President Trump Oval Office Remarks With Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte…

President Donald Trump meets with Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte in the Oval Office at the White House.

During remarks President Trump notes a phone call with Mexico’s winning presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador; and ongoing interviews/discussions with possible Supreme Court nominees.  [Four SCOTUS nominees were interviewed today and three or four more will come in the next few days.]

On the trade front President Trump notes the ongoing issues with the WTO (World Trading Organization), and a possible confrontation looming over structural changes needed to reset global trade disparities and establish open markets.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Canada, China, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2018, European Union, media bias, Mexico, NAFTA, President Trump, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US dept of agriculture, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

200 Responses to President Trump Oval Office Remarks With Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte…

  1. sundance says:

    Liked by 38 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “Trump threatens to leave the WTO if “they don’t treat us properly””

      Oh please – don’t stop there.
      UN
      NATO
      etc.
      etc.

      Liked by 37 people

      • USTerminator says:

        I would leave the WTO. Impose 100% tariff on everything imported into US unless that you have trade agreement with US. Implement standard 85% rule of country original content, All the products imported into the US must be declared % of original, otherwise will be taxed at 100%. Let say we have tariff free agreement with Canada and they ship car into US, it must have at least 85% Canada content to qualify. If they ship car with 75% Canada content then (85%-75%=10% tariff). All government must certify and responsible for their export to ship into US. All US export must be exempt from their VAT tax, otherwise we will consider it as tariff.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Please – don’t stop there.
        World Bank
        IMF
        Council on Foreign Relations
        … and damned other international body without accountability metrics and IMPOSED consequences for underperformance or corruption.

        Liked by 25 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Much as I hate to say it, stay IN U.N.

        ONLY cause its too much fun, watching Nicki Haley slap the schiznit out of them, every couple of weeks!

        Otherwise, I’d be all for adding them to the list.

        Liked by 4 people

        • WSB says:

          Then it should be run on a completely volunteer system. Every other country can start paying us back.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Bendix says:

          She’s gotten really good at it. She looks good while doing it, as well,\.

          Like

        • yy4u says:

          Keep the US in the UN but get the UN out of the US. In other words, evict them from NYC. Best option would be for the UN to always be in temporary quarters RENTED from the country to which the Sec-Gen belongs. So when Kofi Anan was Sec General, the UN should have been in Ghana. Imagine the benefits having all those diplomats living in Ghana would accrue to the Ghanan economy. Absent that, locate the UN in a struggling Third World Country like Somalia, Venezuela, Myomar, Vietnam, North Korea. I am NOT being facetious.

          Second best option would be permanent location in Jerusalem, then watch how quickly the bombs stop falling on Israel.

          First World (Western nations) should pay a per capita fee to the UN. The USA with it’s 300+ million would pay a lot more than Great Britain with it’s 65+ million, but both would pay THE SAME per capita. No more the USA footing the majority of the bill (like in NATO).

          Like

      • Oldschool says:

        Art of the deal. Nothing more.

        NATO nations still not paying, we are still giving billions to UN. Pulling out of only a program or 2.

        Like

    • fleporeblog says:

      Liked by 19 people

    • Troublemaker10 says:

      One of Trump’s top economic team members said recently that the goal is not to get out of the WTO, but to “reform” it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • abdiesus says:

        Yes, but that (reform) was what we also originally wanted for the UN Human Rights Council. I think when attempts to reform WTO fail, which I predict they will, then we will exit WTO just like we exited UN Human Rights Council. No point in giving legitimacy to an organization which will never speak the truth about trade issues, and will never treat us fairly.

        Liked by 16 people

      • scott467 says:

        “One of Trump’s top economic team members said recently that the goal is not to get out of the WTO, but to “reform” it.”

        _____________________

        Then I would ask him the same question I ask every fantasist who believes in the fairy tale of ‘reform’.

        Can you name a single, large institution, in the history of the world, that was ever successfully ‘reformed’ once it had become corrupt?

        Anywhere in the world, since Adam.

        If the answer to that question is ‘No’, if it has NEVER happened before in the history of the world, then it sure AIN’T gonna happen now.

        Stop lying to yourself, stop lying to us, and START razing these corrupt institutions to the GROUND.

        Liked by 7 people

        • boogywstew says:

          Does Major League Baseball count? After the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, Baseball brought in Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis as the first Baseball Comissioner with dictatorial powers to clean up the sport.

          Liked by 1 person

          • scott467 says:

            “Does Major League Baseball count? After the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, Baseball brought in Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis as the first Baseball Comissioner with dictatorial powers to clean up the sport.”

            __________________

            Is major league baseball ‘reformed’?

            Was it actually ‘reformed’ at the time, or was that the necessary ‘narrative’ so the money makers (owners) could get back to business?

            Who was paying the Judge to be the “Commissioner”?

            Exactly.

            It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

            I was a huge baseball fan as a kid, but I fell out of the habit during the 1981 baseball strike, and never really paid attention to it again.

            I hear lot about it on the news though.

            Gambling, steroids and other ‘enhancements’, etc.

            It is what it is.

            Liked by 1 person

            • boogywstew says:

              Landis had 100% control over MLB and could ban any player for life at any time. The owners paid him. Do you consider the United States to be corrupt? If so, does your rule apply here as well? I like and respect your opinions.

              Liked by 1 person

              • scott467 says:

                “Landis had 100% control over MLB and could ban any player for life at any time.”

                _________________

                Who was paying him?

                Forget the ‘news’ reports, the news was corrupt then just like it is today.

                Who wrote the checks that Judge Landis was cashing, in his role as Commissioner?

                Was it the baseball owners?

                If it was, then isn’t the conflict of interest inherent in the financial arrangement?

                Isn’t it all Big-Time Wrestling?

                The most recent hilarious example was Roger Goodell and the NFL owners. Goodell went full-on Social Justice Warrior, with all the Big Time Wrestling drama over kneeling, and on cue, some owners threatened to fire Goodell, yada, yada, yada.

                And then what happened when Goodell’s contract was up for renewal?

                They gave him the entire world.

                Plus benefits.

                For life.

                Things that make you go ‘hmmmm….’

                LOL!

                I know it sucks to look at the world as it really is. That’s why so many people take the blue pill and go back to sleep.

                Sometimes I wish I could, but I can’t.

                It makes me gag.

                Liked by 1 person

              • scott467 says:

                “Do you consider the United States to be corrupt? If so, does your rule apply here as well?”

                ____________________

                I certainly consider our government and its institutions corrupt, absolutely.

                The Congress is wholly corrupt, except a handful of House members. The Senate is so filthy corrupt that it should be abolished if there is a Constitutional Convention, and replaced with a body that does what the Senate was intended to do, with safeguards making it MUCH easier for We the People to hold the perpetually corrupt accountable.

                The Congress as an institution can be (and is) corrupt. The Judicial branch can be (and is) corrupt. Any ‘organization’ is susceptible to corruption, and once that corruption becomes institutionalized, once a majority or controlling interest has become corrupt, there is no practical way out.

                The presidency (Executive Branch) is unique in this regard. It is either corrupt or not corrupt based on the character and actions of one man. If that man is corrupt, then the institution of the presidency is likewise corrupt. If that man is not corrupt, then the institution of the presidency is (likewise) not corrupt.

                Which means, in theory, that one man can, under extraordinary circumstances, be elected by the People, to confront and purge the other two corrupt branches. And that is what I think is happening right now.

                As to whether the United States is corrupt, that depends on what you mean by United States, and it gets tricky.

                If you mean America, I don’t think of America as an institution, but as a country, and ultimately, it is We the People. I don’t think America is corrupt.

                If you mean the United States, that’s where it gets tricky.

                It started out as “the united States of America”. Notice the lower case ‘u’ in ‘united’. That is how it was written on the Constitution. ‘United’ was an adjective, not a proper noun.

                I don’t know the exact route the corruption took, but generally, it went something like this.

                For a while it became the United States of America.

                Then it became The United States of America.

                Then it became THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

                Then it became THE UNITED STATES.

                And then what we have today, UNITED STATES.

                Each one is an evolution, a (corporate) reorganization.

                The exact same process has happened with all of the States.

                What is always missing, but implied by the ALL CAPS, is “Inc.”

                All capital letters means Incorporated.

                Almost nobody in any official capacity calls our country America anymore.

                I would like to know how all of these fundamental changes to the charter of our nation happened, without a single public hearing or vote. However it was done, it was LAWLESS.

                I think President Trump would like to know the answer to that too.

                I’m counting on it.

                Liked by 1 person

      • scott467 says:

        “One of Trump’s top economic team members said recently that the goal is not to get out of the WTO, but to “reform” it.”

        _____________________

        If that doesn’t peg your ‘B.S.’ meter all the way to ’11’, then nothing will.

        If I could make that my ‘tag line’, I would. It’s a reasonable response to just about everything we’re asked to believe by the media and our government.

        Like

      • WSB says:

        With bi-lateral trade agreements, the WTO is a waste of time, IMHO.

        Liked by 1 person

    • dayallaxeded says:

      I don’t think it’s a threat. Pretty dayum sure, it’s a fact!

      Like

  2. MfM says:

    At the end Rutte was asking if they (Media) were always like. The implication was that they (Media) were very rude!

    Liked by 23 people

    • Caius Lowell says:

      The media are socialists, so they’re both rude and stupid — they can’t help it…

      Liked by 7 people

    • Troublemaker10 says:

      They (WH press Corp) sound like yapping dogs these days. Who was that one woman who was screaming so much?

      Liked by 3 people

      • hanna693 says:

        She is a staffer and was telling reporters to go, “Let’s go, go! They tend to hang around so she has to get loud.

        Liked by 4 people

        • GB Bari says:

          They need to figure out a different and less offensive (to the ears, at least) method of ending a press conference and ushering out the media. Maybe to help, the video clips can be edited to stop precisely before that raucous melee occurs.

          No wonder PR Rutte was laughing – he was obviously taken aback, incredulous at the immature and rude behavior in front of our President.

          Liked by 4 people

          • How ’bout no press conferences in the Oval. If they must– no microphones in the faces of those seated–only one microphone for all. Anyone raising their voice is out forever and they raise their hands to be called on. Only one camera allowed they can all use it and no filming the press.

            Liked by 4 people

          • Phil aka Felipe says:

            “They need to figure out a different and less offensive (to the ears, at least) method of ending a press conference and ushering out the media.”

            Here’s how I suggest POTUS handle it:

            “This press conference (or meeting or whatever) is over. Now, leave. And, no more questions. Security detail, get ’em outta here.” (And take their coats) 🙂

            Liked by 6 people

          • Janie M. says:

            Yes, GB. I overheard him laugh and ask President Trump, “Is is always like this?”

            Like

          • Oldschool says:

            When spoiled children act out, they get my attention, for the moment, but then I look at the parents and wonder why on earth they allow this. If the whitehouse staff and POTUS cannot keep these folks in line, they own it. I am embarassed at the behavior allowed in front of visiting leaders at the whitehouse. It’s on them to make and enforce rules and to penalize when they are not followed. We seem to be a society without rules, laws or consequences. Getting worse.

            Liked by 1 person

    • MAJA says:

      I noticed during their tantrums, he pointed to the press, laughing at them and asked PDJT a question.

      Liked by 8 people

  3. Steve Summar says:

    The MSM has the tumerity to question DJT’s decorum, given their abusive rude behavior…outrageous….WWG1WGA

    Liked by 6 people

  4. fleporeblog says:

    If Crying Chuck is this nervous about a Supreme Court Justice nomination, than she is the right choice!

    I wrote this on June 30th and am more confident that Amy Barrett is the PERFECT choice to replace Justice Kennedy!

    Excellent article in Bloomberg about her! She was recently selected by every Republican as well as 3 Democrats (Tim Kaine, Joe Donnelly and Joe Manchin).

    https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-06-28/amy-coney-barrett-should-replace-kennedy-on-supreme-court

    From the article linked above:

    She is the youngest of the five top choices, which is a mark in her favor given that the nominee will have life tenure and Trump will want one who will leave a lasting mark on the law.

    That confirmation experience also means that we know the likely line of attack on Barrett — and that it will probably backfire. Last year Senator Dianne Feinstein criticized her for her religious views.

    “Dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said, in reference to Barrett’s Catholic faith. Never mind that Barrett had already said that “it is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions, whether it derives from faith or personal conviction.” Feinstein’s office defended the senator by noting that Barrett had also written, in an article for the Notre Dame Alumni Association, that all people play a role “in God’s ever-unfolding plan to redeem the world” — which is a fairly
    basic statement of Christian belief that does not imply support for the judicial imposition of theocracy.

    The main reason I favor Barrett, though, is the obvious one: She’s a woman. It may be that in an ideal world, the sex of a Supreme Court nominee would not matter. But opposing a woman will probably be more awkward for senators than opposing a man would be. Also, it cannot be good for conservatism that all three women now on the court are liberals. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned — as I certainly hope it will be, as it is an unjust decision with no plausible basis in the Constitution — it would be better if it were not done by only male justices, with every female justice in dissent.

    So pick Barrett, Mr. President. Let the dogma live loudly on the Supreme Court.

    Liked by 25 people

    • Tonawanda says:

      “Dogma lives loudly within you” is the condescending and nasty remark coming from a person whose dogma lives loudly within her.

      But there is a difference. For one, the “dogma” is based on love of God and love of neighbor, and does not change.

      For the other, the dogma is based on love of self and changes often, depending on what currently is the most politically effective condescending nastiness.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Lindenlee says:

        “Excuse me, Ms. Feinstein, but you, of all people, should know how important it is that we extend to all Americans the religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution, in all areas of life, which certainly would have been denied to you and yours, should you have lived in Europe in 1939.”

        Liked by 4 people

    • litlbit2 says:

      Good points fle, however I would not worry to much about the rhetoric of the delusional, they have removed any credibility they ever possessed. I do not know who President Trump will select, but from his past, the process used in his selection process is A-1. Let their games began just before the November blood bath. Waiting🇺🇸🇺🇸🎂🎂🙏

      Soon to be 2 for us Zip for the corrupters, dnc/GOPe

      Liked by 10 people

    • Tonawanda says:

      Stare decisis, if I understand correctly, does NOT mean that precedent never changes. Its meaning included the fact that precedent is changed if the precedent was wrongly decided, for instance if the reasoning was patently flawed.

      Roe v Wade is joke “reasoning,” totally incoherent logically and legally, like Dred Scott, and for the same reason: Demokkkrat Party politics was the triumphant “reason.”

      I do not see why it is wrong to ask a nominee for her views on previous cases, but more to the point I see absolutely nothing wrong with a nominee volunteering that Roe v Wade was an absurdly incoherent decision not worthy of upholding.

      Liked by 7 people

      • JoAnn Leichliter says:

        Serious legal scholars–even some liberals–agree that Roe v Wade is a joke, and not a very amusing one, at that. “Penumbras”? Please!

        Liked by 7 people

      • GB Bari says:

        Stare decisis means “stand by things decided”. That concept favors the momentum of status quo for rulings that have previously occurred, especially within the same judicial body. But it does not mandate it. I believe you are correct since it is almost universally accepted that, in rare instances, some decisions are seen as being flawed by an overwhelming majority of both the governed and the government. When that rare situation occurs, it must be given considerable weight.

        Liked by 4 people

      • ristvan says:

        T and JA, this Lurking Lawyer repectfully disagrees. Will explain why, as an intro to the wonderful complicated world of ConLaw.
        You both think R v W is ‘joke reasoning. Not so. The right of privacy is inferred from the Bill of Rights, not express. First articulated by later famous SCOTUS justice Louis Brandeis in an 1890 law review article. His argument was ‘penumbral’, a conlaw legal reasoning later officially recognized in 1965 by Dougas in Griswold v Connecticut. It is now very well established conlaw reasoning, although objected to by strict constructionalists and originalists. (I slogged through Scalia’s last book “The Interpretation of Legal Texts” and found some of it beyond tortured reasoning. An example: originalists would limit the 2A firearms protections to black powder muzzle loaders. ABSURD in light of founder’s intent. Second example: originalists would not have 4A apply to telephone or internet wiretaps. ABSURD.
        So there were two routes to 1973 R v W. The route Blackmun chose was most direct. Penumbral right of privacy invokes 14A S1 due process, limiting what states can do about abortion. As later modified, says states only have a say at viability, not before.

        The second route is more circuitous, but you would likemit even less. 1A prohibits Congress from establishing or prohibiting religion. Does this mean States can? Nope, via a penumbral argument. A relevant specific example: Mormon Utah cannot prevent the sale/consumption of alcoholic beverages despite 21A S2. A penumbral argument. So, via application of 9A and then 10A, stateshave nomsaybon abortion whatsoever because IS at core a religious issue.
        SCOTUS chose the gentler route, allowing states a say post viability. Stare Decisis.
        No way R v W is equivalent to Dread Scott, Percy v Ferguson, Korematsu, or the new Janus ruling overturning unworkable Abboud. Thinking it is shows lack of conlaw knowledge. And you don’t need to go to law school to read up on this vital subject matter.
        I earned my SCOTUS cufflinks from Clarence Thomas precisely because I could articulate this sort of stuff in the area of ecommerce and telecommunications as it applies to the rules of civil procedure (standing and jurisdiction). A lot more complicated and aubtle than R v W.

        Liked by 8 people

        • Tonawanda says:

          Very interesting analysis.

          The Clarence Thomas cufflinks are treasures!

          Liked by 3 people

        • WSB says:

          1A prohibits the Congress from AN establishment of religion.

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

          In other words, Congress cannot declare a government religion, like The Church of England. 1A does not prevent Congress from practicing or acknowledging religion.

          I note your comment was about other point..just wanted to clarify.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Rhoda R says:

          Is ‘at viability’ defined as at birth? Or can it be defined as the developmental phase of the fetus where it has can survive outside the mothers body?

          Like

        • dayallaxeded says:

          All I can say is, that’s some really awful writing. I get the problems with mobile devices and autoincorrect, but dayum, you’re pretending to make a fairly technical argument. Meanwhile, you completely misconstrue “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution–it’s about the original meaning and intent of the words, not the historical tech at the time. Re: 2A, the “original” meaning was that to minimize or avoid a standing army altogether, the able citizenry should be armed in a manner allowing them to muster as a military force on a moments notice, like “minute men” of that day. That “original” meaning, applied to today’s tech means everyone has an M4 or similar with a grenade launcher and people had better be very polite. You’re lost in an argumentum ad absurdum.

          Nonetheless, your point about RvW as best I can make it out is well taken–it’s really a 1st A right to privacy case. It was not intended to create a new “right” in women to kill their unborn children or to demand bc from the public fisc. It simply expressed, in the context of reproduction, every person’s right to privacy and non-interference from gummint in our medical care, unless gummint could articulate a reasonable, protectible state interest–like protecting a human life–you know, like laws against murder and slavery.

          However, every case since and every popular understanding of RvW has been corrupt, wrong, disgusting, and an affront to the fundamentals of our federal system (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas–thanks a pantsload, Squishy Kennedy). And how’s that right of privacy in medical treatment working out for us under 0bunghole-don’t-care? This is the reason radical strict constructionists need to be the only SCOTUS Justices–the chances that a little loose language in an opinion will send the entire nation off the rails is too great to risk. Moreover, the other two branches of government need a severe nun with a big ruler overseeing them and keeping them in the strict, limited lines of the Constitution, not a bunch of squishes with rubber stamps (a la, Roberts’ ACA decision–not wrong, given precedent, but not good ConLaw either).

          Since I’ve got this long screed going, I’ll just leave this here–all the Demonrat legies who are so so worried about RvW getting overruled need to be hit between the eyes, hard, with a clue bat engraved to print “States’ Rights” on their foreheads. RvW gets overturned, the decision making simply goes back to the states. Abortion and contraception don’t become illegal. They become subject to all of WE THE PEOPLE’s state and local regulation with due process of law. Feinstein and Pelousy and the whiners from NY etc. need to answer whether their constituents want abortion or contraception more or less regulated or even outlawed. It should be their decision, made at the local level. In those God forsaking (not forsaken, b/c He would have none be lost, so keep praying) libtard enclaves, reversing RvW would probably liberalize, rather than outlaw abortion and contraception. So once again, Demonrats demonstrate that they’re forkin’ idjits who should quit stealing hard working, thinking, intelligent humans’ oxygen.

          Like

      • dave says:

        For a precedent change, try Dred Scott.

        Liked by 2 people

    • ristvan says:

      She barely made it onto the court of appeals last year 55-43. By contrast, Gorsuch to appeals court was unanimous, yet he barely made it to SCOTUS 54-45 despite a long and clear opinion record—212 in total since 2006. I think that given her short judicial history and that it is Scotus, not one of 10 appeals courts, there is little chance she could be confirmed by the present Senate. Schumer is already blasting her yet she has not even been nominated.
      As said elsewhere, I don’t think any of the 4 recently appointed Trump appellate judges are viable candidates to be promoted to SCOTUS even though they are on his list of 25. They are needed where they have newly arrived, and none have a sufficient opinion record yet to avoid another Souter outcome.

      Liked by 3 people

      • fleporeblog says:

        The opposite is true in her case! They fact that she was nominated less than a year ago by every Republican including 3 Democrats makes it nearly impossible for them to change their votes. Plus she is a female and there are 3 female liberals on the Court right now. She is a devote Catholic, mother of 7 children. On what ground will she lose any of those votes? There are none and that is why she will pass with flying colors!

        Remember Susan Collins is up for reelection in 2020. Guess who else is up for election in 2020. She maybe a Democrat but she isn’t dumb!

        Liked by 2 people

    • Settled law. BS. RvW is based on a judicially fabricated 14th A right to privacy that abrogates my clearly expressed 1st A Right to freedom of worship, which I believe is a strong argument never presented before to the SCt. When I finish this brief I will be sending it to key pro-life orgs, and maybe even publishing here if not overly long.

      Liked by 4 people

      • ristvan says:

        Sorry, no. 1A says you can worship your belief as you choose. IT DOES NOT say you can impose your religious views on others who believe differently.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Not that I have a problem with Religion, but how about take religion out of it?

          There are prisoners in the Fed. system, cause they murdered someone, even though there is no Fed law against murder, per se.

          They were actually convicted of Civil Rights Violation; they deprived their victim of the right to life, but couldn’t be convicted in state court for murder ( no body).

          So, from moment fetus is viable, an abortion is depriving it of life, and State has a vested interest, and authority to outlaw murder.

          As for ‘decided law’ , the phenominal advances in viability, and ‘premies’ alone justifies a rethink.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Li'l D in the Big D says:

            The very fact that the 1st A protects religion and freedom of conscience, and the fact that RvW is a direct attack thereupon, it is not possible to remove religion from the argument without violation one’s conscience.

            As for determining viability, my system of belief, protected by the 1st A, is at conception. The state may outlaw the abortion as murder, but it cannot saction it without violating my superior 1st Right.

            See also my reply to ristvan above.

            Like

        • You are wrong ristvan. Gov’t must remain neutral when it comes to the 1st A protection regarding religion, unless there is a compelling state interest.RvW is in want of such interest. On the contrary, with RvW government has in fact attacked Christianity, the predominate religion in this country by sanctioning the death of the innocent, and this via a judicially fabricated right to privacy.

          Consider that when a law is created, whether properly done by the legislature, or through case law by the courts, all people within its jurisdiction are bound by that law. Therefore, those that profess a belief in the doctrines of Christianity that forbid such abominations as abortion, such as myself, are in fact and law bound to those crimes. If you believe my analysis to be wrong, write away, using sound principals of law.

          Like

    • fleporeblog says:

      Liked by 9 people

      • fleporeblog says:

        Liked by 4 people

      • GB Bari says:

        Maybe so, Flep. Unless they (the Left) are using reverse psychology.
        I never trust them to say precisely what they mean. They may appear to do so, but they are shrewd and crafty, not to mention extremely devious.
        Barret looks really good on paper, but, like the disclaimer on an equity:
        “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”
        OTOH, I have not yet read any in-depth look at the other candidates, so she may be the pick of the litter.

        Liked by 2 people

    • PaulM says:

      If bloomberg likes her, that sends up red flags.
      bloomberg (as in micheal bloomberg, left winger/trump hater) is a left wing publication.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Chuck says:

      “But opposing a woman will probably be more awkward for senators than opposing a man would be.”

      fle, Please check out how the left treats conservative women, and they have ramped it up lately. There will be no “awkward” from the left.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Lemmy says:

      Plus, she sounds like a wise caucasian.

      Liked by 7 people

    • czarowniczy says:

      Chuckie Schumer, the twit in Twitter. Chuck the schmuck. Not much more to say about him.

      Liked by 4 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Did being black help Clarence Thomas avoid being ravaged by the Left?

      The Left will go after this woman as hard….or harder….than anyone else.

      The Left wants to destroy any nominee Trump might appoint. Period.

      Liked by 7 people

      • jahealy says:

        I think it would be helpful if Trump appointees got a little frosty themselves when attempts to verbally destroy them, especially in confirmation hearings, come at them from the left. I don’t see the downside to some polite, but firm, push back. I don’t understand why the collective “we” always seem to just sit there and take it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • fleporeblog says:

        Your right about that!

        Like

    • Phil aka Felipe says:

      “Barrett attacked the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, which has helped millions of people” realize their errors and leave the Democrat Party. #walkaway

      Liked by 7 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Linertards are very comfortable with hypocrisy, so her being a woman won’t help at all, in that regard.

      Witness Fienstiens attack on her, witness the war on (Trump) women both zince the campaign thru red hen, witness crying about seperating children from mothers, while ripping babies from womb, ostensibly cause they ‘care’.

      No, if anything a woman nominee will be attacked even more visciously, it wont bother or impede dems, at all.

      Mind you, I got no problem with the nominee, just dont think being woman will help with nomination hearings.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Bendix says:

      Chuck does not know a thing about Obamacare, and neither does his conceited puppet Kimmel.
      They both have cadillac insurance paid for by their employers.
      Chuck, there WAS NO Supreme Court decision “upholding Obamacare, either.
      A potential Supreme Court judge shouldn’t have a stance on “issues of the day”.
      I knew Chuck was dumber than he looks, but sheesh.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Francis Moran says:

    Don’t know why Secret Service is not more vigorous in “assisting” the wolf pack in exiting the office when the President indicates he is done. The Dutch PM who’s been there before with Obama asks, “Is it always like this?”. Sometimes it’s much worse. Barking dogs

    Liked by 4 people

    • FofBW says:

      They sounded like a pack of wounded hyenas.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Coldeadhands says:

      The 🦁 Lion is working the long game with these scoundrels. The public perception of the media continues to go down, down, down. Their conduct in front of White House visitors especially drives their public standing into the abyss.
      If elected officials and popular culture figures end up prosecuted, it will be important that the enemedia is widely perceived as being as dishonest as we know they are.
      Hearts and Minds.

      Liked by 7 people

      • piper567 says:

        thanks, coldhands, good post.

        Liked by 1 person

      • GB Bari says:

        Yeah, you are right. Everything these days is about “optics”.
        Can’t call a spade a “spade”, but let the public look at a picture of the shovel long enough and they’ll finally grasp what it is they’re looking at.

        (with apologies to Sylvia’s shovel 🙂 )

        Liked by 5 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Wonder if it doesnt even earn DJT zome sympathy, from these other world leaders?
        “My God, you put up with this ravening herd every day?!! How do you do it?
        In my country, id have them shot!”

        And then, DJT just shrugging it off, oh, no big deal, itz fake news’causes these world leaders to rezpect him MORE?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oldschool says:

      Disrespect for POTUS on display for the world to see. While the press may look and act like animals, no leader should tolerate this. It does not refllect well on POTUS either, imo.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. rami says:

    I have decided my next job should be reporter wrangler…”Ok, everybody let’s go! Everybody out!” As the mother of 2, I have lots of experience!
    Where do I apply?

    Liked by 15 people

  7. Bugsdaddy says:

    I seriously don’t recall as many Heads of State coming here to visit Ozero. Maybe my memory is faulty (I don’t think so), but I don’t think any other President has ever conducted as much “face to face” diplomacy as President Trump has.

    Liked by 11 people

  8. NC PATRIOT says:

    The press is a TOTAL embarrassment to this country— when they show NO restraint even when foreign dignitaries are present !

    Liked by 5 people

  9. Troublemaker10 says:

    Trump always sounds so positive in these interviews, and I have to say….

    I think America needed a good dose of uplifting positivity in these days of dark and negative media and democrats.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Patrick S says:

      Agreed! Much like Reagan after Carter.

      Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      You are onto something Troublemaker/ The contrast between his demeanor, his statements, and responses to questions and the media’s behavior at these impromptu briefings is so stark and plain for all to see.

      As I alluded earlier, the “optics” are stunning. And PDJT is (of course) brilliant in being so “open” and transparent – it is providing the public almost daily examples of the ridiculous behavior of the clowns in the media.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    How long until today’s interviewees’ names are leaked to the Press?
    (Of course hoping that won’t happen.)

    Liked by 1 person

  11. fleporeblog says:

    Liked by 8 people

  12. Minnie says:

    Thank you, Mr. President, when you speak I feel truly at ease.

    Your efforts to MAGA are phenomenal.

    We support, respect and love you!

    Liked by 9 people

  13. Paul B. says:

    That screaming press woman really needs to get talked to. Or ejected.

    Liked by 3 people

    • litlbit2 says:

      Ejected along with employer for six years.

      Liked by 3 people

      • piper567 says:

        litbit, hey, if Acosta still has a job, these cretins are immune.

        Liked by 3 people

        • litlbit2 says:

          I would not go to the bank with that. The not normal are on borrowed time. Once their usefulness is over they also will be part of the unemployed. IMO, it would be impossible to high any human with the capacity to destroy themselves their agenda or organizations that could be more successful than the puppets. Let’em continue, they are dying.

          Liked by 2 people

          • piper567 says:

            litlbit, I was just responding to the current state of affairs.
            I do think this press situation will change, and agree that this situation will end at some pt.
            I cannot imagine that the President enjoys these vermin acting as they do, jokes aside, and I sometimes think they purposefully intend to embarrass him in front of foreign dignitaries.
            scum.

            Liked by 2 people

            • litlbit2 says:

              Agree while believing heads of state etc who happen to be present when the puppet peons do stupid things, most realize tripe. I also believe it raises the respect they have for our President as he politely shows in dealing with not normal people. They(leaders)really do get the not normal.

              Like

        • Oldschool says:

          Agree piper. Nothing is done to demand professionalism in our house. I won’t even watch pressers anymore. I wonder if Sarah and comm team had implemented rules and enforced them, if she would have been confronted in public like she was. They have given the press permission to harrass them in the whitehouse. The left always ups the ante unless and until they are cold cocked. We created the monster and now want to claim victim status. Take a lesson from Elaine Chao.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Janie M. says:

      Paul B, believe she was WH staff, yelling at the presstitutes to “get out!” their Q&A session had ended.

      Like

  14. Mercenary says:

    Seeing as we may be in economic or other type of conflict with Mexico in the near future, I wrote a little piece on how dependent Mexico is, both upon exports to the United States and remittances from America. Obrador has leverage by threatening to send millions of Mexican peasants to invade, but Trump has the power to crater the Mexican economy:

    https://criminalsandliars.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/mexican-exports-to-the-united-states-comprise-30-of-its-entire-economy/

    Liked by 4 people

    • MVW says:

      Apparently Trump knows Obrador. There is talk for politicians and there is walk. Obrador’s talk leads one to 100% expect Mexico to become Venezuela, but that assumes he does what he says, which Socialists tend to do. We’ll see.

      Throughout the world, State Socialism dominates and therefore the world economy is a brittle house of cards. Reciprocal and fair trade with the US will happen and once that occurs, which will be soon, there will be one of two things that will happen. Either countries will follow Trump’s economic prescription or they will sink or collapse… There will be a mixture.

      Tragedy, comedy, wailing, there will be a run on popcorn and antidepressants. No need to guess who will need what.

      And one other thing, flooding our border won’t work, Trump will declare an emergency and put the full military on the border until the wall is built by the military under declared emergency, and how many Supreme Court Justices will oppose him now?

      Liked by 5 people

  15. Expect President Trump to form a BILATERAL TRADE ALLIANCE with America’s Trading Partners
    • Collaboration among Nations adopting Bilateral Trade Deals with common provisions
    • Committed to Reciprocal, Free and Fair Trade
    • Eliminating Tariffs, Quotas and Subsidies
    • Enforcing Security for Cyberspace, Intellectual Property and Nation-State Industrie

    Liked by 4 people

  16. MVW says:

    Trump sends Globalists, Socialists, Marxists, into hysterical hate. Their meltdowns discredit them and their insanity results in their brains being disconnected from what they say and do. Bullying, violent threats, actual violence, and baldfaced lying, ensue.

    Their ugly souls are laid bare. What are Americans that used to support the Democrats to do but walk away…or flat out run?

    I would never have thought this would work. Trump is a stable genius, and Democrats can’t help themselves.

    Liked by 3 people

    • MelH says:

      I’ve been stunned today, on Twitter, seeing so many respond to the #WalkAway movement, but ever-mindful of the possibility it’s mostly a Democrat ruse to hope we fall into complacency and shun bothering to vote in the mid-terms!

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Mason3000 says:

    Rutte’s surprise was nothing. This clip of Macron & Trump is one of my favorites. The look on Macron’s face is priceless.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Navy says:

    I flew the Dutch Prince (now king) out to the USS Carl Vinson from our Middle East base. He is a KLM airline pilot so I gave him about 30 minutes of stick time before I took the trap. Day before was the Aruba Natalie Holloway thing (Dutch territory) and like a dumb ass I gave him a Stars and Stripes …. front page said something about the Aruba murder / missing girl. Doh!

    Dude was about 100 times cooler that Little Prince Charles in England I presume….. can’t imagine Chuck being friendly to us little people like this Dutch fellow was.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. USTerminator says:

    I wonder why BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai …. opened the manufacturing plants for SUV and truck in the US but import cars from Germany, Mexico, Canada, China, Korea and Japan??? Let me see. Because US has 25% tariff on all imported SUVs and trucks while only 2.5% for imported cars. 90% of SUVs and trucks sold in USA are Made in US. Put 25% tariff on all imported cars will result the same. 90% of cars sold in US will be made in US. Any car company who does not want to sell their cars in the US, raise your hand? Any car company who wants to pay 25% tariff on your cars, raise your hand? All the jack*ss who says tariff would be bad for economy, somehow didn’t check that the countries with the highest tariffs, highest protection, highest government subsidy… their economies are the best performance in the last 30 years (China, South Korea, Germany ….) while US economy with low or no tariff is hollowed out, $25T in debt, lost manufacturing, wage stagnant…. It is time for a change, Let’s charge as much tariffs + VAT as any country wants to trade with us. Otherwise, we can do and make things ourselves. There is nothing p*ss me off than listen to all the SOBs, so called economists, crying the world ending with Trump tariffs. I did not hear a bleep from them while China raises their tariff and trade barriers all the time.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. fred5678 says:

    Barrett also fought efforts to ensure that all women have access to contraceptives. https://t.co/voWM3KjeGr

    — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) July 2, 2018

    Chuckie, my dear, Every woman (and man) has access to contraceptives. What they don’t, and shouldn’t, have is free rubbers paid for by their neighbors’ taxes!!

    “take their coats and let them buy their own rubbers!” Sheeesh!!

    Like

  21. treehouseron says:

    I love how at the very end of the video, the prime minister is laughing his ass off at the stupid reporters.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. jello333 says:

    Several years ago I had a lot of discussions with a guy who lives in Amsterdam, about the possibility of my wife and I coming over there for an extended visit. The plan was to see if we liked it well enough to actually try to stay. We even went so far as to try to start learning Dutch. 🙂 Obviously things never went as planned.

    Like

  23. Pat Frederick says:

    okay I saw on yahoo news headlines (don’t judge) this morning that Rutte “told off the President to his face”, so I came to this thread to read the real recap of the incident only to see there was no incident…how strange that yahoo was wrong…LOL

    Like

    • Charlotte says:

      Rutte’s country has a serious Muslim problem.If he did tell POTUS off, I’m sure Pres Trump had an a good reply to put him in his place.

      Like

  24. Sunshine says:

    Great body language between both of them.
    I think we’re headed toward a NAFTA exit and replaced with bilateral.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s