so much for draining the swamp

[JustWinBaby]

(11-14-2016, 06:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hate to say it, but Trump will get the economy kicking and will go a second term.

I don't see it.  He doesn't have a good answer to globalization, and no one does.  And running up huge deficits really sucks the fuel out of economic expansions.

I see one of two scenarios playing out:
1) Recession in his first 2 years in office - Repubs get hammered in mid-terms and Trump's agenda gets shutdown (aside from the fact he may be more of a liberal on many economic fronts, or capable of pivoting as Clinton did)

2) Recession in his final 2 years in office, loses re-election as does nearly every POTUS not named Obama when the economy sucks.

Honestly, my most optimistic hope is that Congress unites against Trump and actually gets some good things done.

[BmorePat87]

(11-14-2016, 06:38 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't see it.  He doesn't have a good answer to globalization, and no one does.  And running up huge deficits really sucks the fuel out of economic expansions.

I see one of two scenarios playing out:
1) Recession in his first 2 years in office - Repubs get hammered in mid-terms and Trump's agenda gets shutdown (aside from the fact he may be more of a liberal on many economic fronts, or capable of pivoting as Clinton did)

2) Recession in his final 2 years in office, loses re-election as does nearly every POTUS not named Obama when the economy sucks.

Honestly, my most optimistic hope is that Congress unites against Trump and actually gets some good things done.

and you're not a liberal. Who do you want to see rise as a leader from that party post Trump?

[Dill]

(11-14-2016, 06:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Bush went before Congress, 3 times I think, about reigning in Fannie and Freddie.  He failed.  But recessions are an inevitable course of the economy.  But certainly policy DOES play a major role in the recovery and expansion.  Romney wanted to lower corporate taxes and unburden business with costly and ineffective regulation, among others.  Obama was not pro-business, big govt socialists usually aren't.

And Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions.  I'm sure you're familiar with the Wolfowitz doctrine from the Clinton administration.  You can pretend Obama or Clinton would not have invaded Iraq, despite the opportunity for regime change presenting itself after failed policy after failed policy in the Middle East....but the fact is Bush pre-9/11 wouldn't have invaded Iraq, either.

Ha ha, SOCIALIST Obama.  Hard to “unburden” business right after an unburdened Wall Street almost tanked the economy.  Everyone Knows Romney wanted to cut taxes on the rich, and we know what he would not have done—bail out the auto industry.  I was more interested in which specific costly and ineffective regulations which you think Romney would have undone and why they would make a difference.

I am familiar with a Wolfowitz doctrine from the Bush 41 administration—a doctrine apparently rejected by that Bush and the foreign policy establishment on both sides of the aisle.  Bush had the best “opportunity” of all in ‘91, with the US military parked on the Iraqi border with engines revved and staring at an Iraqi Army degraded to 30% strength and an insurrection in Basra, yet he stood down for the very reasons his son ignored in 2003— the certainty of sectarian violence, ungovernabilty, quagmire.

That’s why I am astonished that you think failed policy after failed policy in the Middle East would incline either Clinton or Obama to think of invading Iraq as anything but an “opportunity” for another failed policy.  Those petty UN violations (Saddam’s refusal to hand over weapons he did not have) hardly warranted another invasion. Saddam was safely contained for 1 billion a year. Peanuts compared to an invasion costing hundreds of billions and thousands of US lives.

Pointless to say Bush 43 wouldn’t have invaded before 9/11. Neocon doctrine held that support for forcible regime change could only emerge after a catastrophic, country-uniting event on the scale of Pearl Harbor.  Even then, all the evidence indicates we only got that invasion because a coterie of neocons were cooking intel from inside the administration, and under cover of the president’s office clothing themselves in the authority of all the intelligence agencies. That coterie would have had no role in any Democratic administration. No fake yellowcake purchase, no imaginary moveable labs, no smoking gun aluminum tubes, no secret meeting with Al Qaeda in Prague=no invasion.

This is more than an historical footnote now, as the Bizarro world of Trump appointments has thrown up  John Bolton for consideration as Secretary of State.

[Dill]

(11-14-2016, 06:38 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't see it.  He doesn't have a good answer to globalization, and no one does.  And running up huge deficits really sucks the fuel out of economic expansions.

I see one of two scenarios playing out:
1) Recession in his first 2 years in office - Repubs get hammered in mid-terms and Trump's agenda gets shutdown (aside from the fact he may be more of a liberal on many economic fronts, or capable of pivoting as Clinton did)

Wow, we are so on the same page here--at least to your first option.
 
I would only add that while his constrained by Congress on domestic policy, he is not when it comes to foreign policy.
He could/will undo 70 years of foreign policy achievement in his first year without anyone's permission.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-14-2016, 06:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And Iraq was in violation of numerous UN sanctions.  I'm sure you're familiar with the Wolfowitz doctrine from the Clinton administration.  You can pretend Obama or Clinton would not have invaded Iraq, despite the opportunity for regime change presenting itself after failed policy after failed policy in the Middle East....but the fact is Bush pre-9/11 wouldn't have invaded Iraq, either.

LMFAO

If the numerous UN violations were all that was necessary to justify an invasion for regime change, why didn't the Bush administration have Colin Powell pitch the UN on regime change based upon the UN violations instead bullshit claims of al Qaeda in Iraq and actively pursuing WMD programs?

You should stick to things you understand like defending unethical business practices because other companies are unethical, too. 

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 03:12 AM)Dill Wrote: Pointless to say Bush 43 wouldn’t have invaded before 9/11.

Why, because he that's how he campaigned?  That's pretty much why you assume neither Clinton nor Obama wouldn't have invaded in the same situation.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 03:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: LMFAO

If the numerous UN violations were all that was necessary to justify an invasion for regime change, why didn't the Bush administration have Colin Powell pitch the UN on regime change based upon the UN violations

They did.  Several times.  Certain countries with economic interests held veto power on the security council.  And WMD was a good way of selling and getting the American people on the war.  This is up there with other classics "you can keep your doctor....save $2500 per family".  Nevermind the 98 or whatever Senators, including Hillary, that went along with it all (several of whom had access to intel on oversight  committees).

Politicians lie and spin to mainpulate popular support.  At what point are you going to figure that out and stop thinking only one side does it?

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 03:40 AM)Dill Wrote: I would only add that while his constrained by Congress on domestic policy, he is not when it comes to foreign policy.
He could/will undo 70 years of foreign policy achievement in his first year without anyone's permission.

That's highly unlikely to happen.  Everyone says they're going to do change this or that with respect to foreign policy, but in the words of Obama "it's different once you actually sit in the chair".  Which is to say career staffers have, and will continue, to dictate foreign policy.  They all have their ideas, but then they take office and get a real education on the issues.

Trump, like any other POTUS, could choose to ignore that (although there are still plenty of checks & balances).  But there's no real evidence to believe he'll be any different.  As a businessman, he's certainly not inexperienced with making decisions on the basis of staffer recommendations.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 01:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and you're not a liberal. Who do you want to see rise as a leader from that party post Trump?

Ehhh, I kind of like Rand Paul, but he seems rather unpresidential.  Paul Ryan I think is probably the best.  Hopefully there's a rising star somewhere out there in the ranks of all the state governors.

On the Dem side, Gov. Schweitzer is a guy I've liked for a while.

Too early to tell at this point 4 years out.  Unfortunately, if Trump is even mediocre not only will he be the Repub candidate in 2020, he might get another 4 years.


At the end of the day, high taxes and high govt debt are highly correlated with slower growth and higher unemployment.  That's what concerns me.  I don't see any POTUS candidates, much less Congressional candidates, with the stones to actually address the issue responsibly.

[BmorePat87]

(11-15-2016, 05:28 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ehhh, I kind of like Rand Paul, but he seems rather unpresidential.  Paul Ryan I think is probably the best.  Hopefully there's a rising star somewhere out there in the ranks of all the state governors.

On the Dem side, Gov. Schweitzer is a guy I've liked for a while.

Too early to tell at this point 4 years out.  Unfortunately, if Trump is even mediocre not only will he be the Repub candidate in 2020, he might get another 4 years.


At the end of the day, high taxes and high govt debt are highly correlated with slower growth and higher unemployment.  That's what concerns me.  I don't see any POTUS candidates, much less Congressional candidates, with the stones to actually address the issue responsibly.

Have you looked into Hogan? I doubt he wins a 2nd term (kind of the cycle here in MD), but he seems to fit your mold. Former business owner, more into less government involvement in your lives, lower fees and taxes but making sure the roads and schools are funded. Was buddies with Christie until Christie went Trump, was friendly with Kasich during the primary (but never endorsed him) and remained visibly anti Trump without making a big deal out of it. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-15-2016, 03:40 AM)Dill Wrote: Wow, we are so on the same page here--at least to your first option.
 
I would only add that while his constrained by Congress on domestic policy, he is not when it comes to foreign policy.
He could/will undo 70 years of foreign policy achievement in his first year without anyone's permission.

You say he could set us back 70 years, but what we've been doing lately hasn't really been working out that well for us.

What if Trump helps us avoid a Cold War and we start getting rid if ISIS jointly with Russia? Would that be considered moving us ahead 70 years?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2016, 04:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: They did.  Several times.

And the Bush administration wasn't able to generate the needed support for an invasion based upon the UN violations alone.  Thanks for unwittingly confirming my point the lies were necessary.

Quote:Certain countries with economic interests held veto power on the security council.  And WMD was a good way of selling and getting the American people on the war.

Thank you for confirming your support of unethical practices if it helps someone make a dollar.  No wonder you're in business.

Quote:This is up there with other classics "you can keep your doctor....save $2500 per family".  Nevermind the 98 or whatever Senators, including Hillary, that went along with it all (several of whom had access to intel on oversight  committees).

They had access to the cooked intel reports the same as Powell.  If the intel reports are developed to support a predetermined course of action, then the intel reports aren't of any benefit to any coarses of action other than the predetermined course of action.  But, I don't expect you to understand anything relating to developing intelligence and military planning because there isn't any way for you to make a buck off it.

Quote:Politicians lie and spin to mainpulate popular support.  At what point are you going to figure that out and stop thinking only one side does it?

I realize all politicians lie, like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."  However, you're assuming they would tell the same lies in the same situation.  Clinton could have told the same lies while he was in office, but he lied about getting laid instead of telling lies which have led to the deaths of over 4,000 US service members. 

[Dill]

(11-15-2016, 07:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You say he could set us back 70 years, but what we've been doing lately hasn't really been working out that well for us.

What if Trump helps us avoid a Cold War and we start getting rid if ISIS jointly with Russia? Would that be considered moving us ahead 70 years?

We are getting rid of ISIS right now, at least the root and trunk. And you just raised one of my biggest concerns about Trump—Putin can play him. He increased bombing of Aleppo the day after Trump was elected. The Russian economy is about the size of Italy's so I don't think we'll see him projecting much power anywhere but around Russian borders. A friend in the White House will greatly help this.

How do you define “not working out”?  The US is still world’s pre-eminent military power, with the capacity to form coalitions with dozens of countries and lead them to achieve foreign policy ends. Bush 41 led 34 countries in the Persian Gulf War, including Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia which footed much of the bill. Obama pulled the P5 plus the EU together to achieve the Iran Deal.  
 
At the moment, no one else in the world can do this. Not China. Not Russia.  No one.

This capacity rests in part on a system of treaties with Asian and European partners like SEATO and NATO and our mutual security treaties with Japan and South Korea which have been honored for years. It is also cemented in place by trade and aid. The institutions which emerged to stabilize the world after WWI--World Bank, the IMF the UN—are all headquartered in the US, which still exercises great influence over them.

The perception that the US is STEADY, that it does not do policy 180s with its allies, that it respects international law (including bans on torture and the use of nuclear weapons) that it is unwilling to act or react militarily without thinking, is the final key to this tremendous capacity. It took a massive hit from the Iraq invasion—when millions around the world protested and only 4 countries showed up to invade (Poland with its hat out)-- but has been restored over the last 7 years (except on Fox News, where chaos reigns everywhere outside the US). But even Bush 43 never publicly wondered why we didn’t just take Iraq’s oil after invading the country, like pirates.

If we question or go back on our treaties or even send signals we are thinking of doing this, we push allies to rethink their national interest and find other arrangements to secure it. Projecting a right-wing domestic policy frame on the world to view allies like welfare moochers who need to find a job may do as much damage to US interests as a willingness to use Nukes.  That includes policy based on the belief that the world only respects "strong" presidents and "tests" weak ones, so foreign policy is constantly reacting to or preventing "tests" with little attention to the complex interplay of politics, economics and culture driving political change in various regions of the world..

[Dill]

(11-15-2016, 04:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's highly unlikely to happen.  Everyone says they're going to do change this or that with respect to foreign policy, but in the words of Obama "it's different once you actually sit in the chair".  Which is to say career staffers have, and will continue, to dictate foreign policy.  They all have their ideas, but then they take office and get a real education on the issues.

Trump, like any other POTUS, could choose to ignore that (although there are still plenty of checks & balances).  But there's no real evidence to believe he'll be any different.  As a businessman, he's certainly not inexperienced with making decisions on the basis of staffer recommendations.

Sure. No real evidence.

He paraded four Clinton accusers before the world at a Presidential debate, then showed little command of policies discussed in that debate. He publicly wanted to know why we can't use nukes, claimed he would use torture, and insists he would have taken Iraq's oil had. He vowed to put the other party's candidate in jail and sue all his female accusers. He banned members of the press from his rallies. Most of this AFTER everyone predicted he would "pivot" for the general election and leave the erratic, aggressive and vulgar behavior behind.

As a businessman he bankrupted four times, was bailed out of bad business behavior by a multimillionaire father, and acquired a reputation as someone who stiffs contractors and can't get loans and puts his name on buildings he doesn't really own.

And why ever do you say "career staffers have and will continue to dictate foreign policy"? The new president chooses a cabinet and a completely new White House staff, with which he sets forth the policy goals of his administration. (That was partly what went wrong with the Bush 43 administration). THIS president was elected to shake things up.  Now Trump is considering names like John Bolton and Rudy Guiliani for Secretary of State. And Steve Bannon is appointed his chief advisor along with the woefully unprepared Reince Pribus as chief of staff. He has asked for TOP SECURITY CLEARANCE for his children who will advise him on Foreign policy, even as they continue to run his business.

So what sort of "checks and balances" do you think will apply here. The War Powers Resolution requires that he get Congressional consent to continue a war--60 days AFTER he has begun it. Obama is handing him a virtually unrestrained drone program. He has threatened to ditch TPP, NAFTA, scrap the Iran Deal and pull out of the Paris Agreement. Some of his appointments will have to be confirmed, and it's doubtful someone like Bolton ever could be, but the chaos of a succession of bad choices is not without cost, even if he eventually gets positions filled with minimally competent people.  Most of the foreign policy establishment is holding him at arms distance. The extreme fringe is moving forward for the chance they would never have had otherwise. There's your "career staffers." CHAOS.

The one check that may really surprise him is when finds out that an executive order only applies to the executive branch.

Seriously Justwin, what counts as REAL EVIDENCE he'll be different if the above does not qualify??

[Dill]

(11-15-2016, 09:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They had access to the cooked intel reports the same as Powell.  If the intel reports are developed to support a predetermined course of action, then the intel reports aren't of any benefit to any coarses of action other than the predetermined course of action. 

Yes. I am so tired of hearing "98 senators" and "Democrats voted for war too" argument.  Even Powell, who was INSIDE the administration, was fooled. The Energy Dept. was gagged during the vote for the war, so the "aluminum tubes" lie could circulate uncontested.

Just the yellowcake lie alone--first the Italian secret service determined it was fake, then the CIA office in Rome. But Berlusconi sent it by courier to Cheney, who kept it in play. Congress knew NOTHING of this at the time.

All this pales before Benghazi of course--the greatest foreign policy disaster of US history if you watch Fox News.

[Dill]

(11-15-2016, 04:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Why, because he that's how he campaigned?  That's pretty much why you assume neither Clinton nor Obama wouldn't have invaded in the same situation.

Bush did not campaign to invade Iraq.

I assume neither Clinton or Obama would have invaded because they had better judgment (as did W's. father) and because the pretexts for invasion were manufactured within the Bush 43 administration, not the sort of thing the intel community would have discovered regardless of administration.

In January of 2002, the intelligence community was unanimous there was no evidence Iraq had WMDs and so posed no threat. Without cooked evidence, there were no grounds to claim Iraq was a threat to the US, and so no grounds for violent regime change. Cooked intel changed the view of Congress by Sept. 2002.

Congress would never have resolved to give a president the power to invade without that evidence. To claim Clinton or Obama WOULD have invaded is to claim that each of those men would have provided Congress with the requisite cooked evidence--which simply wasn't forthcoming from the intel community without a little "help." Unless they pulled necons into their national security staff--people wholly at odds with the Democratic party--and then supported their drive to cook evidence, Clinton and Obama were not going to invade Iraq.

Even Bernie Sanders would have invaded Afghanistan; the logic of the facts of the case and national security dictated that.
But the Iraq invasion was solely a consequence of the "accident" that one administration staffed its national security team with people driven by a foreign policy vision not widely shared by the policy establishment, and least of all by Democrats.

And we need to keep this history in mind as the uninformed Trump now looks to staff his cabinet with Neocons who still say the Iraq war was a good decision.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 06:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Have you looked into Hogan? I doubt he wins a 2nd term (kind of the cycle here in MD)

I don't know who he is.  Trump is an anomaly - it's massively difficult for "normals" to get the needed recognition unless the party establishment markets them, so to speak.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 11:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Bush did not campaign to invade Iraq.

Exactly.  In fact, he opposed nation building in his campaign.  9/11 changed things dramatically.  You refuse to acknowledge that, or what in the wake of 9/11 it meant for the US to subjugate it's security to the self-interest of other countries on the UN security council.

LOL, in one breath you say even Powell was fooled...while simultaneously citing  all these different sources that knew better.  They ALL knew better, just that when things went south they claimed they were misled (and it's sort of THEIR JOB not to be  misled).

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 10:32 PM)Dill Wrote: And why ever do you say "career staffers have and will continue to dictate foreign policy"?

Because it's obvious from what Obama said himself - it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair (his response to a question when asked why he had gone back on or hadn't followed thru on some campaign promises).

And from a practical standpoint, you can't have effective foreign policy if you're having major shifts every 4-8 years.  Career staffers have decades studying their field of expertise - there's no way any POTUS is going to have 1/10th the native knowledge.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-15-2016, 10:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Seriously Justwin, what counts as REAL EVIDENCE he'll be different if the above does not qualify??

Actual evidence of what he will do, and does do, with respect to the question at hand.

And not a ton of supposition on your part filled with half-truths of completeley unrelated topics.  You don't like, nobody really does.  But you can take off the dunce cap in trying to pretend like you've figured out what he's going to do when no one else has.