nations is that France and the United States have always had close ties, and the people of the two nations have always had respect for each other. But while the people of both nations are friends (and undoubtably will remain so), that does not mean those peoples always like the actions of the other's government.

Americans did not like it when the French government refused to allow a flyover to bomb Libya, or when they refused to support the illegal American invasion of Iraq. And the French don't care for the illegal wars conducted by the American government or the bullying it does to weaker nations.

That's why I found the charts below (from the Gallup Poll) so interesting. They graph the popularity of each government with the citizens of the other nation.

Why They Hate Us

I'm getting a little sick of those on the right claiming that people hate us because of our freedoms. That's utterly ridiculous. It's far more likely that they hate us because we think we're better than they are -- that they are just pawns, easily sacrificed to get a few more dollars of profit for our giant corporations. I'll bet if we actually lived up to the ideals that we claim to believe in, everyone would want to be our friend. But you can't win friends by lying to them, threatening them, and stealing from them.

Helping When Help Isn't Wanted

One of my daughters has a blogger friend who lives in Europe. Although he was born in the United States, he has lived in Europe for over thirty years and is now also a citizen of a country there (which I will leave unnamed). Although they have never met in person, they have both been posting on the same blog and have been e-mailing and instant-messaging each other for a couple of years now. It is one of the nice things about the internet that people can now easily have friendships with people all over the world -- people they will probably never get to meet in person.

This gentleman has had some recent hardships in his life, but we all thought he was handling them well and would get through them with some help and love from his friends. It looks like we were wrong because this post appeared on his blog a few days ago:

I won't be around much longer. Yup, am gonna leave the planet.

Oh, don't get all crazy, I am so focussed on this. There are things that in themselves are meaningless. However.... something turns up that is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Hey, you can get knocked down, you get up, brush yourself off, and go on.

But ONE day.... everything crashes on your head, and all you want to do is leave.

And you realise you can't DO it any more. Am at that point.

This isn't a cry for help. It's been in my mind for a lonnng time. I want everyone to know... I have loved people... deeply. I have tried to make a difference in the world. Most of it didn't work.

Am hanging out for a week or so, but once I get things squared away, I will be gone.

I wish to say I loved being here. . . And the nice people here who were supportive.

I don't know how to say this.... I probably would have left the planet if not for you all.

I have a week or so to get things in order. But it was profoundly nice to meet you all.

Although he said the post was not a "cry for help", my daughter (and I) believed that was exactly what it was. My daughter got on the internet and for the next couple of hours traded instant messages with him. She pleaded with him, tried to reason with him, and pointed out that he had friends who cared for him. It was all to no avail. He said his mind was made up and there was nothing she could do or that he wanted her to do.

That was not good enough. A person simply cannot sit idly by while a friend, who is obviously in the midst of a serious depression, commits suicide. My daughter decided to call the Suicide Hotline, in the hope they would have some suggestions about what to do. They were of no help at all. Their only suggestion was to call 9-1-1 (which would have been a waste of time since 9-1-1 can do nothing about a threatened suicide in Europe).

But persistence is not a quality lacking in my daughter. The next morning she contacted the United States State Department, explained the situation to them, and asked if there was anything they could do to help. I must admit that I didn't expect them to help. I was wrong! My daughter was contacted by an official from the U.S. Embassy in the European country. This same official also called the gentleman wanting to commit suicide, and the appropriate social service agency in that country (and even gave my daughter the name and contact information of the social service worker assigned to the case).

That social service agency worker paid a visit to the gentleman in question. We know this because the gentlemen sent my daughter an angry e-mail about her "interference". That is the last thing we have heard about the matter. Did he go ahead and commit suicide? Is he now in a hospital getting psychological help? We don't know. All we can do at this point is hope for the best.

We do know the U.S. Embassy and the social services of that country are trying to help, and we must trust they will be able to do so. We do appreciate the fact that they would take action on a request from an ordinary person halfway around the world.

As for my daughter, she says she could not just do nothing. It is better that he receives help even if he hates her for making sure he got that help. It goes without saying that I'm very proud of her. But that is not why I wrote this post.

The point is that if you know of a person threatening suicide, you must take action. It does not matter that the person doesn't want help or would hate you for helping. Life is far too precious to let chronic depression take it away. In the final analysis you must live with your own conscience, and that is far easier to do if you know you did everything you could possibly do to save a person's life -- even if that person said they didn't want your help.

Good News For Drinkers

All of you drinkers out there need to send a thank you to Japanese researchers -- at least those of you who drink less than 300 grams per week. Researchers from Osaka University have published a new study about alcohol use, and it's very interesting.

It has already been shown that alcohol in light to moderate use (not more than 300 grams a week) can have a healthy benefit regarding heart disease and stroke. These drinkers simply have less heart disease or stroke than either non-drinkers or heavy-drinkers according to studies. The Japanese study verified this.

It has also been shown these same health benefits show up in people who have a strong social-support system -- a lot of supportive friends and family. Those without a social-support system are generally less heart healthy. It is believed that those alone experience more stress than those with friends and family.

What the Osaka University researchers have discovered is that these two phenomena can work together for even greater health benefits. It seems that if you combine light to moderate drinking with a strong social-support network, the combination has a stronger positive effect on heart disease and stroke than either one does by itself.

However, heavy drinking (more than 300 grams a week) does not show the same benefit -- probably due to alcohol-induced high blood pressure. As lead researcher Dr. Hiroyasu Iso says, "...this beneficial effect of social support is confined to light-to-moderate drinking. Heavy drinking is risky irrespective of social support level."

Well, I've got the alcohol part right. Now all I need is some friends.