President Trump's cabinet

eyeball · November 20, 2016

No less so in light of everything else really. His supporters still seem oblivious so....

OftenWrong · November 20, 2016

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No less so in light of everything else really. His supporters still seem oblivious so....

Or perhaps you are making assumptions without knowing the facts. Although I am not a "supporter" (what support can I give?) I do find it a little disappointing that he's not following through on his assertion he will appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton. But then, you never know what is happening behind the scenes. He might still intend to do that, at least get someone he trusts give him real answers. Not necessarily tell the world about it though. Donald Trump has already made it clear that secrecy is important when going after enemies.

Edited November 20, 2016 by OftenWrong

bush_cheney2004 · November 20, 2016

3 hours ago, kimmy said:

So... Trump is considering avowed globalist and harsh Trump critic Mitt Romney for Secretary of State? This makes perfect sense?!

Yes it does make perfect sense, just like Obama appointed arch rival Hillary Clinton to keep her in line, and she doesn't even speak French like Romney.

The_Squid · November 20, 2016

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Or perhaps you are making assumptions without knowing the facts. Although I am not a "supporter" (what support can I give?) I do find it a little disappointing that he's not following through on his assertion he will appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton. But then, you never know what is happening behind the scenes. He might still intend to do that, at least get someone he trusts give him real answers. Not necessarily tell the world about it though. Donald Trump has already made it clear that secrecy is important when going after enemies.

Isn't it WAY more important to go after the man who literally founded ISIS? Don't you think that's a bit more serious than anything Clinton ever did???

Edited November 20, 2016 by The_Squid

eyeball · November 20, 2016

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Donald Trump has already made it clear that secrecy is important when going after enemies.

So have his supporters...

Quote

Although I am not a "supporter" (what support can I give?)

Quote

at least get someone he trusts give him real answers. Not necessarily tell the world about it though

See what you just gave him?

That said go Trump go.

OftenWrong · November 20, 2016

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

So have his supporters...

See what you just gave him?

That said go Trump go.

I didn't "give" Trump anything. He hasn't done much yet to make a judgement on. I think there's too much hyperventilating about his every move. Not only what he says or might say, but now he's condemned for who likes him. Pretty sure the man already disavowed those KKK guys, what more do you people want? His Blood?

A manic Trump derangement syndrome exists among leftists. It's been that way all along, starting with his campaign before the election. Donald Trump also fueled this speculation, probably on purpose. I mean, for better or worse the media could not stop talking about him, every day, all day. And they still are. "What's Trump doing now???" Tune in.

Personally I couldn't stand the never-ending speculation on CNN, and on Canadian news as well. Panels giving their opinion on what Trump was going to say or do spent hours arguing about it on TV. It whipped the public into a new definition of hysteria. For some, great fear. For others, great cheering that the long-awaited shit kicking was about to begin. Trump admitted recently that he said what he had to say, to win. I suspect that had it played out any other way, we would have had President Clinton today. So pick your poison.

bush_cheney2004 · November 20, 2016

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

...A manic Trump derangement syndrome exists among leftists. It's been that way all along, starting with his campaign before the election. Donald Trump also fueled this speculation, probably on purpose. I mean, for better or worse the media could not stop talking about him, every day, all day. And they still are. "What's Trump doing now???" Tune in.

Agreed...Trump was so effective with domination of the media with his rhetoric and antics, they can't turn it off now. It would be like a heroin addict stopping cold turkey.

Trump said he was "high energy", and the media, even in Canada, thrives on his energy and content.

?Impact · November 20, 2016

There should be a mandatory minimum 2 month cooling off period between an election, and the new elected official getting his/her hands on the levers of power. This would allow both the individual time to back off on his/her ridiculous statements made during the heat of an election campaign, and the public time to adjust to the possibility of that wacko gaining power.

eyeball · November 21, 2016

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I didn't "give" Trump anything.

You gave him the nod to use secret extra-judicial powers against his enemies. You're in good company though...almost half of Canadians support police having greater unwarranted powers too.

OftenWrong · November 21, 2016

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You gave him the nod to use secret extra-judicial powers against his enemies. You're in good company though...almost half of Canadians support police having greater unwarranted powers too.

Thats a bit of a stretch. I meant the enemies of the United States, like ISIS in Mosul, for example. Trump criticized the announcement that was released long before the invasion was to take place.A few weeks in he said it was going badly, much to the indignation of some General. Judging by recent media reports I'd say he was right. Upon hearing that troops were on their way, ISIS slaughtered the civilians and laid thousands of booby-traps.

Trump demonstrates how to control and manipulate the message. Not only to inform, but when appropriate... to disinform.

The shit is chess, not checkers...

kimmy · November 21, 2016

11 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Yes it does make perfect sense, just like Obama appointed arch rival Hillary Clinton to keep her in line, and she doesn't even speak French like Romney.

Well, if Mitt doesn't feel like being "kept in line", he could simply decline the appointment.

I'm a little surprised at the idea that Mitt would need to be "kept in line" anyway. Like, what's he going to do, mount a coup or something? With Hillary, I think Obama appointed her to a key role as a means of unifying the party after a bitterly fought primary and giving her a bridge to continue her political career if she wished. With Mitt, I'm not sure either of those are considerations.

And just last week, Trump's "African American Outreach" ambassador, TV Show Amarosa, was telling everybody that Trump's enemies were "gonna get it", and named Mitt among them. Apparently when she said he was "gonna get it", "it" was one of the most important roles in the administration. I can only imagine what Lindsay Graham and Megyn Kelly are "gonna get". Ambassador positions maybe?

However, I have to say, good for Mitt. I hadn't expected that he'd want to continue his public service after losing in 2012. George W. Bush immersed himself in humanitarian work after his presidency, but I figured we probably wouldn't see Mitt in Africa hugging sick children. Mitt seemed like the kind of guy who'd go back to making loads of cash with Bain Capital or something.

So, if Mitt is willing to take what I imagine must be a massive pay-cut to work for his country instead of himself, I have to admit I was wrong. And I am happy to know that there will be at least one sane person in the Trump administration. Good for Mitt for continuing his public service... his country needs him now more than ever.

-k

bush_cheney2004 · November 21, 2016

5 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Well, if Mitt doesn't feel like being "kept in line", he could simply decline the appointment.

Then why would Romney bother to show up at all ? Trump is the winner, and that matters to people who want to stay in the game.

Many here bashed "Mitt" relentlessly in 2012...so the gods rewarded them with Donald Trump.

kimmy · November 21, 2016

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Thats a bit of a stretch. I meant the enemies of the United States, like ISIS in Mosul, for example. Trump criticized the announcement that was released long before the invasion was to take place.A few weeks in he said it was going badly, much to the indignation of some General. Judging by recent media reports I'd say he was right. Upon hearing that troops were on their way, ISIS slaughtered the civilians and laid thousands of booby-traps.

To hear Trump tell it, the element of surprise is apparently the only strategy that matters.

So, first off, ISIS aren't incompetent. They already knew Mosul was going to be under attack, and were already preparing. They weren't going to be "surprised". They've been preparing defenses since they took the city 2 years ago.

As well, an operation of this size can't simply appear out of nowhere. They're trying to move tens of thousands of soldiers around in the desert. The idea that they could just sneak into Mosul and catch the ISIS fighters sitting around watching Seinfeld reruns is just patently stupid. The key leaders that Trump figured would just be standing around town waiting to be captured haven't even been in Mosul for months or years.

As well, none of the information they've actually given is of any strategic use. It's like a football coach saying "we're going to use our running attack to wear out their defense, and try to prevent them from making big plays." If the coach was telling the opponent what play they're going to run on the next down, that would be a disaster, obviously, but none of the information anyone has released is specific enough to help ISIS prepare a defense.

As well, making it known that Mosul was going to be retaken served other purposes. Give citizens warning to prepare. Give citizens a chance to form resistance movements. Counteract ISIS propaganda. Demoralize ISIS fighters, possibly scare some into leaving.

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Trump demonstrates how to control and manipulate the message. Not only to inform, but when appropriate... to disinform.

News cycle: "Trump ANGRY after Mike Pence heckled at Broadway show!"

Real news: Trump settles fraud law-suit for his fake university. Guy once considered too racist to be a federal court judge will now be Attorney General. Close ties between Trump and Trump Organization create unprecedented opportunities for conflict of interest.

-k

bush_cheney2004 · November 21, 2016

6 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Real news: Trump settles fraud law-suit for his fake university. Guy once considered too racist to be a federal court judge will now be Attorney General. Close ties between Trump and Trump Organization create unprecedented opportunities for conflict of interest.

Well, a President Trump should get at least as much "racism" and "conflict of interest" as the senator and Sec'y of State that lost the election.

kimmy · November 21, 2016

42 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Then why would Romney bother to show up at all ? Trump is the winner, and that matters to people who want to stay in the game.

I'm just surprised that Mitt has any wish to "stay in the game". It would be a lot easier for him to stay home, enjoy the good life with Ann, enjoy the fruits of a very successful life. He could say "I gave everything I had in the 2012 presidential campaign, and I'm done now." So to find that at this point in his life he wants to get back "in the game" seems to show a sense of civic duty that I think is pretty admirable.

42 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Many here bashed "Mitt" relentlessly in 2012...so the gods rewarded them with Donald Trump.

I was certainly among those who bashed Mitt in 2012. I strongly disagreed with his ideas like tax cuts for the wealthy and financial deregulation. Trump brings all that and worse... plus he's a creep. Remember the billboards that had a picture of George W Bush waving, that said "Miss me yet?" ... the answer is now "yes."

-k

kimmy · November 21, 2016

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Well, a President Trump should get at least as much "racism" and "conflict of interest" as the senator and Sec'y of State that lost the election.

Well, Hillary's gone. I'm sure that we'll hear a lot of "b-b-but Hillary..." over the next four years from Trump supporters, but she's gone and Trump is the one under the spotlight.

-k

bush_cheney2004 · November 21, 2016

6 minutes ago, kimmy said:

I'm just surprised that Mitt has any wish to "stay in the game". It would be a lot easier for him to stay home, enjoy the good life with Ann, enjoy the fruits of a very successful life.

People with the ego and drive to become POTUS don't usually just fade away like General MacArthur. Election results demonstrate that Trump would have done better against President Obama in 2012 compared to Romney. Whatever he may think of Trump personally, winners like other winners. Losers get to write books.

Edited November 21, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · November 21, 2016

3 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Well, Hillary's gone. I'm sure that we'll hear a lot of "b-b-but Hillary..." over the next four years from Trump supporters, but she's gone and Trump is the one under the spotlight.

Nice sentiment, but devoid of any political reality. Hillary set the bar very low.

betsy · November 21, 2016

This might be the next head of Homeland Security.

Quote

Sheriff Clarke Just Got Some Amazing News from President-Elect Donald Trump

The Political Insider reported: The New York Times is reporting that Trump may choose a prominent African-American to the role of Secretary of Homeland Security. The choice of a minority should please liberals far and wide.

Just kidding, it’s David Clarke, a staunch conservative and man who kicks a** and takes names when it comes to far-left rioters and radical Islamic terrorists. A perfect choice for American law and order.

The 60-year-old African-American law enforcement official’s reinforced his support for Trump by describing the protesters demonstrating against the president-elect “radical anarchists” Wednesday night.

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=49554

Edited November 21, 2016 by betsy

eyeball · November 21, 2016

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Thats a bit of a stretch. I meant the enemies of the United States

Well, look at the stretch you just applied in public to cast Obama as a traitor - an enemy of the US presumably.

I can just imagine how far you folks would be willing to let Trump stretch things if he didn't have to disclose his logic to anyone.

OftenWrong · November 22, 2016

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, look at the stretch you just applied in public to cast Obama as a traitor - an enemy of the US presumably.

I can just imagine how far you folks would be willing to let Trump stretch things if he didn't have to disclose his logic to anyone.

When did I say that? Please quote the relevant section, so I know what you mean.

I don't think Obama is a traitor, or enemy of the US. He was their president for two terms. Maybe not a great one, perhaps he tried to reach out and compromise too much, and was generally unsuccessful. It seems the world does not respect a conciliatory and nice guy as the supreme leader. Tyrannical strong-man on the other hand...

On 2016-11-18 at 9:05 PM, eyeball said:

Go Trump go!

:D

OftenWrong · November 22, 2016

15 hours ago, kimmy said:

To hear Trump tell it, the element of surprise is apparently the only strategy that matters.

So, first off, ISIS aren't incompetent. They already knew Mosul was going to be under attack, and were already preparing. They weren't going to be "surprised". They've been preparing defenses since they took the city 2 years ago.

As well, an operation of this size can't simply appear out of nowhere. They're trying to move tens of thousands of soldiers around in the desert. The idea that they could just sneak into Mosul and catch the ISIS fighters sitting around watching Seinfeld reruns is just patently stupid. The key leaders that Trump figured would just be standing around town waiting to be captured haven't even been in Mosul for months or years.

As well, none of the information they've actually given is of any strategic use. It's like a football coach saying "we're going to use our running attack to wear out their defense, and try to prevent them from making big plays." If the coach was telling the opponent what play they're going to run on the next down, that would be a disaster, obviously, but none of the information anyone has released is specific enough to help ISIS prepare a defense.

As well, making it known that Mosul was going to be retaken served other purposes. Give citizens warning to prepare. Give citizens a chance to form resistance movements. Counteract ISIS propaganda. Demoralize ISIS fighters, possibly scare some into leaving.

Excuses... everybody's got one. The element of surprise is not the most important thing, but it is still A thing. It worked on D-Day. How about drop in 50,000 paratroopers with air support. Surround the whole city. Blitzkrieg the bastards. Some colateral damage is acceptable, and still better than leaving the whole city at the mercy of those filthy dogs. Use short, swift strokes, I mean strikes!

Wilber · November 22, 2016

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Excuses... everybody's got one. The element of surprise is not the most important thing, but it is still A thing. It worked on D-Day. How about drop in 50,000 paratroopers with air support. Surround the whole city. Blitzkrieg the bastards. Some colateral damage is acceptable, and still better than leaving the whole city at the mercy of those filthy dogs. Use short, swift strokes, I mean strikes!

How much collateral damage? You do know there are over 600,000 civilians in Mosul?

50,000 paratroops would require 500 C-17s. or 780 C-130's or a combination of the two. Paratroops are also sitting ducks when dropped into a defended area.

OftenWrong · November 22, 2016

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Paratroops are also sitting ducks when dropped into a defended area.

Hence my suggestion, "Air Support". Drop them outside the defended area, but in a location where they can be effective in a short time. Covert operations are necessary.

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

How much collateral damage? You do know there are over 600,000 civilians in Mosul?

I don't know. But when they are all held hostage by inhuman ISIS dogs, they are as they like to say in the ME, "Dead Men Walking".

Wilber · November 22, 2016

16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Hence my suggestion, "Air Support". Drop them outside the defended area, but in a location where they can be effective in a short time. Covert operations are necessary.

I don't know. But when they are all held hostage by inhuman ISIS dogs, they are as they like to say in the ME, "Dead Men Walking".

They are already outside the defended area, the place is surrounded.