Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2018, 11:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I do.

He is the freaking POTUS.  He should be able to pick up the phone and get an estimate immediately.

Is the military so completely clueless that they have no idea what it costs to deploy troops?

I'll only assume you do not know the meaning between specific cost and an estimate.

Of course the Military has an idea what it costs to deploy troops; however, they may not know the specific cost. What "cluefull" establishment does?  As you said you expect POTUS to know. 

[Dill]

(04-05-2018, 11:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you expect any POTUS to know the exact cost of such an operation this early into the planning process? 

You can either answer directly, continue to post generic "I don't like Trump responses", or post a meme

Welcome back, Bfine.   

You speak of a "planning process" supposedly in its early stages.  Two quick points:

1. The WH staff is set up to provide quality information on short notice.  Would it take 200 million dollars or 1.1 billion to move 2,000 National Guard to the border to conduct surveillance for two months? That would be quite a difference in cost. The president has at his disposal people who could have that data in 4 hours or less. It is not a question of EXACT cost, but it is a question of having an estimate BEFORE deciding on the operation. CERTAINLY BEFORE ANNOUNCING IT. That is part of sound policy process, just as it is for building a house. Every architect knows he cannot provide an exact cost and every architect expects unforseen costs--but he will have an estimate long before he begins building, especially if his budget is accountable to a 3nd or 3rd party.

2. A step in planning would normally include consideration of alternatives, like what if the money allotted for moving all those troops to the border were instead sent directly to those agencies, Federal and state, already patrolling the border, and who can already legally arrest people? Unlikely that any planning would even begin without preliminary consultation of state enforcement.

The manner of Trump's announcement suggests there has been no "process" at all, with his own people surprised, not to mention federal and state agents on the border. This happens often, and often Trump has to walk back an impulsive announcement once more knowledgeable people explain the difficulties and consequences (e.g., his recent spur-of-the-moment decision to pull of Syria "soon" to the horror of his generals).

A further consideration--your assumption that it is somehow NORMAL for a president to know nothing of the cost of such an operation before talking to the press or tweeting about it illustrates the divide between people who give Trump a chance and people who "just hate Trump."  Would it be fair to say that you don''t see the spectacular incompetence on daily basis, and so assume the drumbeat of Trump critique just flows from personal dislike, rather than from Trump's actual unfitness for office?

[ballsofsteel]

This is all a scam. Dennison is just scaring his base again that the bogeyman is coming is he can get his ball less Repubs to vote yes on building his wall.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll only assume you do not know the meaning between specific cost and an estimate.

Of course the Military has an idea what it costs to deploy troops; however, they may not know the specific cost. What "cluefull" establishment does?  As you said you expect POTUS to know. 

If you say so...keep focusing on the one "fine" point and the rest of us will focus on the larger issue of a clueless POTUS who throws out policy willy nilly on twitter.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 09:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: If you say so...keep focusing on the one "fine" point and the rest of us will focus on the larger issue of a clueless POTUS who throws out policy willy nilly on twitter.

I focused on the twitter message you linked in post #72 and the reaction of your little laughing emogi thingy. It has to do with this thread. Given that focusing on a post from you is usually not the best course of action, but I felt I should.

I have 0 doubt that "the rest of you" will continue your narrow-minded focus on the larger issues, even if you were the one that posted the link.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 03:16 AM)Dill Wrote: Welcome back, Bfine.   

You speak of a "planning process" supposedly in its early stages.  Two quick points:

1. The WH staff is set up to provide quality information on short notice.  Would it take 200 million dollars or 1.1 billion to move 2,000 National Guard to the border to conduct surveillance for two months? That would be quite a difference in cost. The president has at his disposal people who could have that data in 4 hours or less. It is not a question of EXACT cost, but it is a question of having an estimate BEFORE deciding on the operation. CERTAINLY BEFORE ANNOUNCING IT. That is part of sound policy process, just as it is for building a house. Every architect knows he cannot provide an exact cost and every architect expects unforseen costs--but he will have an estimate long before he begins building, especially if his budget is accountable to a 3nd or 3rd party.

2. A step in planning would normally include consideration of alternatives, like what if the money allotted for moving all those troops to the border were instead sent directly to those agencies, Federal and state, already patrolling the border, and  who can already legally arrest people? Unlikely that any planning would even begin without preliminary consultation of state enforcement.

The manner of Trump's announcement suggests there has been no "process" at all, with his own people surprised, not to mention federal and state agents on the border. This happens often, and often Trump has to walk back an impulsive announcement once more knowledgeable people explain the difficulties and consequences (e.g., his recent spur-of-the-moment decision to pull of Syria "soon" to the horror of his generals).

A further consideration--your assumption that it is somehow NORMAL for a president to know nothing of the cost of such an operation before talking to the press or tweeting about it illustrates the divide between people who give Trump a chance and people who "just hate Trump."  Would it be fair to say that you don''t see the spectacular incompetence on daily basis, and so assume the drumbeat of Trump critique just flows from personal dislike, rather than from Trump's actual unfitness for office?

Obviously they can get estimates of costs (not specific costs) and effects of the action simply by researching costs and results of the action when the 2 presidents before Trump did the exact same thing.

But for some reason Trump doing it is different because.....

Are you one of those "rest of us" that Dino is speaking for?

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 01:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I focused on the twitter message you linked in post #72 and the reaction of your little laughing emogi thingy. It has to do with this thread. Given that focusing on a post from you is usually not the best course of action, but I felt I should.

I have 0 doubt that "the rest of you" will continue your narrow-minded focus on the larger issues, even if you were the one that posted the link.

How is "narrow minded" to focus on the larger issues?  Narrow minded would be to focus on one small aspect that no one is arguing about.

But, if you say so.

[Belsnickel]

In all seriousness, any POTUS is going to be given an estimate right before they go in front of cameras, they don't know that shit off the top of their heads or even 5 minutes prior. They have too much going on. Trump isn't known to do things "on script," so him not having the estimate at his fingertips is a stupid thing to focus on.

As for my concerns prior, it looks like the administration knows what's up. I think it was Mattis (old white dues sometimes look alike to me) said in a televised interview I caught a clip of that they won't even be able to detain, just providing support. So my concerns on that front are cleared up. I still think this is the wrong move, but that is a difference of opinion in policy.

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: How is "narrow minded" to focus on the larger issues?  Narrow minded would be to focus on one small aspect that no one is arguing about.

But, if you say so.

It was written that way to illustrate a point, I did not say it was narrow-minded to focus on larger issues. Apparently, this went way over your head.

Maybe some of the "rest of us" you speak for understood it.

Here's a clue: Did you happen the read the first paragraph of the post?

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 01:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, any POTUS is going to be given an estimate right before they go in front of cameras, they don't know that shit off the top of their heads or even 5 minutes prior. They have too much going on. Trump isn't known to do things "on script," so him not having the estimate at his fingertips is a stupid thing to focus on.

As for my concerns prior, it looks like the administration knows what's up. I think it was Mattis (old white dues sometimes look alike to me) said in a televised interview I caught a clip of that they won't even be able to detain, just providing support. So my concerns on that front are cleared up. I still think this is the wrong move, but that is a difference of opinion in policy.

I agree that focusing on Trump not know even an estimate is stupid...that's why I'm not focusing on it.  

Trump probably doesn't know ANYTHING about what is happening anyway.

It's just one more thing he'd be clueless about.

I saw a tweet last night (that I can't find now) that said they would not be armed?  Does this sound like a good idea/use of resources at all or more like red meat to his scared base?

[*Nately120*]

(04-06-2018, 01:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, any POTUS is going to be given an estimate right before they go in front of cameras, they don't know that shit off the top of their heads or even 5 minutes prior.

But we hired Trump because he's the great negotiator.  I'm sick of hearing how government expenditures aren't like normal business deals and expecting Mr. Art of The Deal to twist every arm he has to in order to get us the best deal possible is stupid.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 02:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: But we hired Trump because he's the great negotiator.  I'm sick of hearing how government expenditures aren't like normal business deals and expecting Mr. Art of The Deal to twist every arm he has to in order to get us the best deal possible is stupid.  

Meh, we're all sick of hearing one thing or another. For instance the constant bytching is getting quite tiresome.

[*Nately120*]

(04-06-2018, 03:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, we're all sick of hearing one thing or another. For instance the constant bytching is getting quite tiresome.

It's almost like one of the main selling-points of our president was that he makes lots of people furious, or something.  Go figure. Lord knows no one had a cross word to say about Saint Donnie before he got elected and people decided to hate him because of nothing more than the R by his name. Bitching about bitching, and me bitching about your bitching about my bitching. Ah, we deserve this.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2018, 03:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's almost like one of the main selling-points of our president was that he makes lots of people furious, or something.  Go figure.  Lord knows no one had a cross word to say about Saint Donnie before he got elected and people decided to hate him because of nothing more than the R by his name.  Bitching about bitching, and me bitching about your bitching about my bitching.  Ah, we deserve this.

So a report on NPR "All Things Considered" just now said the administration (not Trump) still do not know how many troops, where they will be, or what they will do.

The overall report is about how Trump says things and then everyone who does the actual work has to scramble to see if they can do it and make it look like he knows what he is talking about.  For example mentioning we are pulling out of Syria during a campaign rally speech about the GOP Tax cuts and economy.

As soon as they post a link I will share it.

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 01:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, any POTUS is going to be given an estimate right before they go in front of cameras, they don't know that shit off the top of their heads or even 5 minutes prior. They have too much going on. Trump isn't known to do things "on script," so him not having the estimate at his fingertips is a stupid thing to focus on.

Any POTUS???    Not "on script"?

If you are saying presidents typically go before the cameras to discuss policy as offhandedly and ill-prepared as Trump, then I have got to disagree with you on this, Bels.  I was several times astounded to hear/read Bill Clinton to speak of policy off the cuff (e.g., during interviews), including his sense of what proposed programs might cost while considering them.  He knew all kinds of shit off the top of his head. Trump does not have this ability, nor interest in gaining it.  Most importantly, I doubt Clinton was EVER handed unfamiliar data just before he went on camera about any important policy initiative.

Till now, ALL presidents have been very knowledgeable in SOME policy matters, even if novices in others.  Eisenhower had been a general. He knew the Armed Forces/DoD. Nixon was a foreign policy expert in his own right. Reagan knew how to manage government budgets serving manifold stakeholders, having served eight years as governor of the most populous state.  Obama was a constitutional Lawyer who served on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as well as on the one for Health, Education, and Labor.  I.e., Since Washington, presidents have always been people dealing with policy and data and estimates, and the process of producing them, for years. Even in areas where they are not expert, they have the experience and ability to correlate the unfamiliar to the familiar.

Also, every president before Trump has been much more involved in policy making before announcing a policy, talking with experts who run data and present alternatives, sending out feelers to stakeholders.  They know how to use the resources of government to ground policy--especially the vast array available to the WH.

Working with staff, they have taken much more consideration in what will be said before cameras, and anticipated what sort of questions might be asked--especially questions regarding implementation and cost.  No one expects EXACT figures from any president on the cost of a proposed or pending operation, but they do expect he will have a ballpark estimate, because that means he and his staff have studied the operation/policy to make sure its effects justify the cost of implementation. The public announcement is a stage in a process for which the groundwork has already been laid. You are a policy guy, right? You agree this is the case?

So--important difference--Obama might be handed current data on US Iraq troop withdrawals 5 minutes before speaking to the press, but you can be sure he knew what yesterday's data was and the trend. I would need an example to believe that he launched a POLICY or a pending MILITARY OPERATION with data handed him 5 minutes before--or not at all.

What we are seeing in Trump is someone who might decide something mid-speech--like to pull out of Syria right away--which leaves his own staff scrambling.  He can hear Fox opinion at 7 am and turn it into policy at 7:15 via tweet. He has even contradicted his own policies via tweet, because he knows nothing about them.
https://mashable.com/2017/11/30/trump-fox-and-friends-tweets-graph/#iEmTWqhQDPqb
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-fisa-20180111-story.html
 Even areas where he has supposedly thought out his moves in advance, like using an EO to ban Muslims, the result has been woefully haphazard and unprofessional, marked by unanticipated blocks than competent staff would have foreseen.

The fact that Trump is "not known to do things on script" is, therefore, a big problem. Normal for Trump should not be the new normal for the presidency. It should not be the standard.

There is NO DEFENDING the Trump administration's process for developing and announcing policy. It is not normal. It is not acceptable. NOT what other presidents have done. And it is damaging to the country. (You are not a Trump fan/defender, Bels. This latter is not directed at you, but at the world in general.)

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously they can get estimates of costs (not specific costs) and effects of the action simply by researching costs and results of the action when the 2 presidents before Trump did the exact same thing.

But for some reason Trump doing it is different because.....

Are you one of those "rest of us" that Dino is speaking for?

Because he is incompetent. He has no desire to learn, no sense of responsibility to the Office or to the country. He has NO IMPULSE CONTROL, mulling over his own grievances from moment to moment while watching Fox News and tweeting comments that derail his own party's policies and delight US adversaries. He knows more about bankruptcy and non-disclosure agreements than Immigration policy, about governing.

Dino does speak for me on Trump matters yes.  Go for it, Dino.

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 03:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's almost like one of the main selling-points of our president was that he makes lots of people furious, or something.  Go figure.  Lord knows no one had a cross word to say about Saint Donnie before he got elected and people decided to hate him because of nothing more than the R by his name.  Bitching about bitching, and me bitching about your bitching about my bitching.  Ah, we deserve this.

It's a big "we" but you are right.

An incompetent vulgarian now uses the highest office in the land to enrich himself and family because a segment of the electorate put him there and keeps him there.  Still, that only worked because another segment did not bother to vote or could not see any real differences between candidates.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Because he is incompetent. He has no desire to learn, no sense of responsibility to the Office or to the country. He has NO IMPULSE CONTROL, mulling over his own grievances from moment to moment while watching Fox News and tweeting comments that derail his own party's policies and delight US adversaries. He knows more about bankruptcy and non-disclosure agreements than Immigration policy, about governing.

Dino does speak for me on Trump matters yes.  Go for it, Dino.

So all that makes Trump's ordering the NG to the border different than his 2 processors? 

As I figured this one is different because folks just don't like him.

Oh, I have no doubt that you and Dino have the same opinion on everything Trump does. Now I've just got to find the "rest of us" he speaks for. I'm assuming it is everyone but me. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 05:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Any POTUS???

If you are saying presidents typically go before the cameras to discuss policy as offhandedly and ill-prepared as Trump, then I have got to disagree with you on this, Bels.  I was several times astounded to hear/read Bill Clinton to speak of policy off the cuff (e.g., during interviews), including his sense of what proposed programs might cost while considering them.  He knew all kinds of shit off the top of his head. Trump does not have this ability, nor interest in gaining it.  Most importantly, I doubt Clinton was EVER handed unfamiliar data just before he went on camera about any important policy initiative.

Till now, ALL presidents have been very knowledgeable in SOME policy matters, even if novices in others.  Eisenhower had been a general. He knew the Armed Forces/DoD. Nixon was a foreign policy expert in his own right. Reagan knew how to manage government budgets serving manifold stakeholders, having served eight years as governor of the most populous state.  Obama was a constitutional Lawyer who served on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as well as on the one for Health, Education, and Labor.  I.e., Since Washington, presidents have always been people dealing with policy and data and estimates, and the process of producing them, for years. Even in areas where they are not expert, they have the experience and ability to correlate the unfamiliar to the familiar.

Also, every president before Trump has been much more involved in policy making before announcing a policy, talking with experts who run data and present alternatives, sending out feelers to stakeholders.  They know how to use the resources of government to ground policy--especially the vast array available to the WH.

Working with staff, they have taken much more consideration in what will be said before cameras, and anticipated what sort of questions might be asked--especially questions regarding implementation and cost.  No one expects EXACT figures from any president on the cost of a proposed or pending operation, but they do expect he will have a ballpark estimate, because that means he and his staff have studied the operation/policy to make sure its effects justify the cost of implementation. The public announcement is a stage in a process for which the groundwork has already been laid. You are a policy guy, right? You agree this is the case?

So--important difference--Obama might be handed current data on US Iraq troop withdrawals 5 minutes before speaking to the press, but you can be sure he knew what yesterday's data was and the trend. I would need an example to believe that he launched a POLICY or a pending MILITARY OPERATION with data handed him 5 minutes before--or not at all.

What we are seeing in Trump is someone who might decide something mid-speech--like to pull out of Syria right away--which leaves his own staff scrambling.  He can hear Fox opinion at 7 am and turn it into policy at 7:15 via tweet. He has even contradicted his own policies via tweet, because he knows nothing about them.
https://mashable.com/2017/11/30/trump-fox-and-friends-tweets-graph/#iEmTWqhQDPqb
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-fisa-20180111-story.html
 Even areas where he has supposedly thought out his moves in advance, like using an EO to ban Muslims, the result has been woefully haphazard and unprofessional, marked by unanticipated blocks than competent staff would have foreseen.

The fact that Trump is "not known to do things on script" is, therefore, a big problem. Normal for Trump should not be the new normal for the presidency. It should not be the standard.

There is NO DEFENDING the Trump administration's process for developing and announcing policy. It is not normal. It is not acceptable. NOT what other presidents have done. And it is damaging to the country. (You are not a Trump fan/defender, Bels. This latter is not directed at you, but at the world in general.)

I don't think you actually read what Matt typed. 

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't think you actually read what Matt typed. 

Possibly not.  Hope he corrects me then.  Or you could, if you spot the misreading.