Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 08, 2016, 08:25:22 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98790 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Trump Transition/Administration
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: The Trump Transition/Administration  (Read 1197 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6377


« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2016, 06:29:46 AM »

Yeah .  You're right CD.  Turned on cable last night and CNN is as they have been, bashing Trump 24 x 7.   They are  a Democrat coalition with an agenda.
 

Did you see the report that the Murdoch boys are consdiering trying to hire Jeff Zucker for Fox.  That will end my watching of FOx if that happens.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #51 on: November 23, 2016, 07:49:29 PM »

It's not like stocks where you can just click close this position.  It's not like Jimmy Carter's peanut farm.  He can't necessarily hire a stranger nor can he not talk to his children or shutter the business.  The voters should have thought of this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-23/trump-would-have-a-hard-time-divesting-his-businesses-even-if-he-wanted-to
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #52 on: November 25, 2016, 11:36:43 PM »

 Donald Trump’s presidential transition hit a squall this week over his potential selection of Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Opposition to Mr. Romney among some Trump campaign advisers has broken out in public, while former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is playing up his campaign loyalty to Mr. Trump as he lobbies to be America’s top diplomat.

Our preference would be Mr. Romney over Mr. Giuliani, but if the debate is that disruptive then Mr. Trump would be better off going to someone else. Choosing Mr. Romney would reassure U.S. allies and signal that Mr. Trump is reaching across the GOP to populate his Administration.

Yet more than a few Trump loyalists mistrust Mitt for his caustic criticism of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries. They fear he won’t be loyal if he gets the job, though presumably the two men would hash that out in advance. One virtue of choosing Mr. Romney would be to get his candid views, and if his loyalty would always be in question for doing so, then he shouldn’t take the job.

As for Mr. Giuliani, his campaign role isn’t by itself enough to earn such a crucial post. The former prosecutor lacks foreign-policy experience and his extensive list of overseas business clients could become a confirmation problem if they aren’t thoroughly vetted. Another question is whether Mr. Giuliani could manage a State Department bureaucracy that would oppose him and the Trump agenda.

Which leads to other potential choices. One is John Bolton, who was a senior and successful State Department official under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. He understands the job, and he knows from hard experience the tricks that the State bureaucracy plays. He has a blunt style that we suspect Mr. Trump might find refreshing.

Another name worth considering is former General and CIA Director David Petraeus. The architect of the 2007 surge that defeated al Qaeda in Iraq, Mr. Petraeus has a far-reaching strategic vision and long experience massaging allies and staring down foes. He understands when diplomacy is required but also when military force is needed to achieve diplomatic goals.

Democrats might make an issue of Mr. Petraeus’s misdemeanor conviction for turning over classified information to a biographer who was also his paramour. That mistake cost him his job at CIA. But he has apologized and paid a price, and the U.S. shouldn’t be denied his talents for that one mistake.

His selection could also put three former generals atop the main foreign-policy portfolios, along with former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and the widely mooted choice of former Gen. James Mattis to run the Pentagon. Gens. Mattis and Petraeus are about as widely read and strategic thinkers as you’ll find, in or out of the military, so this strikes us as a needless concern.

More important is the message these choices would send to allies and adversaries. Mr. Trump is inheriting a far more dangerous world than any President since Ronald Reagan. Authoritarians are pressing to dominate Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Western Pacific. As a Commander in Chief who will be getting his own on-the-job training, Mr. Trump needs counselors who know their briefs from the first day. At least on national security, experience should trump loyalty.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2016, 10:02:17 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/donald-trump-international-business.html?emc=edit_ta_20161126&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2016, 12:38:23 PM »

second post

KT McFarland is a very good choice.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2016, 12:47:30 PM »

Mattis as SecDef would be beyond amazing.

Mattis once killed ten jihadis with a grenade, and that was before it detonated.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2016, 01:09:00 PM »

 By Peggy Noonan
Nov. 24, 2016 5:17 p.m. ET
1346 COMMENTS

The other day I experienced a flash of alarm. There was a claim from an Argentine journalist that when the president of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, phoned Donald Trump to congratulate him on his election victory, the talk turned to permits for the building of a Trump skyscraper in Buenos Aires. Mr. Macri’s press officer quickly and sharply denied the report: “They didn’t talk about the tower at all. It’s absolutely untrue.” So did the Trump transition office. The journalist apparently offered no proof. The story more or less ended there.

But what alarmed me was this question: Does Donald Trump know he can’t ever have a conversation like this? Does he fully understand that a president can never use the office, its power and influence, for his own financial enrichment? That he can’t, however offhandedly, both do business and be president? That future and credible reports that he had engaged in such a conflict of interest would doom his presidency? And that solving the question of his businesses and their relation to his presidency is urgent?

This week, in an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Trump was not reassuring. When pressed on how, exactly, he means to distance himself from his business interests, he couldn’t stop himself from promoting a few of them: “We just opened a beautiful hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue,” he said. “The brand is certainly a hotter brand.”

“In theory, I can be president of the United States and run my business 100%,” he said, adding that he is “phasing that out now.” “In theory I don’t have to do anything. But I would like to do something. I would like to try and formalize something, because I don’t care about my business.”

He said, “I’ve greatly reduced meetings with contractors, meetings with different people.” Thank goodness for that. He’s the president-elect.

He noted that presidents are exempt from conflict-of-interest laws, but “I understand why the president can’t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have—I’ve built a very great company and it’s a big company and it’s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, No. 1, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it’s all good.” Business partners come in, they want a picture, “I think it’s wonderful to take a picture.”

Might he sell his businesses? “That’s a very hard thing to do, you know what, because I have real estate.” Selling real estate isn’t like selling a stock. “I don’t care about my company. I mean, if a partner comes in from India or if a partner comes in from Canada, where we did a beautiful big building that just opened, and they want to take a picture and come into my office, and my kids come in and I originally made the deal with these people, I mean what am I going to say? ‘I’m not going to talk to you,’ ‘I’m not going to take pictures’?”

Yes, that’s exactly what you say! I’m not going to pose with you because I will soon be president of the United States and the prestige of that office precludes taking the picture you’ll soon use in your brochure.

In the interview Mr. Trump was not defensive—he was garrulous, forthcoming as to his thought processes, and yet he seemed curiously unaware as to the urgency of the subject.

If he is not aware it is crucial, the reason may come down to five words: the habits of a lifetime.

For half a century Donald Trump has devoted all his professional energies to money, profit, the deal. That is how he thinks: It’s his deepest neural pathway. He’s a free-market capitalist who started with a lot and turned it into more. He created jobs, employs many. Good! But that’s his mind: money, profit, the deal. He has brought up his children to enter his business. Whatever else they do, they have surely absorbed the family ethos.

And now, for the first time in his life, money, profit, the deal is not his job.

He will be president of the United States. He can’t help the family business as president. He can’t help his children make a living as president.

He has to be losing money as president and putting personal profit motives behind him. Which means putting the ways and habits of a lifetime behind him.

Because he’s entered something much bigger: the presidency. History. The welfare of the republic.

That’s his job now, and it requires sacrifice.

I don’t know if there’s anyone around him who can convince him that the attitude with which he’s operated for 50 years must end, and something wholly new and different begin.

But whoever does must be aware of this:

The press, which wants to kill him, is going to zero in on his biggest weak spot: money, profit, the deal. Democrats too will watch like hawks. And this is understandable! Presidents shouldn’t ever give the impression things aren’t on the up and up. And Mr. Trump campaigned saying he’d dismantle the rigged system, drain the swamp, fight the racket.

The press does not believe, not for a second, and Democrats do not believe, not for a second, that Mr. Trump will be able to change the habits of a lifetime. They are relying on it.

Mr. Trump shocked them by winning. He should shock them now with rectitude.

Financial sophisticates know and explain how complicated all this is. Mr. Trump can’t establish a blind trust because blind trusts normally consist of stocks, bonds—liquid assets. Mr. Trump’s wealth is in famous entities, in his brand. He knows where his buildings are, his past and current deals are.

He said when campaigning that if elected he’d turn the business over to his children. But that would require never talking to them about matters touching on the central family ethos: money, profit, the deal.

The editorial page of this newspaper offered a sound though difficult route: Mr. Trump should liquidate his stake in his company and put the proceeds in a true blind trust, in which the Trump children keep the assets in their name. He can “transfer more to them as long as he pays a hefty gift tax.” A fire sale on real estate would no doubt be seized upon by buyers like Donald Trump—people looking for the greatest asset at the lowest price. But it’s hard to see how any other plan would help Mr. Trump avoid endless accusations that he is enriching himself as president, that he is, in fact, a dopey kleptocrat who can’t help doing what he does.

It would be a painful act, selling the business he loves and around which he has ordered his life. But there would be comfort in this: In doing the right thing, in denying his opponents a sword, in enhancing his stature and demonstrating that yes, he will sacrifice for his country.

That’s pretty great comfort.

You’ve made your money. Now go be a patriot.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2016, 01:29:46 PM »

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

YOU ARE STILL CRYING WOLF

POSTED ON NOVEMBER 16, 2016 BY SCOTT ALEXANDER
[Content warning: hate crimes, Trump, racism. I have turned off comments to keep out bad people who might be attracted by this sort of thing. Avoid sharing in places where this will attract the wrong kind of attention, as per your best judgment. Please don’t interpret anything in this article to mean that Trump is not super terrible]

[Epistemic status: A reduction of a complicated issue to only 8000 words, because nobody would read it if it were longer. I think this is true but incomplete. I do not deny that Trump is being divisive and abusing identity politics in more subtle ways. I will try to discuss missing parts at more length later.]

I.

A New York Times article from last September that went viral only recently: Crying Wolf, Then Confronting Trump. It asks whether Democrats have “cried wolf” so many times that nobody believes them anymore. And so:
When “honorable and decent men” like McCain and Romney “are reflexively dubbed racists simply for opposing Democratic policies, the result is a G.O.P. electorate that doesn’t listen to admonitions when the genuine article is in their midst”.
I have a different perspective. Back in October 2015, I wrote that the picture of Trump as “the white power candidate” and “the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era” was overblown. I said that “the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data”, and predicted that:
If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. You can read the Washington Post article, Trump Got More Votes From People Of Color Than Romney Did, or look at the raw data (source)


Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.

Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on. [EDIT: see counterpoint, countercounterpoint]

The media responded to all of this freely available data with articles like White Flight From Reality: Inside The Racist Panic That Fueled Donald Trump’s Victory and Make No Mistake: Donald Trump’s Win Represents A Racist “Whitelash”.

I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.

I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn’t want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. I think Trump’s election is a disaster. He has no plan, he’s dangerously trigger-happy, and his unilateralism threatens aid to developing countries, one of the most effective ways we currently help other people. I thought and still think a Trump presidency will be a disaster.

But since we’re past the point where we can prevent it, I want to present my case.

I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately, so whatever.

II.

First, I want to go over Donald Trump’s official, explicit campaign message. Yes, it’s possible for candidates’ secret feelings to differ from their explicit messages, but the things they say every single day and put on their website and include in their speeches are still worth going over to see what image they want to project.

Trump’s official message has been the same vague feel-good pro-diversity rhetoric as any other politician. Here’s Trump on African Americans:

It is my highest and greatest hope that the Republican Party can be the home in the future and forevermore for African-Americans and the African-American vote because I will produce, and I will get others to produce, and we know for a fact it doesn’t work with the Democrats and it certainly doesn’t work with Hillary.

When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child in America?

African-American citizens have sacrificed so much for this nation. They have fought and died in every war since the Revolution, and from the pews and the picket lines they have lifted up the conscience of our country in the long march for Civil Rights. Yet, too many African-Americans have been left behind.

No group in America has been more harmed by Hillary Clinton’s policies than African-Americans. No group. No group. If Hillary Clinton’s goal was to inflict pain on the African-American community, she could not have done a better job. It’s a disgrace. Tonight, I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen in this country who wants a better future.

And at the end of four years I guarantee that I will get over 95% of the African-American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce for the inner-cities and I will produce for the African-Americans.

America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future.

On Hispanics:

I have just landed having returned from a very important and special meeting with the President of Mexico…we discussed the great contributions of Mexican-American citizens to our two countries, my love for the people of Mexico, and the close friendship between our two nations.

I employ thousands and thousands of Hispanics. I love the people. They’re great workers. They’re fantastic people and they want legal immigration. I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.

On his campaign:

It’s a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the people, and serve the people it will.

Trump’s campaign photos are consistent with a desire to present the same message:


This wasn’t a scripted appearance forced by his campaign staff. According to the Washington Times:
Trump walked on stage in Greeley, Colorado to a large cheering crowd when he spotted a rainbow flag in the audience. As the music blasted through the speakers, Mr. Trump pointed to a supporter as if to ask if he could see his flag and then motioned for a campaign worker to help retrieve the LGBT symbol of equality from the attendee.
Within seconds, Mr. Trump was walking around the platform with the rainbow flag in his hands and moments later unfurled it in full display. You could see a huge smile on Mr. Trump’s face as he walked to both sides of the stage to proudly hold up the rainbow flag announcing support from the gay and lesbian community.

Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told me, “Mr. Trump is campaigning to be President for ALL Americans and was proud to carry the ‘LGBT for Trump‘ rainbow flag on stage in Greeley, CO yesterday.


This is just a tiny representative sample, but the rest is very similar. Trump has gone from campaign stop to campaign stop talking about how much he likes and respects minorities and wants to fight for them.

And if you believe he’s lying, fine. Yet I notice that people accusing Trump of racism use the word “openly” like a tic. He’s never just “racist” or “white supremacist”. He’s always “openly racist” and “openly white supremacist”. Trump is openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist. Trump is running on pure white supremacy, has thrown off the last pretense that his campaign is not about bigotry, has the slogan Make American Openly White Supremacist Again, is an openly white supremacist nominee, etc, etc, etc. And I’ve seen a few dozen articles like this where people say that “the bright side of a Trump victory is that finally America admitted its racism out in the open so nobody can pretend it’s not there anymore.”

This, I think, is the first level of crying wolf. What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn’t go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans?

We might want to use words like “openly racist” or “openly white supremacist” to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted “openly white supremacist” on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying “I love Hispanics!”

III.

A rundown of some contrary talking points:

1. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from white supremacist organizations?

No, because there are not enough organized white supremacists to make up “a lot” of anyone’s support.

According to Wikipedia on KKK membership:
As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total Klan membership nationwide at around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total
The KKK is really small. They could all stay in the same hotel with a bunch of free rooms left over. Or put another way: the entire membership of the KKK is less than the daily readership of this blog.

If you Google “trump KKK”, you get 14.8 million results. I know that Google’s list of results numbers isn’t very accurate. Yet even if they’re inflating the numbers by 1000x, and there were only about 14,000 news articles about the supposed Trump-KKK connection this election, there are still two to three articles about a Trump-KKK connection for every single Klansman in the world.

I don’t see any sign that there are other official white supremacy movements that are larger than the Klan, or even enough other small ones to substantially raise the estimate of people involved. David Duke called a big pan-white-supremacist meeting in New Orleans in 2005, and despite getting groups from across North America and Europe he was only able to muster 300 attendees (by comparison, NAACP conventions routinely get 10,000).

My guess is that the number of organized white supremacists in the country is in the very low five digits.

2. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from online white nationalists and the alt-right?

No, for the same reason.

The alt-right is mostly an online movement, which makes it hard to measure. The three main alt-right hubs I know of are /r/altright, Stormfront, and 4chan’s politics board.

The only one that displays clear user statistics is /r/altright, which says that there are about 5,000 registered accounts. The real number is probably less – some people change accounts, some people post once and disappear, and some non-white-nationalists probably go there to argue. But sure, let’s say that community has 5,000 members.

Stormfront’s user statistics say it gets about 30,000 visits/day, of which 60% are American. My own blog gets about 8,000 visits/day , and the measurable communities associated with it (the subreddit, people who follow my social media accounts) have between 2000 – 8000 followers. If this kind of thing scales, then it suggests about 10,000 people active in the Stormfront community.

4chan boasts about 1 million visits/day. About half seem to be American. Unclear how many go to the politics board and how many are just there for the anime and video games, but Wikipedia says that /b/ is the largest board with 30% of 4Chan’s traffic, so /pol/ must be less than that. If we assume /pol/ gets 20% of 4chan traffic, and that 50% of the people on /pol/ are serious alt-rightists and not dissenters or trolls, the same scaling factors give us about 25,000 – 50,000 American alt-rightists on 4Chan.

Taking into account the existence of some kind of long tail of alt-right websites, I still think the population of the online US alt-right is somewhere in the mid five-digits, maybe 50,000 or so.

50,000 is more than the 5,000 Klansmen. But it’s still 0.02% of the US population. It’s still about the same order of magnitude as the Nation of Islam, which has about 30,000 – 60,000 members, or the Church of Satan, which has about 20,000. It’s not quite at the level of the Hare Krishnas, who boast 100,000 US members. This is not a “voting bloc” in the sense of somebody it’s important to appeal to. It isn’t a “political force” (especially when it’s mostly, as per the 4chan stereotype, unemployed teenagers in their parents’ basements.)

So the mainstream narrative is that Trump is okay with alienating minorities (= 118 million people), whites who abhor racism and would never vote for a racist (if even 20% of whites, = 40 million people), most of the media, most business, and most foreign countries – in order to win the support of about 50,000 poorly organized and generally dysfunctional people, many of whom are too young to vote anyway.

Caring about who the KKK or the alt-right supports is a lot like caring about who Satanists support. It’s not something you would do if you wanted to understand real political forces. It’s only something you would do if you want to connect an opposing candidate to the most outrageous caricature of evil you can find on short notice.

3. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from people who wouldn’t join white nationalist groups, aren’t in the online alt-right, but still privately hold some kind of white supremacist position?

There are surprisingly few polls that just straight out ask a representative sample of the population “Are you white supremacist?”.

I can find a couple of polls that sort of get at this question in useful ways.


This poll from Gallup asks white Americans their support for school segregation and whether they would move out if a black family moved in next door. It declines from about 50% in 1960 to an amount too small to measure in the 1990s, maybe 1-2%, where it presumably remains today.

(this graph also seems relevant to the stories of how Trump’s father would try to keep blacks out of his majority-white real estate developments in the late 60s/early 70s – note that at that time 33% of white families would move out if a black person moved in next door)


Here’s a CBS News poll from 2014 asking Americans their opinion on the Civil Rights Act that legally prohibited discrimination. Once again, the number of whites who think it was a bad thing is too small to measure meaningfully, but looks like maybe 1-2%. Of note, whites were more convinced the Civil Rights Act was good than blacks were, though I guess it depends on the margin of error.


Another Gallup graph here, with the percent of people who would vs. wouldn’t vote for an otherwise-qualified black candidate for President. It goes from 54% in 1968 to 5% in 1999; later polls that aren’t included on the graph give numbers from 4% to 7%, which sounds probably within the margin of error.


This is a Vox poll asking how many people had favorable vs. unfavorable views of different groups. 11% admit to “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” views of blacks, which sounds bad, except that 7% of people admit to unfavorable views of heterosexuals by the same definition. This makes me think “have an unfavorable view about this group” is not a very high bar. If we restrict true “white supremacists” to those who have only “very unfavorable” views of blacks, this is 3%, well in line with our other sources.

(of note, 1% of respondents had “never heard of” blacks. Um…)

Maybe a better way of looking for racists: David Duke ran for Senate in Louisiana this year. He came in seventh with 58,000 votes (3%). Multiplied over 50 states, that would suggest 2.5 million people who would vote for a leading white supremacist. On the other hand, Louisiana is one of the most racist states (for example, Slate’s investigation found that it led the US in percent of racist tweets) and one expects Duke would have had more trouble in eg Vermont. Adjusting for racism level as measured in tweets, it looks like there would be about 1 million Duke voters in a nationwide contest. That’s a little less than 1% of voters.

So our different ways of defining “open white supremacist”, even for definitions of “open” so vague they include admitting it on anonymous surveys, suggest maybe 1-2%, 1-2%, 4-7%, 3-11%, and 1-3%.

But doesn’t this still mean there are some white supremacists? Isn’t this still really important?

I mean, kind of. But remember that 4% of Americans believe that lizardmen control all major governments. And 5% of Obama voters believe that Obama is the Antichrist. The white supremacist vote is about the same as the lizardmen-control-everything vote, or the Obama-is-the-Antichrist-but-I-support-him-anyway vote.

(and most of these people are in Solid South red states and don’t matter in the electoral calculus anyway.)

4. Aren’t there a lot of voters who, although not willing to vote for David Duke or even willing to express negative feelings about black people on a poll, still have implicit racist feelings, the kind where they’re nervous when they see a black guy on a deserted street at night?

Probably. And this is why I am talking about crying wolf. If you wanted to worry about the voter with subconscious racist attitudes carefully hidden even from themselves, you shouldn’t have used the words “openly white supremacist KKK supporter” like a verbal tic.

5. But even if Donald Trump isn’t openly white supremacist, didn’t he get an endorsement from KKK leader David Duke? Didn’t he refuse to reject that endorsement? Doesn’t that mean that he secretly wants to court the white supremacist vote?

The answer is no on all counts.

No, Donald Trump did not get an endorsement from KKK leader David Duke. Duke has spoken out in favor of Trump, but refused to give a formal endorsement. You can read the explanation straight from the horse’s mouth at davidduke.com: “The ZioMedia Lies: I Have Not Endorsed Donald Trump” (content warning: exactly what you would expect). If you don’t want that site in your browser history, you can read the same story at The International Business Times.

No, Donald Trump did not refuse to reject the endorsement. From Politico.com:
Donald Trump says he isn’t interested in the endorsement of David Duke, the anti-Semitic former Ku Klux Klan leader who praised the GOP presidential hopeful earlier this week on his radio show.
“I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement,” Trump said during an interview with Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. He added: “I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.”

Asked whether he would repudiate the endorsement, Trump said “Sure, I would if that would make you feel better.”

From Washington Post:

ABC NEWS: “So, are you prepared right now to make a clear and unequivocal statement renouncing the support of all white supremacists?”

TRUMP: “Of course, I am. I mean, there’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have. You take a look at Palm Beach, Florida, I built the Mar-a-Lago Club, totally open to everybody; a club that frankly set a new standard in clubs and a new standard in Palm Beach and I’ve gotten great credit for it. That is totally open to everybody. So, of course, I am.”

From CNN:
“David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years,” Trump said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK,” Trump added. “Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now.”

The concern comes from a single interview February 28, where Trump was asked to renounce support from David Duke and the KKK, where he gave a non-answer:
“I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about,” Trump said. “You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I’d have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong. You may have groups in there that are totally fine — it would be very unfair. So give me a list of the groups and I’ll let you know.”
This is pretty bad. But the next day Trump was saying that of course he denounced the KKK and blaming a “bad earpiece” for not being able to understand what the interviewer was saying.

Trump’s bad earpiece explanation doesn’t hold water – he repeated the name “David Duke” in his answer, so he obviously heard it. And his claim that he didn’t know who David Duke was doesn’t make sense – he’s mentioned Duke before in various contexts.

But it’s actually worth taking a look at those contexts. In 2000, Trump was already considering running for President. His friend Jesse Ventura suggested he seek the Presidential nomination of Ross Perot’s Reform Party. Trump agreed and started putting together a small campaign (interesting historical trivia: he wanted Oprah Winfrey as a running mate). But after some infighting in the Reform Party, Ventura was kicked out in favor of a faction led by populist Pat Buchanan, who had some support from David Duke. Trump closed his presidential bid, saying: “The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.” Later he continued to condemn the party, saying “You’ve got David Duke just joined — a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party.”

So we have Trump – who loudly condemned Duke before February 28th, and who loudly condemned Duke after February 28th – saying on February 28th that he wanted to “look into” who David Duke was before refusing his (non-existent) endorsement. I’m not super sure what’s going on. It’s possible he wanted to check to see whether it was politically advantageous to officially reject it, which I agree is itself pretty creepy.

But notice that the evidence on the side of Trump being against David Duke includes twenty years of unambiguous statements to that effect. And the evidence of Trump not being against David Duke includes one statement along the lines of “I don’t know who he is but I’ll look into it” on an interview one time which he later blamed on a bad earpiece and said he totally disavowed.

This gets back to my doubts about “dog whistles”. Dog whistling seems to be the theory that if you want to know what someone really believes, you have to throw away decades of consistent statements supporting the side of an issue that everyone else in the world supports, and instead pay attention only to one weird out-of-character non-statement which implies he supports a totally taboo position which is perhaps literally the most unpopular thing it is possible to think.

And then you have to imagine some of the most brilliant rhetoricians and persuaders in the world are calculating that it’s worth risking exposure this taboo belief in order to win support from a tiny group with five-digit membership whose support nobody wants, by sending a secret message, which inevitably every single media outlet in the world instantly picks up on and makes the focus of all their coverage for the rest of the election.

Finally, no, none of this suggests that Donald Trump is courting the white supremacist vote. Anybody can endorse anybody with or without their consent. Did you know that the head of the US Communist Party endorsed Hillary, and Hillary never (as far as I know) “renounced” their endorsement? Does that mean Hillary is a Communist? Did you know that a leader of a murderous black supremacist cult supported Donald Trump and Trump said that he “loved” him? Does that mean Trump is a black supremacist? The only time this weird “X endorsed Y, that means Y must support X” thing is brought out, is in favor of the media narrative painting Trump to be a racist.

This, to me, is another form of crying wolf. One day you might have a candidate who openly courts the KKK, in the sense of having a campaign platform saying “I like the KKK and value their support”, speaking at Klan meetings, et cetera. And instead, you’ve wasted the phrase “openly courts the KKK” on somebody with a twenty year history of loudly condemning the KKK, plus one weird interview where he said he didn’t know anything about it, then changed his mind the next day and said he hates them.

6. What about Trump’s “drugs and crime” speech about Mexicans?

Trump said that:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.

Compare to eg Bill Clinton’s 1996 platform (all emphasis mine):
We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away.
Or John McCain in 2008:
Border security is essential to national security. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people.
Trump’s platform contains similar language – and, like all past platforms, also contains language praising legal immigrants:
Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.
We are particularly grateful to the thousands of new legal immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces and among first responders. Their patriotism should encourage all to embrace the newcomers legally among us, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid isolation from the mainstream of society. We are also thankful for the many legal immigrants who continue to contribute to American society.

When Democrats and Republicans alike over the last twenty years say that we are a nation of immigrants but that illegal immigrants threaten our security, or may be criminals or drug pushers, they’re met with yawns. When Trump says exactly the same thing, he’s Literally the KKK.

7. What about the border wall? Doesn’t that mean Trump must hate Mexicans?

As multiple sources point out, both Hillary and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which put up a 700 mile fence along the US-Mexican border. Politifact says that Hillary and Obama wanted a 700 mile fence but Trump wants a 1000 mile wall, so these are totally different. But really? Support a 700 mile fence, and you’re the champion of diversity and all that is right in the world; support a 1000 mile wall and there’s no possible explanation besides white nationalism?

8. Isn’t Trump anti-immigrant?

He’s at least anti-undocumented immigrant, which is close to being anti-immigrant. And while one can argue that “anti-immigrant” is different than “racist”, I would agree that probably nobody cares that much about British or German immigrants, suggesting that some racial element is involved.

But I think when Trump voters talk about “globalists”, they’re pointing at how they model this very differently from the people they criticize.

In one model, immigration is a right. You need a very strong reason to take it away from anybody, and such decisions should be carefully inspected to make sure no one is losing the right unfairly. It’s like a store: everyone should be allowed to come in and shop and if a manager refused someone entry then they better have a darned good reason.

In another, immigration is a privilege which members of a community extend at their pleasure to other people whom they think would be a good fit for their community. It’s like a home: you can invite your friends to come live with you, but if someone gives you a vague bad feeling or seems like a good person who’s just incompatible with your current lifestyle, you have the right not to invite them and it would be criminal for them to barge in anyway.

It looks like many Clinton supporters believe in the first model, and many Trump supporters in the second model. I think this ties into deeper differences – Clinton supporters are more atomized and individualist, Trump supporters stronger believers in culture and community.

In the second model, the community gets to decide how many immigrants come in and on what terms. Most of the Trump supporters I know are happy to let in a reasonable amount, but they get very angry when people who weren’t invited or approved by the community come in anyway and insist that everyone else make way for them.

Calling this “open white supremacy” seems like those libertarians who call public buses Communism, except if “Communism” got worn out on the euphemism treadmill and they started calling public buses “overt Soviet-style Stalinism”.

9. Don’t Trump voters oppose the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves?

This was in New York Times, Vox, Huffington Post, Time, et cetera. It’s very misleading. See Snopes for full explanation.

10. Isn’t Trump anti-Semitic?

I feel like an attempt to avoid crying wolf might reserve that term for people who didn’t win an Israeli poll on what candidate would best represent Israel’s interests, or doesn’t have a child who converted to Judaism, or hasn’t won various awards from the American Jewish community for his contributions to Israel and American Judaism, or wasn’t the grand marshal of a Salute To Israel Parade, or…

11. Don’t we know that Trump voters are motivated by racism because somebody checked and likelihood of being a Trump voter doesn’t correlate with some statistic or other supposedly measuring economic anxiety?

Although economic issues are only one part of Trump voters’ concerns, they certainly are a part. You just have to look in the right places. See also:


12. Don’t we know that Trump voters are motivated by racism because despite all the stuff about economic anxiety, rich people were more likely to vote Trump than poor people?

I keep hearing stuff like this, and aside from the object-level question, I think it’s important to note the way in which this kind of thing makes racism the null hypothesis. “You say it’s X, but you can’t prove it, so it’s racism”.

Anyway, in this particular case, there’s a simple answer. Yes, Republicans are traditionally the party of the rich. What’s different about this election is that far more poor people voted Republican than usual, and far more rich people voted Democrat than usual.


Poor people were 16 percentage points more likely to vote Republican this election than last time around, but rich people (well, the richest bracket NYT got data about) were 9 percentage points more likely to vote Democrat. This is consistent with economic anxiety playing a big role.

13. Doesn’t Trump want to ban (or “extreme vet”, or whatever) Muslims entering the country?

Yes, and this is awful.

But why do he (and his supporters) want to ban/vet Muslims, and not Hindus or Kenyans, even though most Muslims are white(ish) and most Hindus and Kenyans aren’t? Trump and his supporters are concerned about terrorism, probably since the San Bernardino shooting and Pulse nightclub massacre dominated headlines this election season.

You can argue that he and his supporters are biased for caring more about terrorism than about furniture-related injuries, which kill several times more Americans than terrorists do each year. But do you see how there’s a difference between “cognitive bias that makes you unreasonably afraid” versus “white supremacy”?

I agree that this is getting into murky territory and that a better answer here would be to deconstruct the word “racism” into a lot of very heterogenous parts, one of which means exactly this sort of thing. But as I pointed out in Part 4, a lot of these accusations shy away from the word “racism” precisely because it’s an ambiguous thing with many heterogenous parts, some of which are understandable and resemble the sort of thing normal-but-flawed human beings might think. Now they say “KKK white nationalism” or “overt white supremacy”. These terms are powerful exactly because they do not permit the gradations of meaning which this subject demands.

Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of “entire campaign built around white supremacy” and “the white power candidate” is deliberate and dangerous exaggeration. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!”

14. Haven’t there been hundreds of incidents of Trump-related hate crimes?

This isn’t a criticism of Trump per se (he’s demanded that his supporters avoid hate crimes), but it seems relevant to the general tenor of the campaign.

SPLC said they have 300 such hate incidents, although their definition of “hate incident” includes things like “someone overheard a racist comment in someone else’s private conversation, then challenged them about it and got laughed at”. Let’s take that number at face value (though see here)

If 47% of America supports Trump (= the percent of vote he got extrapolated to assume non-voters feel the same way), there are 150,000,000 Trump supporters. That means there has been one hate incident per 500,000 Trump supporters.

But aren’t there probably lots of incidents that haven’t been reported to SLPC? Maybe. Maybe there’s two unreported attacks for every reported one, which means that the total is one per 150,000 Trump supporters. Or maybe there are ten unreported attacks for every reported one, which means that the total is one per 45,000 Trump supporters. Since nobody has any idea about this, it seems weird to draw conclusions from it.

Oh, also, I looked on right-wing sites to see if there are complaints of harassment and attacks by Hillary supporters, and there are. Among the stories I was able to confirm on moderately trustworthy news sites that had investigated them somewhat (a higher standard than the SLPC holds their reports to) are ones about how Hillary supporters have beaten up people for wearing Trump hats, screamed encouragement as a mob beat up a man who they thought voted Trump, knocked over elderly people, beaten up a high school girl for supporting Trump on Instagram, defaced monuments with graffiti saying “DIE WHITES DIE”, advocated raping Melania Trump, kicked a black homeless woman who was holding a Trump sign, attacked a pregnant woman stuck in her car, with a baseball bat, screamed at children who vote Trump in a mock school election, etc, etc, etc.

But please, keep talking about how somebody finding a swastika scrawled in a school bathroom means that every single Trump supporter is scum and Trump’s whole campaign was based on hatred.

15. Don’t we know that Trump supports racist violence because, when some of his supporters beat up a Latino man, he just said they were “passionate”?

All those protests above? The anti-Trump protests that have resulted in a lot of violence and property damage and arrests? With people chanting “KILL TRUMP” and all that?

When Trump was asked for comment, he tweeted “Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country”.

I have no idea how his mind works and am frankly boggled by all of this, but calling violent protesters “passionate” just seems to be a thing of his.

16. But didn’t Trump…

Whatever bizarre, divisive, ill-advised, and revolting thing you’re about to mention, the answer is probably yes.

This is equally true on race-related and non-race-related issues. People ask “How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, if he wasn’t racist?” I don’t know. How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that the Clintons killed Vince Foster? How could Trump believe the wacky conspiracy theory that Ted Cruz’s father shot JFK?

Trump will apparently believe anything for any reason, especially about his political opponents. If Clinton had been black but Obama white, we’d be hearing that the Vince Foster conspiracy theory proves Trump’s bigotry, and the birtherism was just harmless wackiness.

Likewise, how could Trump insult a Mexican judge just for being Mexican? I don’t know. How could Trump insult a disabled reporter just for being disabled? How could Trump insult John McCain just for being a beloved war hero? Every single person who’s opposed him, Trump has insulted in various offensive ways, including 140 separate incidents of him calling someone “dopey” or “dummy” on Twitter, and you expect him to hold his mouth just because the guy is a Mexican?

I don’t think people appreciate how weird this guy is. His weird way of speaking. His catchphrases like “haters and losers!” or “Sad!”. His tendency to avoid perfectly reasonable questions in favor of meandering tangents about Mar-a-Lago. The ability to bait him into saying basically anything just by telling him people who don’t like him think he shouldn’t.

If you insist that Trump would have to be racist to say or do whatever awful thing he just said or did, you are giving him too much credit. Trump is just randomly and bizarrely terrible. Sometimes his random and bizarre terribleness is about white people, and then we laugh it off. Sometimes it’s about minorities, and then we interpret it as racism.

17. Isn’t this a lot of special pleading? Like, sure, you can make up various non-racist explanations for every single racist-sounding thing Trump says, and say a lot of it is just coincidence or Trump being inexplicably weird, but eventually the coincidences start adding up. You have to look at this kind of thing in context.

I actually disagree with this really strongly and this point deserves a post of its own because it’s really important. But let me try to briefly explain what I mean.

Suppose you’re talking to one of those ancient-Atlantean secrets-of-the-Pyramids people. They give you various pieces of evidence for their latest crazy theory, such as (and all of these are true):

1. The latitude of the Great Pyramid matches the speed of light in a vacuum to five decimal places.
2. Famous prophet Edgar Cayce, who predicted a lot of stuff with uncanny accuracy, said he had seen ancient Atlanteans building the Pyramid in a vision.
3. There are hieroglyphs near the pyramid that look a lot like pictures of helicopters.
4. In his dialogue Critias, Plato relayed a tradition of secret knowledge describing a 9,000-year-old Atlantean civilization.
5. The Egyptian pyramids look a lot like the Mesoamerican pyramids, and the Mesoamerican name for the ancient home of civilization is “Aztlan”
6. There’s an underwater road in the Caribbean, whose discovery Edgar Cayce predicted, and which he said was built by Atlantis
7. There are underwater pyramids near the island of Yonaguni.
8. The Sphinx has apparent signs of water erosion, which would mean it has to be more than 10,000 years old.

She asks you, the reasonable and well-educated supporter of the archaeological consensus, to explain these facts. After looking through the literature, you come up with the following:

1. This is just a weird coincidence.
2. Prophecies have so many degrees of freedom that anyone who gets even a little lucky can sound “uncannily accurate”, and this is probably just what happened with Cayce, so who cares what he thinks?
3. Lots of things look like helicopters, so whatever.
4. Plato was probably lying, or maybe speaking in metaphors.
5. There are only so many ways to build big stone things, and “pyramid” is a natural form. The “Atlantis/Atzlan” thing is probably a coincidence.
6. Those are probably just rocks in the shape of a road, and Edgar Cayce just got lucky.
7. Those are probably just rocks in the shape of pyramids. But if they do turn out to be real, that area was submerged pretty recently under the consensus understanding of geology, so they might also just be pyramids built by a perfectly normal non-Atlantean civilization.
8. We still don’t understand everything about erosion, and there could be some reason why an object less than 10,000 years old could have erosion patterns typical of older objects.

I want you to read those last eight points from the view of an Atlantis believer, and realize that they sound really weaselly. They’re all “Yeah, but that’s probably a coincidence”, and “Look, we don’t know exactly why this thing happened, but it’s probably not Atlantis, so shut up.”

This is the natural pattern you get when challenging a false theory. The theory was built out of random noise and ad hoc misinterpretations, so the refutation will have to be “every one of your multiple superficially plausible points is random noise, or else it’s a misinterpretation for a different reason”.

If you believe in Atlantis, then each of the seven facts being true provides “context” in which to interpret the last one. Plato said there was an Atlantis that sunk underneath the sea, so of course we should explain the mysterious undersea ruins in that context. The logic is flawless, it’s just that you’re wrong about everything.

This is how I feel about demands that we interpret Trump’s statements “in context”, too.

IV.

Why am I harping on this?

I work in mental health. So far I have had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation. One of them ended up in the emergency room, although luckily both of them are now safe and well. I have heard secondhand of several more.

Like Snopes, I am not sure if the reports of eight transgender people committing suicide due to the election results are true or false. But if they’re true, it seems really relevant that Trump denounced North Carolina’s anti-transgender bathroom law, and proudly proclaimed he would let Caitlyn Jenner use whatever bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, making him by far the most pro-transgender Republican president in history.

I notice news articles like Vox: Donald Trump’s Win Tells People Of Color They Aren’t Welcome In America. Or Salon’s If Trump Wins, Say Goodbye To Your Black Friends. MSN: Women Fear For Their Lives After Trump Victory.

Vox writes about the five-year-old child who asks “Is Donald Trump a bad person? Because I heard that if he becomes president, all the black and brown people have to leave and we’re going to become slaves.” The Star writes about a therapist called in for emergency counseling to help Muslim kids who think Trump is going to kill them. I have patients who are afraid to leave their homes.

Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps. He probably won’t do a great job fighting to end voter suppression, or helping people caught in the criminal justice system, but I’m not sure that makes him too different from the average member of the Republican Congress we have already.

Since everyone has been wrong about everything lately, I’ve started thinking it’s more important than ever to make clear predictions and grade myself on them, so here are my predictions for the Trump administration:

1. Total hate crimes incidents as measured here will be not more than 125% of their 2015 value at any year during a Trump presidency, conditional on similar reporting methodology [confidence: 80%]
2. Total minority population of US citizens will increase throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 99%]
3. US Muslim population increases throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 95%]
4. Trump cabinet will be at least 10% minority [confidence: 90%], at least 20% minority [confidence: 70%], at least 30% minority [30%]. Here I’m defining “minority” to include nonwhites, Latinos, and LGBT people, though not women. Note that by this definition America as a whole is about 35% minority and Congress is about 15% minority.
5. Gay marriage will remain legal throughout a Trump presidency [confidence: 95%]
6. Race relations as perceived by blacks, as measured by this Gallup poll, will do better under Trump than they did under Obama (ie the change in race relations 2017-2021 will be less negative/more positive than the change 2009-2016) [confidence: 70%].
7. Neither Trump nor any of his officials (Cabinet, etc) will endorse the KKK, Stormfront, or explicit neo-Nazis publicly, refuse to back down, etc, and keep their job [confidence: 99%].
8. No large demographic group (> 1 million people) get forced to sign up for a “registry” [confidence: 95%]
9> No large demographic group gets sent to internment camps [confidence: 99%]
10. Number of deportations during Trump’s four years will not be greater than Obama’s 8 [confidence: 90%]

If you disagree with me, come up with a bet and see if I’ll take it.

And if you don’t, stop.

Stop fearmongering. Somewhere in America, there are still like three or four people who believe the media, and those people are cowering in their houses waiting for the death squads.

Stop crying wolf. God forbid, one day we might have somebody who doesn’t give speeches about how diversity makes this country great and how he wants to fight for minorities, who doesn’t pose holding a rainbow flag and state that he proudly supports transgender people, who doesn’t outperform his party among minority voters, who wasn’t the leader of the Salute to Israel Parade, and who doesn’t offer minorities major cabinet positions. And we won’t be able to call that guy an “openly white supremacist Nazi homophobe”, because we already wasted all those terms this year.

Stop talking about dog whistles. The kabbalistic similarities between “dog-whistling” and “wolf-crying” are too obvious to ignore.

Stop writing articles breathlessly following everything the KKK says. Stop writing several times more articles about the KKK than there are actual Klansmen. Remember that thing where Trump started out as a random joke, and then the media covered him way more than any other candidate because he was so outrageous, and gave him what was essentially free advertising, and then he became President-elect of the United States? Is the lesson you learned from this experience that you need 24-7 coverage of the Ku Klux Klan?

Stop using the words “white nationalist” to describe Trump. When you describe someone as a white nationalist, and then they win, people start thinking white nationalism won. People like winners. This was entirely an own-goal and the perception that white nationalism is now the winning team has 1% to do with Trump and 99% to do with his critics.

Stop responding to everyone who worries about Wall Street or globalism or the elite with “I THINK YOU MEAN JEWS. BECAUSE JEWS ARE THE ELITES. ALL ELITES AND GLOBALISTS ARE JEWS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELITE, IT’S DEFINITELY JEWS YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. IF YOU FEEL SCREWED BY WALL STREET, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU WERE THE JEWS. IT’S THE JEWS WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS, MAKE SURE TO REMEMBER THAT. DEFINITELY TRANSLATE YOUR HATRED TOWARDS A VAGUE ESTABLISHMENT INTO HATRED OF JEWS, BECAUSE THEY’RE TOTALLY THE ONES YOU’RE THINKING OF.” This means you, Vox. Someday those three or four people who still believe the media are going to read this stuff and immediately join the Nazi Party, and nobody will be able to blame them.

Stop saying that being against crime is a dog whistle for racism. Have you ever met a crime victim? They don’t like crime. I work with people from a poor area, and a lot of them have been raped, or permanently disabled, or had people close to them murdered. You know what these people have in common? They don’t like crime When you say “the only reason someone could talk about law and order is that they secretly hate black people, because, y’know, all criminals are black”, not only are you an idiot, you’re a racist. Also, I judge you for not having read the polls saying that nonwhites are way more concerned about crime than white people are.

Stop turning everything into identity politics. The only thing the media has been able to do for the last five years is shout “IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS!” at everything, and then when the right wing finally says “Um, i…den-tity….poli-tics?” you freak out and figure that the only way they could have possibly learned that phrase is from the KKK.

Stop calling Trump voters racist. A metaphor: we have freedom of speech not because all speech is good, but because the temptation to ban speech is so great that, unless given a blanket prohibition, it would slide into universal censorship of any unpopular opinion. Likewise, I would recommend you stop calling Trump voters racist – not because none of them are, but because as soon as you give yourself that opportunity, it’s a slippery slope down to “anyone who disagrees with me on anything does so entirely out of raw seething hatred, and my entire outgroup is secret members of the KKK and so I am justified in considering them worthless human trash”. I’m not saying you’re teetering on the edge of that slope. I’m saying you’re way at the bottom, covered by dozens of feet of fallen rocks and snow. Also, I hear that accusing people of racism constantly for no reason is the best way to get them to vote for your candidate next time around. Assuming there is a next time.

Stop centering criticism of Donald Trump around this sort of stuff, and switch to literally anything else. Here is an incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue with no idea how to run a country, whose philosophy of governance basically boils down to “I’m going to win and not lose, details to be filled in later”, and all you can do is repeat, again and again, how he seems popular among weird Internet teenagers who post frog memes. In the middle of an emotionally incontinent reality TV show host getting his hand on the nuclear button, your chief complaint is that in the middle of a few dozen denunciations of the KKK, he once delayed denouncing the KKK for an entire 24 hours before going back to denouncing it again. When a guy who says outright that he won’t respect elections unless he wins them does, somehow, win an election, the headlines are how he once said he didn’t like globalists which means he must be anti-Semitic.

Stop making people suicidal. Stop telling people they’re going to be killed. Stop terrifying children. Stop giving racism free advertising. Stop trying to convince Americans that all the other Americans hate them. Stop. Stop. Stop.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #58 on: November 28, 2016, 11:10:44 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house.html?emc=edit_ta_20161128&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6377


« Reply #59 on: November 29, 2016, 05:47:42 PM »

This is just too weird:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/29/report-trump-name-elaine-chao-transportation-secretary/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2016, 11:53:32 PM »

Only on condition that it is , , , platonic.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6377


« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2016, 06:53:11 AM »

We have been listening to John Bolton on cable for years and I like nearly everything he has said.  Yet he does not seem to be top choice for some reason.

I agree with Rand Paul here on Patraeus and I agree with Kelly Conway on Romney.  But who am I:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/29/all-the-presidents-generals-potentially-including-one-at-state/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #62 on: December 01, 2016, 07:55:26 AM »

It looks to me like each came from Big Business to become an entrepreneur.  That's not all bad.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/30/president-elect-trump-announces-economic-nationalist-dream-team-mnuchin-ross-and-ricketts/
« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 01:45:34 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #63 on: December 01, 2016, 01:30:30 PM »

I am glad that Rand Paul is back in the Senate.  His perspective is an important part of our overall mix, but , , , I would be quite happy with Petraeus as Sec. State.


FP is very much a Democrat publication, and the whining of the cookie pushers at Foggy Bottom in the article impresses me not a bit. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #64 on: December 01, 2016, 02:18:24 PM »

Regarding Sec. of State, I guess we'll all know soon enough. 

Romney was proven right on some things as compared with Obama.  I think his appointment would be a good thing, but tough for Pat-types to swallow after all the negativity both ways.

Rand Paul is to the left or non-interventionist side of Obama, Hillary and Trump on foreign policy.  Extremist in his passivity, IMHO.  Great on some domestic issues but that is another matter. 

Bolton is to the right or hawk side of Trump.  Would send a different signal, but not a very compatible voice nor a fight worth taking up with the senate unless Trump was endorsing Bolton's foreign policy and he isn't.

Petreus turned a war around, single-handedly in terms of leadership.  How that translates into diplomacy I don't know.  He admitted his mistake (eventually) when caught, plead guilty, paid the price.  I forgive him, but also don't know if that is worth the price of a fight for confirmation.

Sen. Corker I believe to be the wrong choice.

Giuliani, I am skeptical.  Would support him if nominated.

Newt Gingrich should be press secretary.

Where does that leave us, Trump's choice.  Maybe I pull for Romney IF they both do it for the right reasons, not to undermine each other.

Sec of State is on the short list in succession to be President.  (Ask Al Haig about that!)  It should be someone well respected, prominent and already vetted.  It also needs to be someone with real organizational skills.  That department needs to be turned upside down for a thorough cleaning and rebuilding.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #65 on: December 01, 2016, 03:17:19 PM »

Romney would be a big mistake IMO.  Such a choice would badly damage Trump's brand and his loyalty could never be trusted-- he is an alpha wannabe and of a temperament that would find it hard not to stab Trump in the back , , , for the good of the country of course.

PS:  Newt ripped him a new anus last night (on Hannity?).  I don't have the quote handy, but quite the the zinger!

Not only has Petraeus shown absolutely extraordinary diplomatic skills in putting together the Surge (e.g. the Anbar Awakening) in Iraq and also in Afpakia.  Also he has a PhD from Princeton in International Relations.  His time at CIA adds to his depth.  A true warrior-scholar.  Trump appears to want Matthis as Sec Def, so for once there would be mutual respect between State and Defense!

As for his security blemish, let's review the facts as I remember them:  It was hard copy-- no risk of hacking.  The recipient, who was , , , ahem , , , particularly well known to him, , , had Secret clearance, just not Top Secret clearance.  There was ZERO corruption.

Caught a snippet of Bolton today and he was speaking in terms of carrying out the President's policies (i.e. not his).
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #66 on: December 01, 2016, 03:22:02 PM »

second post

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/two-familiar-faces-join-presidentelect-trumps-15350563/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #67 on: December 01, 2016, 06:45:33 PM »

Third post

Mad Dog for Sec Def!!!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6377


« Reply #68 on: December 02, 2016, 06:56:03 AM »

http://nypost.com/2016/12/01/donald-trump-makes-surprise-call-to-al-sharpton/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #69 on: December 02, 2016, 09:12:37 AM »

Third post

Mad Dog for Sec Def!!!



« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 09:14:13 AM by G M » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #70 on: December 02, 2016, 10:03:43 AM »

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #71 on: December 02, 2016, 12:59:10 PM »



From the article:   "During his stint as Mullen’s intelligence chief, Flynn would often write “This is bullshit!” in the margins of classified papers he was obliged to pass on to his boss, someone who saw these papers told me."


That may sound bad to a typical New Yorker reader but I have forwarded things without comment and people presume I am forwarding something I endorse or agree with.  It would be irresponsible not to put some such comment on something passed along to a superior for consideration or awareness if that reflects his own knowledgeable and professional view.  His boss wants his comment.  Furthermore, aren't those comments on a classified document passed between two top clearance people also classified?  The person revealing that has committed a crime(?) and so has the New Yorker in publishing it.  No?    "Hey, here's what I saw on a US military intelligence document marked Classified Top Secret!"  "Great, let's publish it!"   Really??

It tells me the guy doesn't mince words, nor was there any indication his boss offended.

The 'disgruntled' author called Flynn's service to his country in this high position, "during his stint as".  As suggested, they are looking for something to deride or complain about and finding very little of significance.  Like worrying about Bannon while elevating Ellison...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #72 on: December 02, 2016, 08:14:13 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/01/mattis-secdef-confirmation-risks-fight-pro-israel-groups/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2016, 03:21:48 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/trump-duterte-phone-call/index.html

Duterte can be something of a post-factual fellow himself , , ,
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2016, 03:29:34 PM »

second post

http://billmoyers.com/story/steve-mnuchin-evictor-forecloser-new-treasury-secretary/

Nice touch:

http://addictinginfo.org/2016/12/02/woman-regrets-voting-for-trump-after-he-picks-man-who-took-her-house-away-as-treasury-secretary/
« Last Edit: December 03, 2016, 03:31:39 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2016, 04:01:03 PM »

Forty minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tggjdGNLXyI
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2016, 05:58:34 PM »

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump inherited a complicated world when he won the election last month. And that was before a series of freewheeling phone calls with foreign leaders that has unnerved diplomats at home and abroad.

In the calls, he voiced admiration for one of the world’s most durable despots, the president of Kazakhstan, and said he hoped to visit a country, Pakistan, that President Obama has steered clear of during nearly eight years in office.

Mr. Trump told the British prime minister, Theresa May, “If you travel to the U.S., you should let me know,” an offhand invitation that came only after he spoke to nine other leaders. He later compounded it by saying on Twitter that Britain should name the anti-immigrant leader Nigel Farage its ambassador to Washington, a startling break with diplomatic protocol.

Mr. Trump’s unfiltered exchanges have drawn international attention since the election, most notably when he met Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan with only one other American in the room, his daughter Ivanka Trump — dispensing with the usual practice of using State Department-approved talking points.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
Stories on the presidential transition and the forthcoming Trump administration.
On Thursday, the White House weighed in with an offer of professional help. The press secretary, Josh Earnest, urged the president-elect to make use of the State Department’s policy makers and diplomats in planning and conducting his encounters with foreign leaders.

“President Obama benefited enormously from the advice and expertise that’s been shared by those who serve at the State Department,” Mr. Earnest said. “I’m confident that as President-elect Trump takes office, those same State Department employees will stand ready to offer him advice as he conducts the business of the United States overseas.”

“Hopefully he’ll take it,” he added.

A spokesman for the State Department, John Kirby, said the department was “helping facilitate and support calls as requested.” But he declined to give details, and it was not clear to what extent Mr. Trump was availing himself of the nation’s diplomats.


Mr. Trump’s conversation with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has generated the most angst, because, as Mr. Earnest put it, the relationship between Mr. Sharif’s country and the United States is “quite complicated,” with disputes over issues ranging from counterterrorism to nuclear proliferation.

In a remarkably candid readout of the phone call, the Pakistani government said Mr. Trump had told Mr. Sharif that he was “a terrific guy” who made him feel as though “I’m talking to a person I have known for long.” He described Pakistanis as “one of the most intelligent people.” When Mr. Sharif invited him to visit Pakistan, the president-elect replied that he would “love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people.”

The Trump transition office, in its more circumspect readout, said only that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sharif “had a productive conversation about how the United States and Pakistan will have a strong working relationship in the future.” It did not confirm or deny the Pakistani account of Mr. Trump’s remarks.

The breezy tone of the readout left diplomats in Washington slack-jawed, with some initially assuming it was a parody. In particular, they zeroed in on Mr. Trump’s offer to Mr. Sharif “to play any role you want me to play to address and find solutions to the country’s problems.”

That was interpreted by some in India as an offer by the United States to mediate Pakistan’s border dispute with India in Kashmir, something that the Pakistanis have long sought and that India has long resisted.

“By taking such a cavalier attitude to these calls, he’s encouraging people not to take him seriously,” said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “He’s made himself not only a bull in a china shop, but a bull in a nuclear china shop.”

Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, said his government’s decision to release a rough transcript of Mr. Trump’s remarks was a breach of protocol that demonstrated how easily Pakistani leaders misread signals from their American counterparts.

“Pakistan is one country where knowing history and details matters most,” Mr. Haqqani said, “and where the U.S. cannot afford to give wrong signals, given the history of misunderstandings.”
Get the Morning Briefing by Email

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy

At one level, Mr. Trump’s warm sentiments were surprising, given that during the campaign, he called for temporarily barring Muslims from entering the United States to avoid importing would-be terrorists.

His conversation with Mr. Sharif also came a day after an attack at Ohio State University in which a Somali-born student, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, rammed a car into a group of pedestrians and slashed several people with a knife before being shot and killed by the police. Law enforcement officials said Mr. Artan, whom the Islamic State has claimed as a “soldier,” had lived in Pakistan for seven years before coming to the United States in 2014.

Mr. Obama never visited Pakistan as president, even though he had a circle of Pakistani friends in college and spoke fondly of the country. The White House weighed a visit at various times but always decided against it, according to officials, because of security concerns or because it would be perceived as rewarding Pakistani leaders for what many American officials said was their lack of help in fighting terrorism.

“It sends a powerful message to the people of a country when the president of the United States goes to visit,” Mr. Earnest said. “That’s true whether it’s some of our closest allies, or that’s also true if it’s a country like Pakistan, with whom our relationship is somewhat more complicated.”

Mr. Trump’s call with President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan raised similar questions.

Mr. Nazarbayev has ruled his country with an iron hand since 1989, first as head of the Communist Party and later as president after Kazakhstan won its independence from the Soviet Union. In April 2015, he won a fifth term, winning 97.7 percent of the vote and raising suspicions of fraud.

The Kazakh government, in its account of Mr. Trump’s conversation, said he had lavished praise on the president for his leadership of the country over the last 25 years. “D. Trump stressed that under the leadership of Nursultan Nazarbayev, our country over the years of independence had achieved fantastic success that can be called a ‘miracle,’” it said.

The statement went on to say that Mr. Trump had shown solidarity with the Kazakh government over its decision to voluntarily surrender the nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviets. “There is no more important issue than the nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, which must be addressed in a global context,” it quoted Mr. Trump as saying.

Mr. Trump’s statement said that Mr. Nazarbayev had congratulated him on his victory, and that Mr. Trump had reciprocated by congratulating him on the 25th anniversary of his country. Beyond that, it said only that the two leaders had “addressed the importance of strengthening regional partnerships.”
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2016, 10:08:36 AM »

Kudos from this poster to the Pres-elect for that long needed move.

Reagan didn't do that as he faced down the bigger Soviet threat but I think would fully support the idea that Taiwan is our ally and the PRC/PLA is a rival or worse.

It was a phone call, not nuclear attack, and it got their attention.

Talk about fake news, the idea that Taiwan doesn't exist and Cuba, N.K., Iran, etc. are US and UK recognized countries is Orwellian and insane.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #78 on: December 04, 2016, 10:21:25 AM »

Kudos from this poster to the Pres-elect for that long needed move.

Reagan didn't do that as he faced down the bigger Soviet threat but I think would fully support the idea that Taiwan is our ally and the PRC/PLA is a rival or worse.

It was a phone call, not nuclear attack, and it got their attention.

Talk about fake news, the idea that Taiwan doesn't exist and Cuba, N.K., Iran, etc. are US and UK recognized countries is Orwellian and insane.
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/12/02/return-to-the-first-island-chain/

Return To the First Island Chain
By Richard Fernandez December 2, 2016

An aerial view shows a Taiwan Coast Guard vessel preparing for a search-and-rescue exercise off Taiping island, in the South China Sea , Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2016, as part of efforts to cement its claim to a key island in the strategically vital waterbody. Eight vessels and three aircraft took part in Tuesday's drill, which simulated a fire aboard a cargo ship that forced crew members to seek safety on Taiping in the Spratly island group. (AP Photo/Johnson Lai)

Donald Trump appears to have sent a message to Beijing: the First Island Chain will be held.  Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines will remain the Westernmost bulwark in the Pacific.  The Hill writes: "Donald Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwan President Tsai Ying-wen, a conversation that breaks decades of U.S. protocol and risks a clash with China. ... The phone call will almost certainly infuriate Beijing, which sees Taiwan as a breakaway province."

The First Island Chain, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to a network of peninsulas and archipelagos which mirror the China coast, and whose possession blocks Beijing from direct access to the broad Pacific.  Japan considers denying the First Island chain to a foe as essential to her defense.  For many years the same string of islanders served as America's strategic frontier in the West.

Recently China has been challenging the US by a series of encroachments.  Trump's actions may signal that he will start to push back.

Readers may recall that the first foreign leader to meet with the president elect was Japanese PM Shinzo Abe.  Since then Trump's policy appears to have taken on a definite shape.

    The call with Taiwan is just the latest Trump discussion with a foreign leader to make headlines.

    Trump's call this week with Pakistan's leader also raised eyebrows after that country's government released a readout that said the president-elect had discussed going to Pakistan — something President Obama did not do while in office.

    And Trump made waves on Friday with a report that he had invited the controversial leader of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, to the White House. ...

    Foreign-policy experts say the call could alter U.S.-China relations, regardless of how it was arranged.

    “I would guess that President-elect Trump does not really comprehend how sensitive Beijing is about this issue,” said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    It’s not clear if Trump’s call was meant to signal a shift in U.S. policy toward Taiwan.

    But even if it is not, it could play into pre-existing concerns the Chinese have about the president-elect’s posture toward their country.

The NYT calls it a possible affront to Beijing. It would not be surprising if China is beginning to suspect that Trump may have identified America's primary global rival as China. Russia would for the first time since 1945 be secondary.  America never wholly abandoned Taiwan.  One of the lesser known -- because low key -- installations on Taiwan was the installation of older Pave Paws Radar. But now things are out in the open.

    It’s very, very valuable to Taiwan. Constructed on the top of a mountain in the country’s north, the Raytheon-built system cost approximately $1.4 billion. Purchasing the system from the United States stretches back to the Clinton administration, with lots of setbacks along the way. Taiwan was so freaked out last year when PAVE PAWS popped up on Apple Maps that it prevailed upon Apple to obscure the image of the system.

    But with little international notice, Taiwan declared its PAVE PAWS operational last month. Air Force Lt. Wu Wan-chiao boasted that Taiwan would now have “more than six minutes’ warning in preparation for any surprise attacks.”

    Chances are, it’s not just benefiting the Taiwanese. “I would expect the U.S. would have made a deal that the U.S. gets satellite surveillance from the Taiwan radar,” Allen Thomson, a former CIA weapons analyst, tells Danger Room. “Most of time it’s sitting there watching satellites, and that’s about it. The U.S. could certainly could use that information.”

Sponsored

The question must be what form will this rivalry -- if rivalry be -- take? Since we have returned in some degree to the Cold War, the obvious candidate mode is a kind of Cold War with China, with both cooperative and adversarial aspects.

The shocking thing about Trump is the speed with which he may be making these moves. The Left thinks they are the random actions of an idiot, all sound and fury, signifying nothing. However China is unlikely to assume that. They will assume it is guided to some degree by calculation and they would likely be right.

But Trump should sell such momentous shifts to the public: explain what it means, what risks it entails, why it is wise. There will be unavoidable costs. Trump's apparent determination to hold the First Island chain suggest geopolitics will dominate human rights considerations, at least for now.  That may be a worthwhile tradeoff -- or it may not -- but for any policy to last it has to be supported by a significant majority of the voters.

The Democratic Party should stop underestimating Donald Trump.  The good news is that he moves at nongovernment speed.  The bad news is that, due to his outsider status, nobody knows exactly where he is going.  Maybe it's time to find out.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2016, 11:38:46 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nTd2ZAX_tc

and this:

http://rare.us/story/stephen-bannon-is-not-a-white-supremacist-and-the-media-helps-racists-by-saying-he-is/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #80 on: December 04, 2016, 04:32:59 PM »

Yes, this is the NY Times and as such is likely to include snarky misdirects, but there is a real issue here and if we are not to fall to prey to situational ethics we need to acknowledge this IMHO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/politics/trump-family-ivanka-donald-jr.html?emc=edit_ta_20161204&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #81 on: December 04, 2016, 04:45:16 PM »

Yes, this is the NY Times and as such is likely to include snarky misdirects, but there is a real issue here and if we are not to fall to prey to situational ethics we need to acknowledge this IMHO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/politics/trump-family-ivanka-donald-jr.html?emc=edit_ta_20161204&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0

How's their coverage of the Clinton Foundation?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2016, 06:36:43 PM »

As we both know, pretty fg minimalist.

OTOH we do not need to imitate their hypocrisy.   Correctly we made a big point about "pay to play" and should do so if it appears here.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2016, 07:02:36 PM »

What a curious coincidence  wink

The U.S. Can Play a ‘Taiwan Card’
If China won’t back down in East Asia, Washington has options that would compel Beijing’s attention.
Tsai Ing-wen celebrates her election victory in Taipei Saturday. ENLARGE
Tsai Ing-wen celebrates her election victory in Taipei Saturday. Illustration: © Chris Stowers/Zuma Press
By John Bolton
Jan. 17, 2016 1:04 p.m. ET
49 COMMENTS

Taiwan’s elections have returned the Democratic Progressive Party to power. Rolling over the incumbent Kuomintang (KMT) nationalists, the DPP won both the presidency and a legislative majority, giving it controls of both elective branches for the first time.

President-elect Tsai Ing-wen didn’t center her campaign on attacking the KMT policy of closer relations with China, focusing instead on Taiwan’s lagging economy, but neither did she reject the bedrock DPP platform of independence from China. Her rhetoric, including her victory statement on Saturday, has been cautious. But her party’s base knows what it wants. Inevitably, therefore, East Asia warning flags are up.

Of course, the U.S. will also have presidential elections in 2016, and most of the Republican candidates are determined to replace the vacuum that exists where America’s China policy should be. This may involve modifying or even jettisoning the ambiguous “one China” mantra, along with even more far-reaching initiatives to counter Beijing’s rapidly accelerating political and military aggressiveness in the South and East China seas.

Repeatedly met with passivity from Washington and impotence from the region, Beijing has declared much of the South China Sea a Chinese province, designated a provincial capital, and is creating not merely “facts on the ground” but the ground itself, in the form of artificial islands on which it is constructing air and naval bases.

Predictably, China’s partisans in the West contend that Beijing’s current economic troubles mean Xi Jinping won’t move first to provoke trouble with Ms. Tsai’s administration in Taipei. But Beijing’s ongoing reckoning with economic reality doesn’t necessarily mean it will be less assertive internationally. Authoritarian governments confronted with domestic problems have historically sought to distract their citizens by rallying nationalistic support against foreign adversaries. Who better to blame for China’s economic crash than the U.S. and pesky Taiwan?

How Ms. Tsai would react to Mr. Xi’s provocations remains unknown. Of course China would prefer for Taiwan to fall into its lap like a ripe fruit, with its economic infrastructure and productivity intact, rather than to risk hostilities over the island. But in the period to come Beijing must consider not merely a less pliant Taiwanese government, but also America’s next president.

Beijing knows that the weak, inattentive President Barack Obama will be in office for only one more year. Whereas even Bill Clinton ordered U.S. carrier battle groups to Taiwan’s aid in the 1996 cross-Strait crisis, few Americans today believe that Mr. Obama would do the same.

How could Beijing’s leadership not draw the same conclusion? Washington’s current unwillingness to stand firm against Chinese belligerence in Asian waters only encourages Beijing to act before Jan. 20, 2017, perhaps especially before Ms. Tsai is inaugurated in four months. For now observers can only monitor East Asia’s geopolitical space, involving not just Taiwan but also the South and East China seas, until America’s inauguration day, praying that the Asian situation is not hopeless by then.

For a new U.S. president willing to act boldly, there are opportunities to halt and then reverse China’s seemingly inexorable march toward hegemony in East Asia. Playing the “China card” in the Nixon Administration made sense at the time, but the reflexive, near-addictive adherence to pro-China policies since has become unwise and increasingly risky as Beijing’s isolation and backwardness have diminished.

An alternative now would be to play the “Taiwan card” against China. America should insist that China reverse its territorial acquisitiveness, including abandoning its South China Sea bases and undoing the ecological damage its construction has caused. China is free to continue asserting its territorial claims diplomatically, but until they are peacefully resolved with its near neighbors, they and the U.S. are likewise free to ignore such claims in their entirety.

If Beijing isn’t willing to back down, America has a diplomatic ladder of escalation that would compel Beijing’s attention. The new U.S. administration could start with receiving Taiwanese diplomats officially at the State Department; upgrading the status of U.S. representation in Taipei from a private “institute” to an official diplomatic mission; inviting Taiwan’s president to travel officially to America; allowing the most senior U.S. officials to visit Taiwan to transact government business; and ultimately restoring full diplomatic recognition.

Beijing’s leaders would be appalled by this approach, as the U.S. is appalled by their maritime territorial aggression. China must understand that creating so-called provinces risks causing itself to lose control, perhaps forever, of another so-called province. Even were China to act more responsibly in nearby waters, of course, Taiwan’s fate would still be for its people to decide.

Too many foreigners continue echoing Beijing’s view that Taiwan is a problem only resolvable by uniting the island and the mainland as “one China.” But Taiwan’s freedom isn’t a problem. It is an inspiration. Let Beijing contemplate that fact on the ground.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2016, 07:20:26 PM »



third post

http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-ceo-now-a-contender-for-donald-trumps-secretary-of-state-1480878402
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #85 on: December 05, 2016, 07:52:04 AM »

As we both know, pretty fg minimalist.

OTOH we do not need to imitate their hypocrisy.   Correctly we made a big point about "pay to play" and should do so if it appears here.

I couldn't be less interested in the corrupt left's pearl clutching over theoretical ethical issues with Trump as the ignore actual bodies from the ignored scandals of Obama.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #86 on: December 05, 2016, 09:08:09 AM »


http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/02/served-james-mattis-heres-learned/

I Served With James Mattis. Here’s What I Learned From Him
To Marines, Gen. James Mattis is the finest of our tribal elders. The rest of the world, very soon, will know how truly gifted he is.
Stanton S. Coerr By Stanton S. Coerr
DECEMBER 2, 2016
This article is slightly amended and reprinted, with permission, from The Strategy Bridge.

America knows Gen. James Mattis as a character, Mad Dog Mattis, the font of funny quotes and Chuck Norris-caliber memes. Those of us who served with him know that he is a caring, erudite, warfighting general. We also know that there is a reason he uses the call-sign Chaos: he is a lifelong student of his profession, a devotee of maneuver warfare and Sun Tzu, the sort of guy who wants to win without fighting—to cause chaos among those he would oppose.


To Marines, he is the finest of our tribal elders. The rest of the world, very soon, will know how truly gifted he is. Our friends and allies will be happy he is our new secretary of war; our enemies will soon wish he weren’t.

I worked for Mattis three times: when he was a colonel, a major general, and a lieutenant general. I very much want to work for him again. Here is why.

One: July 1994
I checked into Third Battalion, Seventh Marines in Twentynine Palms, California in 1994. It was 125 degrees in July in the high desert; everyone was in the field. This was a hard place, for hard men training for the hardest of jobs.

Then-Colonel Mattis, the Seventh Marines regimental commander, called for me to come see him. I was not only just a brand-new captain, but an aviator in an infantry regiment. I was a minor light in the Seventh Marines firmament: I was not in any measure a key player.

I arrived early, as a captain does when reporting to a colonel, and waited in his anteroom. There, I convinced myself what this would be: a quick handshake, a stern few sentences on what I was to do while there, and then a slap on the back with a “Go get ‘em, Tiger!” as he turned to the next task at hand. This was a busy guy. Five minutes, tops.

Colonel Mattis called for me. He stood to greet me, and offered to get coffee for me. He put a hand on my shoulder; gave me, over my protestations, his own seat behind his desk; and pulled up a chair to the side. He actually took his phone off the hook—something I had thought was just a figure of speech—closed his office door, and spent more than an hour knee-to-knee with me.

Mattis laid out his warfighting philosophy, vision, goals, and expectations. He told me how he saw us fighting and where, and how he was getting us ready to do just that. He laid out history, culture, religion, and politics, and he saw very clearly not only where we would fight, but how Seventh Marines, a desert battalion, fit into that fight.

Many years later, when Seventh Marines got into that fight, he was proven precisely right. It would not be the last time.

Two: February 2003
Major Gen. Mattis was commanding general of First Marine Division, in charge of the riflemen who were going to bear the brunt of President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war. He was small, wiry, and feisty, energy cooking off of him, the sort of guy who walks into a room of Alpha males and is instantly the leader. Mattis was a lifelong bachelor married to the Marine Corps, with a reputation as an ass-kicking, ferocious leader, an officer who took shit from no man and would do anything for his Marines.

Mattis had led First Battalion, Seventh Marines as part of Task Force Ripper during Desert Storm, and had cemented his reputation as a man on the way up. This reputation, well-earned even then, was solidified when he took Task Force 58, pulled together from two Marine Expeditionary Unit afloat, 400 miles over Pakistan and into Afghanistan late in 2001 to retaliate on behalf of us all against al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11. He was a blunt, smart warfighter, just the sort of man our bulldog savior, Gen. Al Gray, had started pulling up the ladder behind him when he was commandant in the late 1980s.


I felt very confident with these two major generals—Mattis of the infantry and Amos of the air wing—in charge. And I felt even more confident as I looked around the room.

The metal folding chairs held hundreds of men. Pilots were in tan flight suits, pistols hanging on their chests in shoulder holsters. Infantry officers sat farther back; these were battalion fire support coordinators, seasoned majors who commanded a rifle battalion’s weapons company (heavy guns, 81 mm mortars, rockets, and TOW missiles) and were therefore the key men in a battalion’s fire support planning.

These guys were firsts among equals, and were almost always the best and often most senior of the young officers in a battalion. Most had with him his battalion air officer, an aviator serving with a rifle battalion (as I had with 3/7 under Col. Mattis) responsible for coordinating air strikes with the infantry’s scheme of maneuver and the indirect fire of both mortars and artillery.

The senior aviators, squadron and group commanders, sat near the front, with their counterpart battalion and regimental infantry commanders. Lieutenant colonels and colonels sat in front, captains and majors filling in the rear: hair atop heads grew noticeably more sparse the further forward you looked. Heads shined, and jaws firmly set. Showtime.

The discussions began with an intel brief. The first bad guys we were going to come across, and those we were therefore most concerned about, were the Iraqi 51st Mechanized Division. They were not the Republican Guard, but had a reputation as having some tough fighters who could shoot straight. The word was that officers were taking all civilian clothes from their men and having them burned, to prevent the conscripts from stripping off their uniforms and fleeing the war, trying to blend back into the civilian population.

On our side, they were expecting Seventh Marines to be ready to go on 10 March, Fifth Marines ready to go on 20 March, and First Marines ready to go in a month: 1 March. A-day and G-Day would go simultaneously. My ears perked up at this. No pre-invasion bombing? I was expecting the air war to start up any day, to soften the bad guys up for at least month as we did the first time we kicked this Iraqi Army’s ass in 1991.

No air war? Wow. The briefer didn’t come out and say “You grunts are screwed,” but rather used intelspeak: “We anticipate at this time that there will be no formalized shaping of the battlefield.” Rules of engagement would be fairly relaxed: kill people if they need killin’. Maps were flashed up, showing the initial Battlespace Coordination Line (BCL): we were given permission to kill anything beyond that line. This was going to be a huge, high-stakes shooting gallery.


Logistics was going to be an issue. It was a long way to Baghdad from there, and there were a hell of a lot of guys massing on the border. When Mattis took the boys into Afghanistan, it took 0.5 short tons (a “short ton” is 2,000 pounds even, versus a “ton,” which is closer to 2,200 pounds) per Marine deployed. They were expecting that it would be five times that effort—2.5 short tons per Marine—to get a guy to Baghdad. I remembered that Gen. Krulak, our commandant in the late 1990s, had made his reputation as a logistics wizard in Desert Storm.

Good officers study military history, great officers study logistics. Mattis was a great officer.
Good officers study military history, great officers study logistics. Mattis was a great officer. His “Log Light” configuration for the division was meant to get people north fast, and not try to shoot our way through every little town on the way. As only he could do, he described it thus: “If you can’t eat it, shoot it, or wear it, don’t bring it.”

Mattis stood. As always, he spoke without notes, having long ago memorized everything.

“Gentlemen, this is going to be the most air-centric division in the history of warfare. Don’t you worry about the lack of shaping; if we need to kill something, it is going to get killed. I would storm the gates of Hell if Third Marine Air Wing was overhead.”

He looked toward the back of the cavernous room, and spoke loud, clear, and confident, hands on his hips.

“There is one way to have a short but exciting conversation with me,” he continued, “and that is to move too slow. Gentlemen, this is not a marathon, this is a sprint. In about a month, I am going to go forward of our Marines up to the border between Iraq and Kuwait. And when I get there, one of two things is going to happen. Either the commander of the Fifty-First Mechanized Division is going to surrender his army in the field to me, or he and all his guys are going to die.”

Nothing much else needed to be said after that.

Three: March 2003
Early in the afternoon, every British and American officer loaded up and headed across the desert to the marvelously named Camp Matilda, one of the Marine Corps base camps farther north towards Iraq. This was my first foray out into the open desert, and it was a National Geographic special come to life.

Camels ambled along next to the road or stood and stared stupidly at the cars whizzing by mere feet away. I assumed they would be herded by men in flowing robes on camels, like in “Lawrence of Arabia.” The men indeed wore robes and flowing headdresses, but herded their beasts in pickup trucks. Wealthier Kuwaitis zoomed by in red-checked caftans driving the ubiquitous Mercedes sedan.

Without referencing a single piece of paper, he discussed what each unit would do and in what sequence, and outlined his end state for each phase of the early war.
First Marine Division was holding their first ROC Drill, the rehearsal of concept of what we were about to do. I had never seen a walk-through like this before. Marines had spent days building an enormous reproduction of southern Iraq in a bowl formed by a huge, semicircular sand dune. Each road, each river, each canal, each oil field was built to scale and even in proper color (water was blue dye poured into a sand ditch, and so on.)

Each Marine unit wore football jerseys in different colors, and with proper numbers. First Battalion, Fifth Marines, known as one-five, wore blue jerseys with “15” on the back, and other units were similarly identified. Principal staff from those units stood on the “border” drawn in the sand. About 300 officers stood and sat on the dune above. It was the perfect way to visualize what was about to happen.

General Mattis stood up and took a handheld microphone. Without referencing a single piece of paper, he discussed what each unit would do and in what sequence, and outlined his end state for each phase of the early war. He spoke for nearly 30 minutes, and his complete mastery of every nuance of the battle forthcoming was truly impressive.

A narrator then took over and picked up the narrative, the rest of the first week of the early war in sequence. As he described each movement, the officers from that unit walked to the proper place on their terrain model, and by the end of an hour the colored jerseys were spread over nearly a football field’s worth of sand. What a show.

At the end of the drill, questions were answered and then Mattis dismissed everyone. No messing around with this guy. Mike Murdoch, one of the British company commanders, leaned over to me, his eyes wide. “Mate, are all your generals that good?”

I looked at him.

“No. He is the best we have.”

As everyone rose to leave, Mattis fired one last directive over the microphone: “You’ve got about 30 days.”

Stanton S. Coerr was a Marine officer and is a veteran of the war in Iraq. He holds degrees from Duke, Harvard, and the Naval War College, and now lives and works in Washington DC.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6377


« Reply #87 on: December 05, 2016, 01:29:49 PM »

Hey ALGOR come on up and say hello and who knows what else:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/an-inconvenient-trump-ivanka-brings-al-gore-to-trump-tower-to-talk-climate-policy
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #88 on: December 05, 2016, 02:37:16 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/ben-carson-housing-urban-development-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20161205&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0

I love Dr. Ben but this could be a big mistake for all concerned.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6377


« Reply #89 on: December 05, 2016, 06:23:54 PM »

this is 2 yrs old but I assume still applies:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/romney-is-right-abolish-hud/#4a41f0d17074
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #90 on: December 05, 2016, 06:34:47 PM »

"I couldn't be less interested in the corrupt left's pearl clutching over theoretical ethical issues with Trump as they ignore actual bodies from the ignored scandals of Obama."

It's okay for the msm to go nuts over him but what Trump can't do is let his approval levels slip to George Bush's ending levels. If 29% stick with him and the rest turn against him, nothing will get done.  

The Trump business is a conflict, they feed off of favors from foreign governments and it isn't easy to divest or distance himself from it.  But not solving that affects the Supreme Court, healthcare, tax reform, etc. IMHO.  I hope he has a good plan.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #91 on: December 05, 2016, 06:42:31 PM »


It's risky to take responsibility for a big, failed bureaucracy, but I see good coming out of this.  People in the black inner cities need some kind of contact with one of the great black conservative minds and personalities of our time, and this appointment presents that opportunity.  Someone needs to reach out and inspire people with a message different than the race and welfare baiters are selling and Ben Carson has the potential to do that. 

What's wrong in HUD housing is not the houses or the costs.  Housing is a people business.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2016, 08:44:42 PM »

"I couldn't be less interested in the corrupt left's pearl clutching over theoretical ethical issues with Trump as they ignore actual bodies from the ignored scandals of Obama."

It's okay for the msm to go nuts over him but what Trump can't do is let his approval levels slip to George Bush's ending levels. If 29% stick with him and the rest turn against him, nothing will get done.  

The Trump business is a conflict, they feed off of favors from foreign governments and it isn't easy to divest or distance himself from it.  But not solving that affects the Supreme Court, healthcare, tax reform, etc. IMHO.  I hope he has a good plan.


The MSM is a spent force. Bush sat quietly as he was drug through the mud by the leftist hate machine. Trump has no such qualms in firing back immediately through social media. The MSM/academia now has all the credibility of a Anthony Wiener speech on self control and morality.

No one cares what they have to say. If Trump were to walk on water, the MSM would scream "Trump aquaphobic! Al-right Homophobic, Islamophobic and now Aquaphobic!!!111!!!!!!
Women, minorities, LGTBBQ hardest hit!!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!

 rolleyes



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #93 on: December 05, 2016, 10:37:52 PM »


Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump

If the press would cover me accurately & honorably, I would have far less reason to "tweet." Sadly, I don't know if that will ever happen!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #94 on: December 07, 2016, 10:46:43 AM »


Trump picks trade advocate to be ambassador to China.

For all his talk of punishing China, President-elect Trump has chosen a conciliator with a personal relationship with China’s president to be his ambassador in Beijing.

An Iowa governor might seem an unlikely choice for one of the more sensitive diplomatic posts, but Gov. Terry Branstad has ties with China that go back decades.


Mr. Branstad, whose selection was first reported by Bloomberg News and confirmed on condition of anonymity on Wednesday by two people with direct knowledge, is close to President Xi Jinping, whom he has known for more than three decades. They met in 1985, when Mr. Branstad was serving his first term as governor of Iowa and Mr. Xi was a 31-year-old rural official in Hebei Province, studying modern American agriculture, including hog and corn farming in Iowa.

Mr. Branstad has courted China as governor, promoting his state’s farm goods. As ambassador, he would be tasked with managing a complex relationship that Mr. Trump has already indicated he is willing to shake up. The president-elect’s call with Taiwan’s president last week prompted criticism from Beijing, which considers it a breakaway province, and Mr. Trump responded with posts on Twitter attacking China for its trade practices and provocative moves in the South China Sea.

Mr. Trump is scheduled to travel to Des Moines on Thursday for a rally.
=============================================

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump has settled on Gen. John F. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general whose son was killed in combat in Afghanistan, as his choice for secretary of homeland security, placing defense of American territory from terrorism in the hands of a seasoned commander with personal exposure to the costs of war.

General Kelly, 66, who led the United States Southern Command, had a 40-year career in the Marine Corps, and led troops in intense combat in western Iraq. In 2003, he became the first Marine colonel since 1951 to be promoted to brigadier general while in active combat.

Mr. Trump, a person briefed on the decision said, has not yet formally offered the job to General Kelly, in part because the general is out of the country this week. The president-elect plans to roll out the appointment next week, along with his remaining national security positions, including secretary of state.
Graphic
Donald Trump Is Choosing His Cabinet. Here’s the Latest List.

A list of possibilities and appointees for top posts in the new administration.
OPEN Graphic

In 2010, General Kelly earned a painful distinction when his son, Lt. Robert Michael Kelly, was killed after stepping on a mine while leading a platoon in Afghanistan. General Kelly became the highest-ranking military officer to lose a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan.

General Kelly has said little about that experience, but it played a role in his selection by Mr. Trump, according to people close to the Trump transition. Mr. Trump, his aides said, wanted people on his national security team who understood personally the hazards of sending Americans into combat.

Choosing a bereaved father could also help heal the rift from Mr. Trump’s clash in the summer with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the Pakistani-American parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in 2004 during the Iraq War. The Khans appeared on behalf of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic convention, and later came under sharp criticism by Mr. Trump.

General Kelly was the commander of the United States Southern Command, a job in which he functioned as a commander-ambassador. Responsible for a sprawling area that encompasses 32 countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America, the Southern Command is less combat-focused than other regional military commands. It has a reputation for emphasizing “soft power” over hard military might, and gets deeply involved in issues such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, as well as programs to train local militaries.
Get the Morning Briefing by Email

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy

Still, General Kelly attracted notice while at the Southern Command for comments about the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which fell in his area of responsibility. He rejected criticism from human rights activists about the treatment of detainees, and said the program to force-feed prisoners undertaking hunger strikes was reasonable and humane. He also dismissed one argument cited by those who advocate closing the military prison at Guantánamo, saying it had not proven to be an inspiration to those taking up militant action.

He also made statements that questioned the Obama administration’s plans to open all combat jobs to women, saying the military would have to lower its physical standards to bring women into some roles.

“There will be great pressure, whether it’s 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we’ve let women into these other roles, why aren’t they staying in those other roles?” he said to reporters in January, shortly before his retirement.

“If we don’t change standards,” General Kelly added, “it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers — any real numbers come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the SEALs, but that’s their business.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #95 on: December 07, 2016, 10:53:30 AM »

 By Paul Sonne,
Gordon Lubold and
Julian E. Barnes
Dec. 7, 2016 5:30 a.m. ET

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, named as President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary, doesn’t agree with his presumptive new boss on every issue of national security policy. But he encompasses traits the incoming commander-in-chief evidently prizes: professional success, the esteem of peers and an edgy public image.

Where Mr. Trump campaigned on a pledge to “tear up” the Iran nuclear deal, while Gen. Mattis, though critical, said there is “no going back” on the agreement. Mr. Trump has threatened to quit longstanding security pacts because allies don’t spend enough on defense; Gen. Mattis thinks that for any U.S. president to regard allies as freeloaders “is nuts.”

And while Mr. Trump vowed to bring back the practice of waterboarding for overseas detainees, Gen. Mattis appeared to convince him during the course of a private meeting last month that the method wasn’t useful.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate retired Gen. James Mattis to be his defense secretary, introducing him on stage at an event in North Carolina. Photo: Associated Press

Differences aside, the 66-year-old general, who retired in 2013, would bring to the administration a longtime military commander with deep battlefield experience in recent American wars, a towering reputation in the ranks and a record of friction with the Obama administration.

Mr. Trump appears particularly fond of Gen. Mattis’s nickname--“Mad Dog”--using it in a Twitter message after the two met as well as at an Ohio rally on Thursday where he announced he was offering Gen. Mattis the job.

But before becoming defense secretary, Gen. Mattis faces a potentially rigorous confirmation process. Congress must adopt legislation allowing him to serve because he hasn’t been out of the military for seven years, as the law requires. He also may draw scrutiny because of a four-year-long connection with Theranos Inc., the embattled blood-testing startup.

In addition to Gen. Mattis, Mr. Trump chose another retired commander, Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, as his national security adviser and is considering other retired generals for top administration posts. The introduction of former military officers into jobs traditionally reserved for civilians marks a dramatic shift from the Obama administration, which became known for tension between the top military brass and civilian political appointees at the White House.

As Mr. Trump’s defense secretary, Gen. Mattis would bring his own views to the administration. Mr. Trump expressed isolationist views on the campaign trail; Gen. Mattis at times has advocated more engagement abroad.

In an article for the Hoover Institution last year, he called for Congress to authorize military action against Islamic State and allow for the use of U.S. troops. He denounced limits or deadlines, writing “the time for half-measures is gone.”

Gen. Mattis has advocated fighting Islamic State with battles of annihilation rather than attrition. “So the first time they meet the forces that we put against them, there should be basically no survivors,” he said in a March 2015 interview.

His views come from years of commanding U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and deep involvement in key fights in both wars, including the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004. He has a penchant for blunt talk and a colorful reputation that has earned him a series of nicknames, including “Mad Dog” and “Chaos.”

He drew criticism from American Muslims for a frequently noted 2005 panel discussion in San Diego, telling the audience that “it’s fun to shoot some people.”

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Gen. Mattis said at the time. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

A 2006 book on the Iraq war by former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter Thomas Ricks disclosed a rule given by Gen. Mattis to troops in Iraq: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

While known for such hard-edged quotes, the unmarried former Marine Corps officer is also considered deeply scholarly, earning another nickname, the “warrior monk.” He brought a copy of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius’ writings with him while deployed abroad to remind himself of the timelessness of impulses, challenges and solutions in warfare.

An accomplished strategist, Gen. Mattis helped develop the military’s counterinsurgency doctrine and an approach aimed at winning the support of local populations.

Over his career, he rose through the ranks from enlistee to four-star general, ultimately becoming chief of U.S. Central Command under President Obama in 2010, a position he held until his retirement three years later.

The administration announced his successor earlier than was necessary, a move that had the effect of undercutting Gen. Mattis and spurred a belief on Capitol Hill that he had been treated unfairly by the White House. The Obama administration also drew criticism for forcing Gen. Flynn out of his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Trump’s Inner Circle
More about the people President-elect Donald Trump has chosen to join him at the White House.

Since leaving the military, Gen. Mattis has been a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and has served on corporate boards, including Theranos and General Dynamics Corp., the defense contractor and aerospace firm.

Military subordinates have praised both his strategic aptitude and his loyalty to troops. In 2001, he declined a sleeping cot until all his Marines had their own.

Experts said Gen. Mattis could fill an important role as the Trump administration sets about defining what it sees as the U.S. role in the world.

“Mattis never enters a knife fight without a strategy. He has a plan A, plan B and plan C,” said Glen Howard, who has worked as a consultant to U.S. national security agencies and is president of the Jamestown Foundation, a think tank in Washington.

“He knows the geopolitical chessboard and knows the utility of American power and how to use it and when not to use it,” Mr. Howard said. “I think the message Trump sends by picking Mattis is that when he talks to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, Mattis will be nearby.”

Write to Paul Sonne at paul.sonne@wsj.com, Gordon Lubold at Gordon.Lubold@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com
===========================
By Paul Sonne,
Gordon Lubold and
Julian E. Barnes
Dec. 7, 2016 5:30 a.m. ET

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, named as President-elect Donald Trump’s defense secretary, doesn’t agree with his presumptive new boss on every issue of national security policy. But he encompasses traits the incoming commander-in-chief evidently prizes: professional success, the esteem of peers and an edgy public image.

Where Mr. Trump campaigned on a pledge to “tear up” the Iran nuclear deal, while Gen. Mattis, though critical, said there is “no going back” on the agreement. Mr. Trump has threatened to quit longstanding security pacts because allies don’t spend enough on defense; Gen. Mattis thinks that for any U.S. president to regard allies as freeloaders “is nuts.”

And while Mr. Trump vowed to bring back the practice of waterboarding for overseas detainees, Gen. Mattis appeared to convince him during the course of a private meeting last month that the method wasn’t useful.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate retired Gen. James Mattis to be his defense secretary, introducing him on stage at an event in North Carolina. Photo: Associated Press

Differences aside, the 66-year-old general, who retired in 2013, would bring to the administration a longtime military commander with deep battlefield experience in recent American wars, a towering reputation in the ranks and a record of friction with the Obama administration.

Mr. Trump appears particularly fond of Gen. Mattis’s nickname--“Mad Dog”--using it in a Twitter message after the two met as well as at an Ohio rally on Thursday where he announced he was offering Gen. Mattis the job.

But before becoming defense secretary, Gen. Mattis faces a potentially rigorous confirmation process. Congress must adopt legislation allowing him to serve because he hasn’t been out of the military for seven years, as the law requires. He also may draw scrutiny because of a four-year-long connection with Theranos Inc., the embattled blood-testing startup.

In addition to Gen. Mattis, Mr. Trump chose another retired commander, Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, as his national security adviser and is considering other retired generals for top administration posts. The introduction of former military officers into jobs traditionally reserved for civilians marks a dramatic shift from the Obama administration, which became known for tension between the top military brass and civilian political appointees at the White House.

As Mr. Trump’s defense secretary, Gen. Mattis would bring his own views to the administration. Mr. Trump expressed isolationist views on the campaign trail; Gen. Mattis at times has advocated more engagement abroad.

In an article for the Hoover Institution last year, he called for Congress to authorize military action against Islamic State and allow for the use of U.S. troops. He denounced limits or deadlines, writing “the time for half-measures is gone.”

Gen. Mattis has advocated fighting Islamic State with battles of annihilation rather than attrition. “So the first time they meet the forces that we put against them, there should be basically no survivors,” he said in a March 2015 interview.

His views come from years of commanding U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and deep involvement in key fights in both wars, including the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004. He has a penchant for blunt talk and a colorful reputation that has earned him a series of nicknames, including “Mad Dog” and “Chaos.”

He drew criticism from American Muslims for a frequently noted 2005 panel discussion in San Diego, telling the audience that “it’s fun to shoot some people.”

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Gen. Mattis said at the time. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

A 2006 book on the Iraq war by former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter Thomas Ricks disclosed a rule given by Gen. Mattis to troops in Iraq: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

While known for such hard-edged quotes, the unmarried former Marine Corps officer is also considered deeply scholarly, earning another nickname, the “warrior monk.” He brought a copy of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius’ writings with him while deployed abroad to remind himself of the timelessness of impulses, challenges and solutions in warfare.

An accomplished strategist, Gen. Mattis helped develop the military’s counterinsurgency doctrine and an approach aimed at winning the support of local populations.

Over his career, he rose through the ranks from enlistee to four-star general, ultimately becoming chief of U.S. Central Command under President Obama in 2010, a position he held until his retirement three years later.

The administration announced his successor earlier than was necessary, a move that had the effect of undercutting Gen. Mattis and spurred a belief on Capitol Hill that he had been treated unfairly by the White House. The Obama administration also drew criticism for forcing Gen. Flynn out of his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Trump’s Inner Circle
More about the people President-elect Donald Trump has chosen to join him at the White House.

Since leaving the military, Gen. Mattis has been a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and has served on corporate boards, including Theranos and General Dynamics Corp., the defense contractor and aerospace firm.

Military subordinates have praised both his strategic aptitude and his loyalty to troops. In 2001, he declined a sleeping cot until all his Marines had their own.

Experts said Gen. Mattis could fill an important role as the Trump administration sets about defining what it sees as the U.S. role in the world.

“Mattis never enters a knife fight without a strategy. He has a plan A, plan B and plan C,” said Glen Howard, who has worked as a consultant to U.S. national security agencies and is president of the Jamestown Foundation, a think tank in Washington.

“He knows the geopolitical chessboard and knows the utility of American power and how to use it and when not to use it,” Mr. Howard said. “I think the message Trump sends by picking Mattis is that when he talks to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, Mattis will be nearby.”

Write to Paul Sonne at paul.sonne@wsj.com, Gordon Lubold at Gordon.Lubold@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #96 on: December 07, 2016, 03:22:15 PM »

Third post

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20161207&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38279


« Reply #97 on: December 07, 2016, 06:28:25 PM »

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/46322
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!