CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
I figured it might be worthwhile to start a thread about Trump's transition and administration, separate from the election thread.

So far looks like we might see Gingrich, Christie, Guliani, and maybe even Sarah Palin in the administration if the rumors are true.

The two names I'm hearing for Secretary of State are Corker and Bolton. God help us if it's Bolton. I would probably strongly disagree with Corker on a regular basis, but he's a qualified candidate. Bolton is a loon who is held in complete contempt by most of our allies. I could even see the Senate rejecting him.
Gingrich for State and Ben Carson for Education.
(11-11-2016 12:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I figured it might be worthwhile to start a thread about Trump's transition and administration, separate from the election thread.

So far looks like we might see Gingrich, Christie, Guliani, and maybe even Sarah Palin in the administration if the rumors are true.

The two names I'm hearing for Secretary of State are Corker and Bolton. God help us if it's Bolton. I would probably strongly disagree with Corker on a regular basis, but he's a qualified candidate. Bolton is a loon who is held in complete contempt by most of our allies. I could even see the Senate rejecting him.

Trump is basically a Trojan Horse for all of the unelectables at this point. That's about the worst possible outcome, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from.

I am one of the few people my age that I know of that has never voted for either a Democrat or a Republican in a presidential election. You reap what you sow, America.
(11-11-2016 12:06 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]Gingrich for State and Ben Carson for Education.

Perhaps Ben Carson could serve as surgeon general and rid everyone of those evil vaccines.
When I first saw the title of this thread, my mind read it as "Truman Administration".
If only!
"GOP foreign policy leaders grow despondent"

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/do...icy-231453


"I told conservatives to work for Trump. One talk with his team changed my mind."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html
(11-11-2016 12:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I figured it might be worthwhile to start a thread about Trump's transition and administration, separate from the election thread.

So far looks like we might see Gingrich, Christie, Guliani, and maybe even Sarah Palin in the administration if the rumors are true.

The two names I'm hearing for Secretary of State are Corker and Bolton. God help us if it's Bolton. I would probably strongly disagree with Corker on a regular basis, but he's a qualified candidate. Bolton is a loon who is held in complete contempt by most of our allies. I could even see the Senate rejecting him.

Bolton's a neocon, but he doesn't concern me very much. I doubt anyone will like dealing with him, but I think he'd do ok. The one that concerns me is Michael Flynn as national security adviser. Has anyone else read his book, Field of Flight? I started it, but haven't touched it in several weeks.
No Consigliere Christie for the Trump family mob, it appears.

Mitt Romney has emerged as a Secretary of State / Chief Apologizer candidate.
(11-18-2016 09:07 AM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2016 12:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I figured it might be worthwhile to start a thread about Trump's transition and administration, separate from the election thread.

So far looks like we might see Gingrich, Christie, Guliani, and maybe even Sarah Palin in the administration if the rumors are true.

The two names I'm hearing for Secretary of State are Corker and Bolton. God help us if it's Bolton. I would probably strongly disagree with Corker on a regular basis, but he's a qualified candidate. Bolton is a loon who is held in complete contempt by most of our allies. I could even see the Senate rejecting him.

Bolton's a neocon, but he doesn't concern me very much. I doubt anyone will like dealing with him, but I think he'd do ok. The one that concerns me is Michael Flynn as national security adviser. Has anyone else read his book, Field of Flight? I started it, but haven't touched it in several weeks.

I lived in the UK during W's first term - seemed like Bolton actually appeared on the foreign press more than US, for some reason. So I have first hand experience watching him with a bunch of non-Americans in the break room while eating lunch and being completely embarrassed. Just gratuitously condescending and insulting, almost a parody of an "Ugly American".

Having said that, yes, Flynn probably the most worrisome name so far. He seems to think the problem is that we *haven't* declared war on all of Islam. I have my criticisms of W, but he went to great lengths to make clear we were not at war with Islam.
(11-18-2016 12:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2016 09:07 AM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2016 12:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I figured it might be worthwhile to start a thread about Trump's transition and administration, separate from the election thread.

So far looks like we might see Gingrich, Christie, Guliani, and maybe even Sarah Palin in the administration if the rumors are true.

The two names I'm hearing for Secretary of State are Corker and Bolton. God help us if it's Bolton. I would probably strongly disagree with Corker on a regular basis, but he's a qualified candidate. Bolton is a loon who is held in complete contempt by most of our allies. I could even see the Senate rejecting him.

Bolton's a neocon, but he doesn't concern me very much. I doubt anyone will like dealing with him, but I think he'd do ok. The one that concerns me is Michael Flynn as national security adviser. Has anyone else read his book, Field of Flight? I started it, but haven't touched it in several weeks.

I lived in the UK during W's first term - seemed like Bolton actually appeared on the foreign press more than US, for some reason. So I have first hand experience watching him with a bunch of non-Americans in the break room while eating lunch and being completely embarrassed. Just gratuitously condescending and insulting, almost a parody of an "Ugly American".

Bolton is aligned with folks like Paul Wolfowitz (I never thought the vitriol directed towards him was warranted, in spite of the fact that he may bear more responsibility than anyone else for the decision to go into Iraq). He would represent a return to the policies. I'd expect his problems internationally would be just as you indicated, insulting, condescending, and he'd rub people the wrong way. But, the people that have to deal with him would find a way. Flynn seems like a loose cannon and a Dominionist, as much as anything else.

(11-18-2016 12:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Having said that, yes, Flynn probably the most worrisome name so far. He seems to think the problem is that we *haven't* declared war on all of Islam. I have my criticisms of W, but he went to great lengths to make clear we were not at war with Islam.
(11-18-2016 12:03 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote: [ -> ]. . . Chief Apologizer candidate.

That role was filled in 2009.
I have friends on both sides of the aisle who seem convinced that by the time 2020 rolls around (and possibly even the midterms) we'll be talking about President Pence.

I just don't see it. Trump would have to resign or be removed from office by the republican congress.
(11-22-2016 09:10 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have friends on both sides of the aisle who seem convinced that by the time 2020 rolls around (and possibly even the midterms) we'll be talking about President Pence.

I just don't see it. Trump would have to resign or be removed from office by the republican congress.

although he seems to be in good health, he is the oldest man to take the oath of office for a first term.

I wonder if concern for his business interests could lead him to resign after the mid-terms.

I always thought Hillary's agenda would have been met when she stepped off the inaugural platform. maybe his will have been met by then.
(11-22-2016 09:10 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I have friends on both sides of the aisle who seem convinced that by the time 2020 rolls around (and possibly even the midterms) we'll be talking about President Pence.

I just don't see it. Trump would have to resign or be removed from office by the republican congress.

I predicted before the election that whoever won would ultimately be hounded from office in disgrace before his or her term was up. I stand by that prediction. Both candidates were (are) scandal-prone to a mind-boggling degree . . . and winning the votes of 60+ million people makes for quite the form of positive reinforcement.

Neither Trump nor Clinton possesses the humility and insight to realize that his or her victory would have come in spite of, not because of, his or her primary traits, and primarily as a rejection of the other person, as a "lesser of two evils" choice. After all, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and a significant majority of the country -- not just the people who voted for the loser, but many, many of the people who voted for the winner -- would (and do) see the winner as, if not quite literally evil (although clearly some rather hysterical people do), certainly as dangerously flawed, and deserving of close, ongoing scrutiny (forget any "honeymoon period") to make sure he or she does not screw things up in the way that we all feared he or she would be quite likely to do. But of course both candidates are profoundly blind to their own flaws, and winning would only grow their already gargantuan hubris -- and therein lies the seed of downfall.

Had Hillary won, I honestly think she would be working right now on having another private server set up. The woman just can't help herself. And had she won, she would have seen her election as the ultimate vindication of her methods, giving her carte blanche to keep at it. Or, if it wasn't some new illegality committed as president, a full excavation of what she's already done through the Clinton Foundation ultimately would have done her in. She had better hope that Obama not only pardons her but that the pardon is sweepingly phrased. (Actually, she's not the type to sit around and just hope for it. She'll find a way to purchase it.)

In contrast, whereas Hillary's undoing would have (did) come through her venality and her obsession of hiding same through control, secrecy, and caution, Trump's will come through his just-as-pathological impulsiveness, carelessness, and lack of self-control -- traits that he certainly will not feel compelled to modulate now that (in his view) they have propelled him to leadership of the free world.

To say he is prone to step in it is laughably understated. But I think his actual undoing will ultimately come not from some offensive statement (or, likely, accumulation of them) or diplomatic faux pas (or, likely, accumulation of them) but from carelessly contravening some conflict-of-interest statute or some obscure foreign dealing law. After all, that's the sort of thing that can actually get you impeached. He'll accept gifts from foreign countries and fail to report them, or Trump businesses will (surprise) end up with federal contracts, that sort of thing. He has landed in a minefield full of potential missteps for someone with no experience in politics and government service. His whole life has been about wheeling and dealing and making money and serving his ego, and there is no way he can just turn that off. And he doesn't know what he doesn't know, nor does he seem particularly inclined to learn.

There is an interesting dynamic, however. First of all, Trump will never resign (Hillary never would have, either; quitting is not in either person's nature, not even when it would be better for the country, disgustingly). So he would have to be impeached.

Now the interesting thing is that I think Republicans might actually not mind this very much at all, and concomitantly, Democrats would face quite the dilemma in deciding whether taking down a man whom they viscerally hate -- but who is only barely, nominally, a Republican -- is worth it when what is behind Door #2 is a much more genuine and much less flawed conservative.

Trump is the ultimate RINO; Pence is the real deal. Trump has no true friends in Congress, only temporary allies of convenience. There is no basis for loyalty whatsoever. Trump actually did not have much of a coattail effect - most of the elected/reelected Republicans in Congress outperformed him on Election Day; in other words, they won in spite of him, not because of him, and few if any openly endorsed him or even mentioned him. Again, he was elected chiefly because he was not Hillary Clinton (which would have been true vice versa had she won), and secondarily because he had the foresight to pander to white, non-college-educated males and re-form them into a voting bloc, and now that the cat is out of the bag on that, any moron can do it, it doesn't necessarily have to be Trump himself (although I do have to admit his celebrity/outsider status, which obviously is not as easily replicated, played a huge part in his success). Thus Republicans may perceive that he could be tossed overboard without necessarily suffering blowback at the polls, and even better, they would get a real conservative in the White House ahead of schedule. Republicans just might be begging the Democrats to toss them into that briar patch.

Democrats, conversely, may actually prefer a self-hobbling, woefully-out-of-his-depth President Trump, who frankly shares at least some of their views (to the extent he has any views) to a competent President Pence who shares none of them. Anyone who watches "Survivor" knows that there's no sense voting off the most unpopular person - that person will never win jury votes anyway and only makes you look better (this was actually HRC's strategy in trying to make sure she had Trump as her general-election opponent, except she misread who, in fact, was the most unpopular person). Democrats may feel that a perpetually compromised President Trump can be managed, pumped here and there for some contrarian acts against his own (not really) party, and otherwise hung as an albatross around Republicans' necks. He can be their useful idiot.

It will be interesting, though disheartening, to watch.
Since the day after the election, I have felt a sense of relative calm I haven't felt in many years. I no longer wake up with anxiety about the economy, healthcare, my kid's future, safety of the country. Although it won't be perfect and I won't agree with everything, and there will still be some shenanigans (as there have been for the past 24 years) I am generally relaxed and interested to see exactly how the changes are implemented. That things will be much better for most Americans, even those who opposed this incoming regime (on both sides) is to me a given. The degree of success is the only real question in my mind at this point. While Trump will obviously be and handle things very differently form most career politicians, I do think he will be a superior manager, and hope we can get some of the red tape and career government workers out to cut the fat and inertia.
(11-11-2016 06:15 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]When I first saw the title of this thread, my mind read it as "Truman Administration".
If only!

He wasn't a leftist big-city machine Democrat politician?
Would you really have supported Truman in 1948?
(11-23-2016 02:16 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2016 06:15 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]When I first saw the title of this thread, my mind read it as "Truman Administration".
If only!

He wasn't a leftist big-city machine Democrat politician?
Would you really have supported Truman in 1948?

I'm not sure how I would have felt at the time. But looking back on just a few of his foreign policy achievements:
- the Marshall Plan
- NATO
- the Berlin Airlift
... I know that he did more for the free world, and at a more dangerous time, than most people ever dream of.

I know less about his economic policies -- but then, that's mostly (and properly) the province of Congress.

Also, I'm not entirely sure Kansas City counts as a "big city" :)
(11-23-2016 02:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-23-2016 02:16 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2016 06:15 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]When I first saw the title of this thread, my mind read it as "Truman Administration".
If only!

He wasn't a leftist big-city machine Democrat politician?
Would you really have supported Truman in 1948?

I'm not sure how I would have felt at the time. But looking back on just a few of his foreign policy achievements:
- the Marshall Plan
- NATO
- the Berlin Airlift
... I know that he did more for the free world, and at a more dangerous time, than most people ever dream of.

I know less about his economic policies -- but then, that's mostly (and properly) the province of Congress.

Also, I'm not entirely sure Kansas City counts as a "big city" :)

Fair answer.

1948 Democratic platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29599

And KC's a big city in "Oklahoma."
(11-23-2016 03:06 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-23-2016 02:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-23-2016 02:16 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2016 06:15 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]When I first saw the title of this thread, my mind read it as "Truman Administration".
If only!

He wasn't a leftist big-city machine Democrat politician?
Would you really have supported Truman in 1948?

I'm not sure how I would have felt at the time. But looking back on just a few of his foreign policy achievements:
- the Marshall Plan
- NATO
- the Berlin Airlift
... I know that he did more for the free world, and at a more dangerous time, than most people ever dream of.

I know less about his economic policies -- but then, that's mostly (and properly) the province of Congress.

Also, I'm not entirely sure Kansas City counts as a "big city" :)

Fair answer.

1948 Democratic platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29599

And KC's a big city in "Oklahoma."

Everything's up to date in Kansas City,
They've gone about as fer as they can go . . . .
(11-23-2016 03:06 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-23-2016 02:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-23-2016 02:16 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2016 06:15 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]When I first saw the title of this thread, my mind read it as "Truman Administration".
If only!

He wasn't a leftist big-city machine Democrat politician?
Would you really have supported Truman in 1948?

I'm not sure how I would have felt at the time. But looking back on just a few of his foreign policy achievements:
- the Marshall Plan
- NATO
- the Berlin Airlift
... I know that he did more for the free world, and at a more dangerous time, than most people ever dream of.

I know less about his economic policies -- but then, that's mostly (and properly) the province of Congress.

Also, I'm not entirely sure Kansas City counts as a "big city" :)

Fair answer.

1948 Democratic platform:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29599

And KC's a big city in "Oklahoma."

Interesting read.

On the foreign policy platform, I love it! And further down:
- "We condemn Communism and other forms of totalitarianism and their destructive activity overseas and at home."

- "We recognize that the United States has become the principal protector of the free world. The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world—and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation."


On the domestic platform, these points sound pretty good, and also fairly specific:
"We are opposed to the imposition of a general federal sales tax."
"We favor the repeal of the discriminatory taxes on the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine." (Hard to believe that margarine was a platform issue...)

I would have been skeptical of this one:
"We shall enact comprehensive housing legislation, including provisions for slum clearance and low-rent housing projects initiated by local agencies."

And I'm pretty sure I would have been against this one, which seems like a classic case of conferring special benefit on an influential group of rent-seekers to the detriment of the public at large:
"Specifically, we favor a permanent system of flexible price supports for agricultural products..."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's