Trump news the third

[Bob Schroeck]

And the new thread is open.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Jinx999]

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141
It's taken this long to notice that being POTUS is a full time job?

[ordnance11]

And that's 300 messages. Time for something I never thought we'd need -- a third Trump thread.
-- Bob

Bob, I very much suspect we are going to be looking at Trump threads in the triple digits for the next 4 years at a minimum.
I talked to relatives of mine who voted for Trump. They told me now that they were not sure about Hillary and now they're not sure about Trump. I really feel like face faulting when I heard that.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[robkelk]

Like Brexit, it's too late to change your minds now...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

Like Brexit, it's too late to change your minds now...

buyer's remorse...happens all the time. lol
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

No buyers remorse here. Just a fat load of "Told you so" and "What you order is what you eat". After all, he's not the one I voted for. So when he inevitably fucks up and people start griping, I'll gladly ask people who they voted for.

[Matrix Dragon]

Going by some of the Brexit stories I've heard, look forward to a lot of 'well, yeah, I voted for him, but I didn't think he'd actually win!'

[ordnance11]

Well, Trump doesn't seem to get it or doesn't want to do it. Divest everything he owns and place everything in a blind trust to remove any or appearance of conflicts of interest. If his supporters are crying foul over the Clinton Foundation, what about when his children are going to be taking over the business and his in-law is going to be part of the inner circle?
 
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Bob Schroeck]

I've said it before and it always bears repeating: there are two sets of rules, one for Democrats and one for Republicans, and the Republicans adjudicate them. 
Case in point: ten or so years ago Logan jumped on me with both feet because I dared call Bush2 "The Shrub" -- I was a terrible, horrible person for disrespecting both the office and the person holding it.  However, in the last eight years, I never once noticed him bemoaning the disrespect of the office that was rampant, even encouraged, on the right during the Obama administration.  The obvious conclusion to draw:  it is terrible to use a humorous nickname for a Republican president; it is right and proper to fling any insult, however racist, one can think of at a Democratic president.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

Case in point: ten or so years ago Logan jumped on me with both feet because I dared call Bush2 "The Shrub"

The son is not the equal of the father I fear. What I really fear is a repeat of Bush 2,  with a reality show aspect to it.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ECSNorway]

Bob, both sides tend to interpret the other in the worst possible light in order to denigrate opposing views.

For example, publically espousing the belief that 'african-americans' should be able to get good, well-paying jobs on their own merits because they actually have the job skills and the discipline to hold a good professional job is apparently "racist" because it means decreasing the need for (and therefor funding for) public assistance to black Americans who we would really like to no longer need it.

It is NEVER about the actual ideology. It is ALWAYS about making the other side look bad so that people won't be tempted to vote for them.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Bob Schroeck]

Norway, I've never heard anyone who wasn't a strawman seriously advocate what you are clearly implying is a "standard" liberal position.

That said, I will not deny that both sides sling mud and do so with vigor.

Neither bears any relevance to the simple fact that the double standard exists. IIRC, there are supposed to be something like half a dozen Republicans on the national stage who also had their own email servers during the same timeframe as Hillary Clinton. The Bush administration by itself "lost" more than 22 million emails in violation of Federal law requiring their preservation, after completely dismantling a Clinton-era system that archived all government emails automatically.  Where is the Republican outrage here?  Where are the senate committees and in-depth investigations?  The depths of the Republican ennui toward the commission of identical or greater "crimes" by their own, all the while screaming bloody murder at Clinton, is both infuriating and telling. To generalize a statement by Richard Nixon, "If a Republican does it, that means it is not illegal."
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

Also note, the waterboarding report that the Senate intelligence committee wrote? It's now going to be buried deeper than the deepest mind shaft. You don't see the GOP in arms about it. Matter of fact, McConnell is going to make sure it never sees the light of day.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Labster]

On the issue of waterboarding, you might be mistaken, because Senator John "I was actually waterboarded" McCain will do everything in his power to stop the U.S government from conducting any form of torture.
I'm starting to realize that Trump has been trolling me lately, which is sort of difficult because I've never had to ask myself "how do I keep from being trolled by the U.S. President?"  It's like the phone call with the president of Taiwan recently has trolled the Chinese government.  It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, it's definitely a troll.  Of course, they won't bite, but they will use it as a pretext because the PRC loves pretexts.  And because of the climate change issue, liberal democracies are legit asking China to act as the leader of the free world.  China's smart enough not to bite on that, either.  We need to be smart enough too, and not attack him on the trolling but on the real issues.
And for Defense secretary, Trump proposes General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, because apparently no one has read A Swiftly Tilting Planet.  And Shiva danced...
-- ∇×V

[robkelk]

Isn't Gen. Mattis ineligible to serve as Secretary of Defense for another four years? (He only retired his commission three years ago, IIRC.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[nocarename]

He did, and he would be, unless, of course, some sort of exemption was passed.

[robkelk]

Following up on what I mentioned at the end of the second thread, the Internet Archive has posted a FAQ about their planned move copy to Canada.
http://blog.archive.org/2016/12/03/faq ... ve-canada/
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ordnance11]

nocarename wrote:

---

He did, and he would be, unless, of course, some sort of exemption was passed.

Which the GOP would be thrilled to do so. The last one to be given such an exception is George Cattlett Marshall. The issue for General Matthis is whether or not he would be a good fit for the job. The man is a warrior, not a master bureaucrat. Not to mention his reputation of being an independent thinker may end up clashing with Trump's administration.
The bigger issue might be is Trump surrounding himself with generals. The problem is going to be that if the only tool you have is a hammer, you're going to be looking for nails to pound. Not to mention Trump's ego is going to get the U.S. into a gratuitous war. I always suspected Dubya wanted a war in Iraq to prove that he's better than his father. Trump ego is shallow enough to want to get into war to prove he is top dog.   
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

Was the phone call to Taiwan planned or not?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

Regarding Retired General Mattis...

Honestly, I don't think I'd mind an exemption being passed for him, so long as it's only an exemption for him, and not some sort of permanent change to the rules. Mattis has that certain something that would be good for dealing with Da-Esh, and he's the perfect sort of bull dog to have on leash in our dealings in the Middle East and Russia - perfectly willing to make allies, but always keeping in mind how to systematically destroy them if they turn out to be an enemy. The man is a warrior, full stop.

Really, I hope that he kicks the DoD back into shape in regards to what we spend our money on. The Joint Strike Fighter Project is a hot, stinking, mess and so is the DDG-1000 project. They are money pits that we should have stopped trying to fill long, long ago.

[ordnance11]

Black Aeronaut wrote:

---

Regarding Retired General Mattis...

Honestly, I don't think I'd mind an exemption being passed for him, so long as it's only an exemption for him, and not some sort of permanent change to the rules. Mattis has that certain something that would be good for dealing with Da-Esh, and he's the perfect sort of bull dog to have on leash in our dealings in the Middle East and Russia - perfectly willing to make allies, but always keeping in mind how to systematically destroy them if they turn out to be an enemy. The man is a warrior, full stop.

Really, I hope that he kicks the DoD back into shape in regards to what we spend our money on. The Joint Strike Fighter Project is a hot, stinking, mess and so is the DDG-1000 project. They are money pits that we should have stopped trying to fill long, long ago.

Just be aware that the fortunes of ex flag officers varied in high government office. Gen Brent Scowcroft did a very good job as national security adviser. General Alexander Haig as SecState didn't do too well. Especially when he tried a mutiny after Reagan's attempted assassination. General Colin Powell was sandbagged by Dubya and Condelezza Rice. 
His problem is going to be waging war on a different battleground where adversaries know the terrain.
Here's an example
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

You think that as a General he never had to deal with things like budgets? That's half of a general's job, believe it or not. A general isn't just someone who makes and carries out a plan of action, they also have to mind the finances and they usually have a small cadre of people helping him to mind the books. Take it from someone who's worked the Captain's Wardroom - the budget is always something that's simmering away on any CO's back burner.

As I mentioned before, General Mattis is a warrior first and foremost. I'd put good money on him taking one good long look at that report and it would not be long before he starts weighing the pros and cons; and his primary goal is going to be more money for troops, marines, sailors and airmen, and the equipment they need.

And he'll definitely fight for the welfare of the enlisted men - the man enlisted before becoming a commissioned officer.

Yep, that's right. Mad Dog is a Mustang, and I think he's got very little patience for bullshit.

[Bob Schroeck]

While I have been underwhelmed by some of Trump's other picks, and outright worried about others, from what I've seen about Mattis, I'm actually inclined to think he might actually do a good job. (Insert joke about blind darts player occasionally hitting the target here.)

Now if only the Republicans hadn't pulled a typical dick move by tacking his approval onto the end-of-year budget resolution. It not only perpetuates the Republican image of underhandedness ("approve him or you guys get to finally get the blame for shutting down the government!"), it also gives the impression that they don't think he can get senate approval on his own merits, which is disrespectful of the man. (Then again, the modern Republican party have only themselves to use as a yardstick, and they clearly cannot imagine that the Democrats will not be vindictive assholes just because they can.)
(Edit: typo fix)
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

Black Aeronaut wrote:

---

You think that as a General he never had to deal with things like budgets? That's half of a general's job, believe it or not. A general isn't just someone who makes and carries out a plan of action, they also have to mind the finances and they usually have a small cadre of people helping him to mind the books. Take it from someone who's worked the Captain's Wardroom - the budget is always something that's simmering away on any CO's back burner.

As I mentioned before, General Mattis is a warrior first and foremost. I'd put good money on him taking one good long look at that report and it would not be long before he starts weighing the pros and cons; and his primary goal is going to be more money for troops, marines, sailors and airmen, and the equipment they need.

And he'll definitely fight for the welfare of the enlisted men - the man enlisted before becoming a commissioned officer.

Yep, that's right. Mad Dog is a Mustang, and I think he's got very little patience for bullshit.

Peterson's Law applies to him as well as everyone else. And he will be fighting a 2 front war. Against the 4th estate at the Pentagon and trying to rein in the soon to be POTUS. So it's gonna be a question of how effective is he going to be and how long is he going to last at the job. You have a better chance of turning a Sodak BB inside 300 ft. than turning around a bureaucracy in 4 years. We'll see in 4 years.
  
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

Bob Schroeck wrote:

---

While I have been underwhelmed by some of Trump's other pics, and outright worried about others, from what I've seen about Mattis, I'm actually inclined to think he might actually do a good job. (Insert joke about blind darts player occasionally hitting the target here.)

Now if only the Republicans hadn't pulled a typical dick move by tacking his approval onto the end-of-year budget resolution. It not only perpetuates the Republican image of underhandedness ("approve him or you guys get to finally get the blame for shutting down the government!"), it also gives the impression that they don't think he can get senate approval on his own merits, which is disrespectful of the man. (Then again, the modern Republican party have only themselves to use as a yardstick, and they clearly cannot imagine that the Democrats will not be vindictive assholes just because they can.)

The only thing consistent about Trump so far is his inconsistency. C'mon doing a victory tour? That is what I suspect he is going to be doing for the next 4 years. touting how great he is and by extension the country. We will be joining other rogue states in the cult of personality.  I heard a new report on his supporters and they're saying, yeah he'll act presidential once he gets sworn in. He'll turn it back to America of the 1950's. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.  
I really suspect the reason folks voted for him is they wanted any change from the status quo is to stick in the finger in the eye to the system. Hope they realize the law of unintended consequences.   
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell