kurtster wrote: 
Since when is it the duty of a citizen to act like a self-appointed spin doctor for the POTUS?

Can we criticize him if we first say nice things about him? Is that the rule, now? 

Kellyanne Conway continues to make shit up...

Happy days are here again...
The CIA’s New Deputy Director Ran a Black Site for Torture

In May, 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official – whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time – was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime.

As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” – part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” – “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated both multiple court orders as well the demands of the 9/11 Commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by Commission Chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and Grand Jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute.

That CIA official’s name whose torture activities the Post described is Gina Haspel. Today, as BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold noted, CIA Director Mike Pompeo announced that Haspel was selected by Trump to be Deputy Director of the CIA. (...)

 steeler wrote: 

Most successful politicians aren't in politics for the money. They generally don't have a fear of becoming poor from losing an election of office, they have a fear of losing political power. That fear can make them beholden to special interest groups, polls, big donors, etc. Politicians typically have an agenda that drives their choice of policy interests. They have to work within a community of fellow politicians and changing popular moods. Therefore, they have to moderate their goals or delay pushing them forward in order to build consensus. That may make them look compromised or ineffective but unless the politicians in question are cynical liars never intending to fulfill their campaign promises, they're slogging through the muck of political negotiation, horse-trading and waiting for the right moment to push their agenda.

Trump doesn't have any big political advantage by being independently wealthy. Money is vital to a campaign but it's not the crucial currency once you're in office. To get laws and policy in place in Washington, you need power that comes from alliances with fellow politicians, lobbyists representing political and business interests, and the media. Even a businessman with lots of personal wealth like Trump discovers that you get things done in politics through consensus-building, horse-trading and cooperation. Executive orders can't get everything done. Mitt Romney found out the hard way that he had to make friends with the MA legislature when he was governor.

Trump can try to burn the establishment house down, but the establishment will fight back. His lack of preparation and management skills is already biting him in the butt:

Case Study in Chaos: How Management Experts Grade a Trump White House

So it doesn’t seem premature to ask some leading management experts for an assessment of Mr. Trump’s first weeks, purely from the viewpoint of organizational behavior and management effectiveness, as I did this week.

The unanimous verdict: Thus far, the Trump administration is a textbook case of how not to run a complex organization like the executive branch.

...

Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford and the author of “Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t,” said Mr. Trump’s executive actions as president “are so far from any responsible management approach” that they all but defy analysis.

“Of course, this isn’t new,” he told me. “His campaign also violated every prudent management principle. Everyone including our friends on Wall Street somehow believed that once he was president he’d change. I don’t understand that logic.”

...

There is an enormous amount of literature and data exploring what constitutes effective management of complicated organizations. “The core principles have served many leaders really well,” said Jeffrey T. Polzer, professor of human resource management at Harvard Business School. “It’s really common sense: You want to surround yourself with talented people who have the most expertise, who bring different perspectives to the issue at hand. Then you foster debate and invite different points of view in order to reach a high-quality solution...This doesn’t mean decisions are made by consensus. The person at the top makes the decisions, but based on the facts and expertise necessary to make a good decision.”
 ...

Mr. Trump has already violated several of these core principles. The secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, was still discussing a proposed executive order restricting immigration when Mr. Trump went ahead and signed it. Nor was Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, consulted; he saw the final order only hours before it went into effect.

 

 kurtster wrote: 
I said I would get to your stated view of the "establishment." Stay tuned. As soon as someone runs for elected office, he or she is a politician. I assume you are referring to career politicians. For now, see my previous post about when someone crosses over into being a career politician.

 steeler wrote: 
A fair rebuttal regarding the potential downside of a businessman in government, but what of the downside of politicians that I outlined in comparison ?  Why are they better suited to or the only ones suited to get the job done ?  You have given politicians a total pass.  We haven't tried a pure businessman in a very, very long time.  My approach is that we don't know until we have tried.  Saying that only politicians are capable is a canard at best as we have tried nothing else.

Mexico is already pretty much out of control btw.  The drug cartels have more control than the government, imo.  So we do nothing to preserve the wonderful status quo in Mexico ?  We have been doing the nothing is better than doing something thing for too long.  Mexico is not going to fix itself and we are hurting ourselves in the process of this do nothing and wait approach.   We have reached the point of fish or cut bait.  Trump is going fishing.  We will find out and be in control in the process.

 R_P wrote: 
Yeah! The we'll take care of that unfinished business in commie Vietnam and invade Australia for talking back to the Trumpster! 

America First! America Alone!


 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Just WTF does this have to do with Trump ?  

This picture is from August 2015.  

You will stop at nothing to make Trump look bad.

Isn't the truth good enough for you ?

Steve Bannon: 'We're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'

The United States and China will fight a war within the next 10 years over islands in the South China Sea, and “there’s no doubt about that”. At the same time, the US will be in another “major” war in the Middle East.

Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump’s administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump’s presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the “principals committee” of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump’s team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

China says nearly the entire South China Sea falls within its territory, with half a dozen other countries maintaining partially overlapping claims. China has built a series of artificial islands on reefs and rocks in attempt to bolster its position, complete with military-length airstrips and anti-aircraft weapons.

Bannon’s sentiments and his position in Trump’s inner circle add to fears of a military confrontation with China, after secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that the US would deny China access to the seven artificial islands. Experts warned any blockade would lead to war.

Bannon is clearly wary of China’s growing clout in Asia and beyond, framing the relationship as entirely adversarial, predicting a global culture clash in the coming years.

“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian west is on the retreat,” Bannon said during a February 2016 radio show.

On the day Trump was inaugurated, China’s military warned that war between the two countries was a real possibility.

“A ‘war within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality,” an official wrote on the website of the People’s Liberation Army.

Aside from conflict between armies, Bannon repeatedly focused on his perception that Christianity around the world is under threat. (...)

 kurtster wrote: 

I disagree with your premise that a straightforward, traditional businessman's approach will produce better results, making a businessman like Trump better suited to be President.  A businessman's approach tends to be transactional, and lends itself more to making a particular deal, often in isolation from other considerations.  The focus, as you say, is to get the project done, and the goal is to make a profit doing so. The only real restraint is to achieve those goals while acting within whatever laws might apply.  So, for example, Trump sees our trade deficit with Mexico to be too vast, and he blames NAFTA for unfairly relegating America to that imbalance. So, he makes it known he is going to negotiate a better deal for America.  We undoubtedly have more negotiating power than Mexico in this situation, and Trump proposes to leverage that power to America's advantage, and, concomitantly, to Mexico’s disadvantage. NAFTA, he believes, may have produced a boon for Mexico, but it is unfair to America.  In sum, we should not be subsidizing Mexico's economy via NAFTA.  What happens, however, if Mexico's economy fails, and Mexico becomes destabilized as a result of our rolling back NAFTA and flexing our economic muscle with regard to Mexico?  What costs would accrue to America in that situation? What incentives and disincentives attach to a particular agreement or transaction that go well beyond the scope of the actual agreement or transaction?  If we sell military equipment to one country, what will that mean in terms of international relations?  It cannot just be judged by whether we delivered high-quality fighter jets on time, as promised, and made a significant monetary profit doing so.    

 

In the formulation and execution of many governmental programs and policies, especially those involving foreign policy, there often are myriad considerations, typically way more than in play in any one business transaction.   And  a businessman does not always choose to complete a project. If it becomes apparent that it is financially better not to complete a project, the businessman drops it and moves on, paying only damages for breach of contract. That is the smart business decision, and that is why breach-of-contract law recognizes this is going to happen. The declaration of bankruptcy is another example. Trump’s businesses have done that several times.  The “intended result” in those situations gives way to the primary goal:  make money.  Contrary to what you say, Trump has not had a history of being judged by results and being held accountable. For example, he denied that Trump University failed, saying it put forth a good product. As far as I know, Trump University is no longer with us.  Nor is Trump Airlines. Nor the casino in Atlantic City;.  Such is the nature of business.  Trump does not have to be responsible for picking up the pieces for those who might have been disadvantaged financially or otherwise when those businesses ultimately failed.  He made his money, and that is how a businessman is judged.  He got out at the right time. That is the extent of his responsibility and accountability. An elected official, especially the President, has infinitely more responsibility and accountability than that of any businessman 

I am going to come back to your comments about the “establishment.”   

 R_P wrote:

 
holy crap... mixing up our Navy vessel with a Saudi vessel.

 R_P wrote: 
Remember The Maine!

Press Secretary Sean Spicer Falsely Accuses Iran of Attacking U.S. Navy Vessel, an Act of War

 steeler wrote:
I agree and applaud what you wrote, but from the other side, there is an argument to restrict immigration, close our borders...regardless, and as you imply, even if that is the correct course of action, the means by which Trump is implementing towards that end are not acceptable from the right or the left.  I haven't heard a good defense of this from his supporters, other than we weren't getting anywhere with Obama, so what do we have to lose...and to which I counter, right, we didn't get anywhere with Obama, which sometimes is a good thing.

 kurtster wrote:

 

I have a few moments, and would like to extrapolate on what haresfur said regarding Trump's executive order restricting what had been legal immigration and also in response to Kurtster's expressed views.  There has been a blurring of issues pertaining to illegal immigration across the Mexican border and the vetting of refugees and other immigrants coming to America through legal immigration channels.  The problems associated with illegal immigration across the Mexican border have been with us for decades now.  It ebbs and flows, but it has never stopped, and the problems associated with it, and the possible remedies for those problems,  have been discussed in the context of immigration policy reform.  The threat of terrorists gaining entry to the U.S. is a more recent problem, one exacerbated by the tactics of Al Queda and now ISIS, and their  vows to bring the battle to America.  Yes, both fit under the umbrella of security, but I would say the  problems associated with each— to date — have been distinct.  Yes, there have been illegals who gained access to the United States across the Mexican border who have committed crimes while in America, but, so far, none of those have been associated with being terrorist acts.  As horrific as the killing of the young women in San Francisco by an illegal alien who came from Mexico was, it was not an act of terror directed at the United States.  From my perspective, Trump, during his campaign and continuing now, has been playing to Americans' understandable fears of terrorism by vowing to build a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration.  To the extent he has been linking the two — and I do believe he intentionally is doing so —  these really are closer to apples and oranges at the present time. Building a wall on the Mexican border will not be striking a blow against ISIS, or Al Queda.

What it might do, along with Trump's plans to roll back NAFTA, is drive a wedge between America and a large country that sits on our border, one that has been an ally, but has long fought against poverty and the instability that comes with it.  A destabilized and hostile Mexico would be a much larger threat to our security than the current flood of illegal immigrants coming across that border.  Instead of trying to alleviate any concerns or misunderstandings Mexico might have about our building this wall (or concerns they might have about a possible coming trade war with Mexico's biggest trading partner), Trump has chosen to pitch insults and provocations at the Mexicans as a campaign stunt. How else to explain his repeated vow at rallies that Mexico would pay for the wall (actually was doing it as call and response at rallies)?  These kinds of moves do not take effect, nor are they viewed, in isolation. Foreign policy is an intricate game of chess. Trump is playing checkers.  The same is true of his executive order placing temporary bans on refugees and all immigration for the 7 named countries.  The purported reason is to examine the vetting process, which has been deemed by Trump to be inadequate. As I understand it, our vetting process for refugees is the most rigorous in the world.  What specifically among the current protocols have been found suspect?  I have not heard or read any specifics. And, of course, a big chunk of frightened Americans are going to support these kind of bans —even permanent ones. But there is a price to pay for this, and the amount of increased security (lower case) must be weighed against possible decreased Security (upper case) in the aggregate and in the long run.  This executive order was not received all that well among even our allies. We can cry America First all we want, but do we expect all of these other nations and people, especially those stuck in horrific war zones, to understand and accept that they are second-class global citizens and secondary concerns in the eyes of Americans — even at a time when American policies are directly impacting them? What message is being sent when American says it will not accept refugees, that refugees from Syria and Yemen should be harbored in safe zones within their own borders, or in other Middle Eastern nations, but not in America because, obviously, it is too great a risk for America to take them in?  These are not good messages, and they ultimately will not serve America well.  And this is all from a strategic perspective; I have not even touched upon moral and ethical considerations — that whole shining light thing.

 

   

 

 

      

 kurtster wrote: 
oh no, I never was a Trump supporter, I voted for the first time in a couple of decades for Hillary to stop Trump
I'm blue collar Democrat but not a ReaganDemocrat, but like Reagan once said, "I didn't leave the Democrat party, they left me"
Same for me but I never went GOP, 
I know this is a completely ridiculous way to reject or endose a Prez but I just can't stand the sight or sound of him anymore
but there is this also, I'm getting spooked that we are on a path to war
the no malice explanation wasn't necessary, I know, we just talkin'

 

 Skydog wrote: 
I was watching.  It was said in the beginning part when he was trying to do the humor thing before getting started.  It met polite chuckles.  Fare thee well though.  If this is too much for ya to stay on board, then I guess you were never all in to begin with.

No malice, just sayin' 

Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ Law Banning Political Activity by Churches

I just saw a headline that said Trump asked for prayers for the Arnold Apprentice show this morning at a Prayer Breakfast
You can look it up, I didn't read the story, I can't anymore I am done
about a month ago or so a question was asked in this forum who they would pick between Trump, Cruz or Pence as President
I chose Trump because of all the nutty religious/social issues Cruz and Pence would bring with them
But now I say bring on Reverend Pence, we have been fighting each other since Lincoln was elected
maybe we can keep our war on each other within our borders and not go to war with the rest of the world

hey Iran, that was Trump putting you on notice not Colbert