The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sultan said:
'Enemies of the people': Trump remark echoes history's worst tyrants

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39015559
Click to expand...
@Sultan Where have you been? This thread has missed your presence! :)

Question to resident Americans: when tRump lashes out in his public speeches and social media, do the specific concerned people feel threatened, scared or vulnerable?

Eg when previous leaders like Stalin or Hitler proclaimed you as an 'enemy of the state', your life was pretty much over.

How do people like Jake Tapper feel when his president makes such threats? Are they scared for their safety and freedom or do they laugh at a ridiculous manchild having a hissy fit? If my Prime Minister made statements like this about me, I'd be bricking it!
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Harward and Petraeus apparently both rejected the position because Trump wouldn't allow them to choose their own staffs.
Click to expand...
What is tRump's issue in that?

it's not as through these are established like Moyes inheriting SAF's well oiled support staff.
 
sammsky1 said:
What is tRump's issue in that?

it's not as through these are established like Moyes inheriting SAF's well oiled support staff.
Click to expand...
He's friends with KT McFarland, and insists she be kept as deputy NSA.
 
sammsky1 said:
What is tRump's issue in that?

it's not as through these are established like Moyes inheriting SAF's well oiled support staff.
Click to expand...

I think both Harward and Petraeus wanted two key things:

1. The ability to chose their own office staff

2. A restoration of the traditional national security council seats (as in, tell Steve Bannon to feck off and not attend the meetings and also reinstate the two positions Trump previously omitted from the council - the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Trump was obviously not going to capitulate on either since KT McFarland was Flynn's deputy and Trump wanted to keep her. So basically, anyone he chooses as the new NSA will have to be incredibly flexible on both of Trump's demands.
 
Raoul said:
I think both Harward and Petraeus wanted two key things:

1. The ability to chose their own office staff

2. A restoration of the traditional national security council seats (as in, tell Steve Bannon to feck off and not attend the meetings and also reinstate the two positions Trump previously omitted from the council - the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Trump was obviously not going to capitulate on either since KT McFarland was Flynn's deputy and Trump wanted to keep her. So basically, anyone he chooses as the new NSA will have to be incredibly flexible on both of Trump's demands.
Click to expand...

What? I knew he included Bannon but to exclude those two critical positions? WTF! Its not NSC but a political strategy meeting with a whiff of national security.
 
Raoul said:
I think both Harward and Petraeus wanted two key things:

1. The ability to chose their own office staff

2. A restoration of the traditional national security council seats (as in, tell Steve Bannon to feck off and not attend the meetings and also reinstate the two positions Trump previously omitted from the council - the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Trump was obviously not going to capitulate on either since KT McFarland was Flynn's deputy and Trump wanted to keep her. So basically, anyone he chooses as the new NSA will have to be incredibly flexible on both of Trump's demands.
Click to expand...
What's so special about KT aside from pussy grabbing potential?

Removing the JCS Chair from the NSA is just about the most illogical thing tRump has done IMO. Its gotten lost amidst the other gazillion crazy stuff.
 
Raoul said:
I think both Harward and Petraeus wanted two key things:

1. The ability to chose their own office staff

2. A restoration of the traditional national security council seats (as in, tell Steve Bannon to feck off and not attend the meetings and also reinstate the two positions Trump previously omitted from the council - the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Trump was obviously not going to capitulate on either since KT McFarland was Flynn's deputy and Trump wanted to keep her. So basically, anyone he chooses as the new NSA will have to be incredibly flexible on both of Trump's demands.
Click to expand...
It's worrying, the majority of capable candidates aren't going to want to be coming into an obviously dysfunctional administration where they aren't even in full control of their brief, but it's vital that someone sane be willing to take the job. That someone with the nickname "Mad Dog" is seen as the one restraining force in the setup is somewhat alarming.
 
sammsky1 said:
What's so special about KT aside from pussy grabbing potential?

Removing the JCS Chair from the NSA is just about the most illogical thing tRump has done IMO. Its gotten lost amidst the other gazillion crazy stuff.
Click to expand...

She's an old Fox News pundit who Drumpf apparently knows well. She's probably completely incompetent on security matters but as long as Donald likes her, she can stay.
 
sglowrider said:
What? I knew he included Bannon but to exclude those two critical positions? WTF! Its not NSC but a political strategy meeting with a whiff of national security.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was the big controversy a few weeks ago. Bannon got added and the other two were relegated to attending meetings on an "as needed" basis, as opposed to past administrations where they were primary participants.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah that was the big controversy a few weeks ago. Bannon got added and the other two were relegated to attending meetings on an "as needed" basis, as opposed to past administrations where they were primary participants.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Trump did that? What does he think NSC does? Bannon's including is predictable but to remove two two positions...
 
sglowrider said:
Why do you think Trump did that? What does he think NSC does? Bannon's including is predictable but to remove two two positions...
Click to expand...

My best guess is Bannon convinced him to do it that way. From Bannon's perspective, the less people on the NSC to challenge him, the better.
 
Ubik said:
It's worrying, the majority of capable candidates aren't going to want to be coming into an obviously dysfunctional administration where they aren't even in full control of their brief, but it's vital that someone sane be willing to take the job. That someone with the nickname "Mad Dog" is seen as the one restraining force in the setup is somewhat alarming.
Click to expand...
Was thinking this the other day: the pool of genuinely qualified people is very small anyways, and given tRump's toxicity, fewer and fewer will want to associate themselves to his administration.

He is just about getting by in this round 1, but as we've seen already there.are going to be loads of cabinet level scandals resulting in dismissal : that's when even more lunatic appointments will.be made because no Republican leaning person will what to commit career suicide.
 
Ubik said:
Just a few results I've looked up:

Ban -
Fox: Favour 46% - Oppose 52%
Pew: 38-59
CNN: 47-53
Q-Pac: 46-51 (Opposition increases to 37-60 when looking solely at 120 day ban on refugees and to 26-70 for the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees)
PPP: 45-49
CBS: 45-51

It's higher support than you'd like in a modern society, but far from popular.

Not as many polls of the wall in ones I looked at, but:
CNN: Favour 38% - Oppose 60% (and opposition has increased since they last asked in September)
Fox: 54% of respondents said it's "not at all important" that Trump work on the wall in his first 100 days
PPP: 37-56 (if US has to pay up front for it)

And I can't remember seeing many ever that were in favour.

Whilst November's result was a shock to the system, I don't think it's reason enough to completely throw out the window previous truisms of political science, namely that favourability/approval correlates strongly with electoral support. As you pointed out many times during the campaign, Trump may have been the most unpopular candidate ever, but Clinton was the second most unpopular, and Trump won people that had negative views of both candidates by more than 2:1.
Click to expand...

I specifically mentioned favourability (I got my numbers from the RCP averages of Nov 8 and the day I posted) because unlike job performance you can track it from before the election - and he has gained substantially. And his GOP numbers in 2 of the polls I saw in detail were sky-high.
Nov's result was the 1st time such an unfavoured candidate won, but, if you had seen HRC's numbers in isolation you'd always expect her to be the lsing candidate. It was an exceptional race.

The issue-based polls you have posted are interesting since the ones posted in the thread painted a different picture (the Morning Consult-Politico that you haven't included), and I didn't go looking for more. But bear in mind that opposition intensity is brilliant right now, combined with a judicial attack too.
His best polling comes from economy/ability to get things done. Interviews with his supporters suggest that he is expected to deliver as a CEO more than a president.

I know a group of liberals and leftists in India who convinced themselves that India's centuries of secularism or some such platitude would see us reject Modi - he won the biggest majority in 30 years. Anyone with a pulse could tell how wrong they were, for at least 2 years before the election. I HATE that complacency, so maybe I'm going too far the other way, but I don't see these Trump numbers as catastrophic - especially given that by most objective standards he's had an absolutely purely disastrous start.

@langster
I followed the tweet you posted about losing support but it didn't lead to any poll showing that.
 
RedTiger said:
Explain this to me Steve
Click to expand...
Ah sorry, mate, I didn't mean it quite literally. I should've explained that I referred to the personality traits of some barracks emperors: paranoia about potential rivals, about imaginary shows of disrespect towards them etc. These emperors gradually became unhinged and vicious.
 


Watching this back and it's still incredible to consider Trump is actually the fecking President.
 
Raoul said:
My best guess is Bannon convinced him to do it that way. From Bannon's perspective, the less people on the NSC to challenge him, the better.
Click to expand...

But its a coordination of various orgs then distillation of their respective info then recommend type job. Who would push forward sensitive info with Bannon there who may leak it to Putin or spin it politically? Madness.
It reminds me of The Hunt for Red October where there was a political officer onboard to counter-man the actual professional captain.
 
Ubik said:
It's worrying, the majority of capable candidates aren't going to want to be coming into an obviously dysfunctional administration where they aren't even in full control of their brief, but it's vital that someone sane be willing to take the job. That someone with the nickname "Mad Dog" is seen as the one restraining force in the setup is somewhat alarming.
Click to expand...
That's what I was wondering. Who would seriously consider taking the job in a dysfunctional environment which 45 has zero interest to fix (in fact, he's the one who created that mess), and whose motto is 'always there to take the fame, never there to take the blame'?
 
Last edited:
Crossie said:
That's what I was wondering. Who would seriously consider taking the job in a dysfunctional environment which 45 has zero interest to fix (in fact, he's the one who created that mess), and whose motto is 'always there to take the fame, never there to take the blame'?
Click to expand...

True patriots. Taking it for the team rather than for the village idiot
 
sglowrider said:
True patriots. Taking it for the team rather than for the village idiot
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's enough but we'll see. This Kellogg guy who's the interim might stay permanently. Or run away as fast as he could after his experience. :D Or John Bolton might accept if he's offered the job.
 
Crossie said:
The bolded part is good to hear! I just read this CNN article. It doesn't offer too much than Cruz calling for Bolton and others like Rand would oppose him because of his strong support of the Iraq war.
Click to expand...


Bolton is definitely an unapologetic neocon. Trump would still do whatever he wants and Bolton would more or less be watered down to giving occasional advice. The best part is he would be a counterweight to Bannon's idiocy with some of his own, which would be polar opposite to Bannon.
 
The union of Bannon and Bolton is so evil that it might create a singularity.

Edit: Kissinger would survive that event, because he is immortal.
 
berbatrick said:
I specifically mentioned favourability (I got my numbers from the RCP averages of Nov 8 and the day I posted) because unlike job performance you can track it from before the election - and he has gained substantially. And his GOP numbers in 2 of the polls I saw in detail were sky-high.
Nov's result was the 1st time such an unfavoured candidate won, but, if you had seen HRC's numbers in isolation you'd always expect her to be the lsing candidate. It was an exceptional race.

The issue-based polls you have posted are interesting since the ones posted in the thread painted a different picture (the Morning Consult-Politico that you haven't included), and I didn't go looking for more. But bear in mind that opposition intensity is brilliant right now, combined with a judicial attack too.
His best polling comes from economy/ability to get things done. Interviews with his supporters suggest that he is expected to deliver as a CEO more than a president.

I know a group of liberals and leftists in India who convinced themselves that India's centuries of secularism or some such platitude would see us reject Modi - he won the biggest majority in 30 years. Anyone with a pulse could tell how wrong they were, for at least 2 years before the election. I HATE that complacency, so maybe I'm going too far the other way, but I don't see these Trump numbers as catastrophic - especially given that by most objective standards he's had an absolutely purely disastrous start.

@langster
I followed the tweet you posted about losing support but it didn't lead to any poll showing that.
Click to expand...

I agree. He is very popular among his base and they are thrilled about his actions.

Raoul said:
I hope its Bolton. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/john-bolton-russias-vladimir-putin-its-time-cause-/

Plus he'd be a massive pain in the arse to Bannon.
Click to expand...

Bolton is considered too extreme for half the republicans. It's one thing to wish people to counter Bannon and Trump and another to bring idealogue hawks like Bolton in the cabinet. Madness
 
Sultan said:
I don't post much in the CE forum these days. In fact, I've only made a few posts in months.
Click to expand...

More the shame as the posts you have made are usually very insightful and your presence is greatly missed around here.

Ramshock said:
Whats all this about an attack in Sweden?
Click to expand...

He made up an attack during his mad sweaty rambling in Florida yesterday. He said "look at what happened in Sweden last night, just look at what's happening over there, they are having so much trouble, you won't believe the trouble" and nothing had happened at all. Just more Trump bullshit as usual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.