The Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes joins us to discuss the meeting between President Trump and Russia’s Putin and what should happen next. Plus: the University of Minnesota considers a policy that could lead to expulsion for students who don’t use others’ preferred gender pronouns.

Subscribe to Daily Signal Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    This is truly amazing. Would Peter Brooks have talked like this if the president were  Barack Obama? There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump’s and Putin’s private talk was any different than Trump’s comments in public. I am so disappointed that this sort of pablum would come from someone from Heritage!

    • #1
  2. Eugene Kriegsmann Member
    Eugene Kriegsmann
    @EugeneKriegsmann

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    This is truly amazing. Would Peter Brooks have talked like this if the president were Barack Obama? There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump’s and Putin’s private talk was any different than Trump’s comments in public. I am so disappointed that this sort of pablum would come from someone from Heritage!

    Did we listen to the same podcast? Brooks was very clear that we don’t know what was said during the private meeting. How is that pablum? Trump was completely positive toward Putin in the press conference which doesn’t speak to harder language during the private talk. It strikes me that Trump is following the same lily livered policies followed by Clinton, Bush, and Obama in dealing with Putin, essentially doing nothing to corral his aggression, pretending that Putin is really a nice guy (i.e., I looked in his eyes  and the reset button). Trump did the same with Kim, and it is very disappointing.

    • #2
  3. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    This is truly amazing. Would Peter Brooks have talked like this if the president were Barack Obama? There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump’s and Putin’s private talk was any different than Trump’s comments in public. I am so disappointed that this sort of pablum would come from someone from Heritage!

    Did we listen to the same podcast? Brooks was very clear that we don’t know what was said during the private meeting. How is that pablum? Trump was completely positive toward Putin in the press conference which doesn’t speak to harder language during the private talk. It strikes me that Trump is following the same lily livered policies followed by Clinton, Bush, and Obama in dealing with Putin, essentially doing nothing to corral his aggression, pretending that Putin is really a nice guy (i.e., I looked in his eyes and the reset button). Trump did the same with Kim, and it is very disappointing.

    I don’t see where we disagree. I used the word “pablum” to describe Books’ reaction to Trump. I liked the way he talked about Putin. But it was his approach to Trump that more than disappointed me. It horrified me. There is no reason to believe that Trump behaved in private any differently than he did in public. Why  is Brooks so easy on Trump? Is he applying for a job with him?

     

    • #3
  4. Eugene Kriegsmann Member
    Eugene Kriegsmann
    @EugeneKriegsmann

    I apologize. I misinterpreted your view of what Brooks said. I think it is more than obvious that Trump played the  same subserviant role with Putin that he did with Kim. After reading quite a bit of analysis of the talks this morning my impression is confirmed that Trump is a classic bully who has come up against two far more accomplished bullies and is taking on the role of toady with both of them. I read several books on intelligence which described the relative naivete of American intelligence compared to the much older, more highly evolved European and Russian units. Trump would appear to have the same characteristics in his naive, jejune approach to dealing with foreign leaders. He bullies our allies while brownnosing our enemies. He could actually end up creating a new low, just below Neville Chamberlain in terms of foreign relations. I can’t say that I am at all surprised.

    • #4
  5. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):

    I apologize. I misinterpreted your view of what Brooks said. I think it is more than obvious that Trump played the same subserviant role with Putin that he did with Kim. After reading quite a bit of analysis of the talks this morning my impression is confirmed that Trump is a classic bully who has come up against two far more accomplished bullies and is taking on the role of toady with both of them. I read several books on intelligence which described the relative naivete of American intelligence compared to the much older, more highly evolved European and Russian units. Trump would appear to have the same characteristics in his naive, jejune approach to dealing with foreign leaders. He bullies our allies while brownnosing our enemies. He could actually end up creating a new low, just below Neville Chamberlain in terms of foreign relations. I can’t say that I am at all surprised.

    Thank you for the apology.

    If you can, read today’s lead editorial in the Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-first-doctrine-1531781061?mod=djemMER    It is really good.

    • #5
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.