(11-15-2016, 09:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.
LOL, no it's all just way above your pay grade.
Pro tip: there's rarely certainty in the intelligence game. They could have been 90-95% certain Iraq was hiding weapons and the decision to invade would have been correct.
This is what you can't grasp. They sold a war they felt was the correct course of action. That's what politicians do - they sell policy decisions. You're really, really out of touch if you think that singular yellow cake report changed No votes to Yes votes in Congress.
(11-15-2016, 10:32 PM)Dill Wrote: 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??
Absolutely correct, No Real EVIDENCE.
So much for the OP's complaint.
The Draining Starts:
Mr. Pence ordered the removal of all lobbyists from the transition team, said one transition team member with knowledge of the decisions.
(11-16-2016, 05:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Absolutely correct, No Real EVIDENCE.
So much for the OP's complaint.
The Draining Starts:
Mr. Pence ordered the removal of all lobbyists from the transition team, said one transition team member with knowledge of the decisions.
(11-16-2016, 05:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Really seems like Trump was not only unprepared but also poorly chose the people initially. Just like his campaign.
But since that worked out for him I'm sure this will be fine....right?
How do you know it wasn't a part of the plan to begin with?
Identify your enemies then replace them?
Doesn't matter though, they have plenty of time to get a team in place. Trumps son-in-law had already been replacing them 1 at a time.
Depends on which media you use right? Leftist media says he's unprepared and overwhelmed.
I don't think he was truly expecting to win, but he's here now and after a bump or two he'll get there.
(11-16-2016, 05:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How do you know it wasn't a part of the plan to begin with?
Identify your enemies then replace them?
Doesn't matter though, they have plenty of time to get a team in place. Trumps son-in-law had already been replacing them 1 at a time.
Depends on which media you use right? Leftist media says he's unprepared and overwhelmed.
I don't think he was truly expecting to win, but he's here now and after a bump or two he'll get there.
All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-16-2016, 05:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How do you know it wasn't a part of the plan to begin with?
Identify your enemies then replace them?
Doesn't matter though, they have plenty of time to get a team in place. Trumps son-in-law had already been replacing them 1 at a time.
Depends on which media you use right? Leftist media says he's unprepared and overwhelmed.
I don't think he was truly expecting to win, but he's here now and after a bump or two he'll get there.
I don't think Trump is that type of person. Anyone he feels slighted him at all is a loser and moron so I doubt he'd keep them close just to weed them out later.
Like I said, being unprepared and picking the wrong people the first time worked out in the end for him during the campaign. Guess we'll just wait and see.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-16-2016, 07:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is that same Media telling you that DJT is trying to get High Level Clearance for his Children too? Or that Bannon is anti-Semitic?
Actually the media I heard today said that was a low level employee who tried to do that...not Trump.
I know Trump knew nothing about it because he never knows what his low level employees do...just like any great business man.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Quote:NBC News reports that Trump is seeking a security clearance for son-in-law Jared Kushner, who played an influential role in Trump’s campaign:
Quote:Donald Trump has taken the unprecedented step of requesting his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, receive top-secret clearance to join him for his Presidential Daily Briefings, which began Tuesday.
Multiple sources tell NBC News Trump received his first briefing on Tuesday and designated both Kushner and Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn as his staff-level companions for the briefings going forward.
While Flynn has the necessary security clearance, Kushner does not, and it could take weeks — or even longer — for him to receive it.
Meanwhile, Trump has denied the story that he is seeking a top secret clearance for his kids:
Note that he did not say “son-in-law.”
That story about Trump seeking a clearance for the kiddos was first reported by CBS News based on anonymous sources, and then denied by an anonymous official with the transition team. Then the transition team (through an anonymous “top aide”) admitted that the request had been, but blamed an anonymous “low-level staffer” who was supposedly no longer with the team . . . although we don’t know who it was.
If your head is spinning, I don’t blame you.
Kushner is married to Ivanka, who will participate in running Trump’s businesses. Like the kids, he cannot be appointed to official positions due to an anti-nepotism law. (He still could be an unpaid adviser.) The kids have said they won’t be involved in government in any way, but Kushner has not made that promise, that I can tell — despite the fact that he stands to benefit financially if the Trump Organization does well:
Quote:Trump is already facing questions about how he will avoid conflicts with his vast business interests. The billionaire has said he plans to fully turn his companies over to his adult children — Ivanka, as well as sons Don Jr. and Eric — but the arrangement he’s described does not appear to legally wall him off from information regarding the operations.
Kushner is directly tied to Trump’s business interests through Ivanka, who oversees domestic and global expansion of the Trump Organization’s real estate interests. And Kushner also has deep business ties of his own, serving as CEO of his family’s New York-based real estate company and publisher of the New York Observer, a Manhattan-based newspaper read largely for its high society and real estate coverage.
It is worth noting that even the NBC report is based on anonymous sources. The only name we have on the record is Trump’s himself.
If Donald Trump denied it happened, you can take that to the bank.
Of course, if the bank is familiar with Trump’s reputation for veracity, they probably won’t accept it.
Of course that might mean someone asked about it and was told "no" too.
Quote:No paperwork has been submitted for "top secret" security credentials for any of President-elect Donald Trump's grown children or his son-in-law Jared Kushner, senior intelligence officials with direct knowledge of the situation told NBC News.
As members of the transition team, the kids can apply for "secret" clearance, which would allow them to review documents — routine budget and organizational — at a much lower level of classification.
But there has been no official request to vet them for top secret clearances, something they would need if they were to end up playing a formal role in the White House. That doesn't mean, however, that they couldn't pursue one later.
Fortunately Trump has it all under control:
When he tweets and talks I wish there was someone like in the movie "The King's Speech" to teach him how to not sound like, well, like he does.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-16-2016, 03:46 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, no it's all just way above your pay grade.
Pro tip: there's rarely certainty in the intelligence game.
They're called intel analyst because they analyze intel. Two intel analysts could look at the same information and form to different conclusions. They're kinda like economists in that way. That's why the Bush administration could promulgate lies as fact.
One of the jobs I had in the military was gathering intel for the S2 to analyze. I'm so lucky to have a guy like you who has never been involved in any of this telling me how intel is analyzed. I didn't know a complete lack of experience, training, and education made you a "Pro."
Quote:They could have been 90-95% certain Iraq was hiding weapons and the decision to invade would have been correct.
We knew they had decrepit weapons. The claims weren't that they were simply hiding weapons, they were actively pursuing WMD programs to produce new WMDs and harboring al Qaeda in country in order to collaborate attacks against the US.
Ninety to ninety-five percent certainty? Those numbers you just picked out of thin air sure sound good, however Colin Powell and his Chief of Staff, Lawerence Wilkerson, knew the intel given to them to present to the U.N. was bullshit.
In less than three weeks after the invasion and before we seized Baghdad, we knew they weren't going to use the decrepit weapons we knew they had.
At the same time Pakistan had WMDs and al Qaeda in country. What did we do to Pakistan? Sold them F-16s. What have we done to North Korea? Nothing.
Quote:This is what you can't grasp. They sold a war they felt was the correct course of action. That's what politicians do - they sell policy decisions.
You have defended pharmaceutical company's blatant lies with 'other pharmaceutical companies lie, what's the big deal' which would suggest you lack the necessary integrity to differentiate between "policy" and "hoax."
Anyone who thought invading Iraq based upon lies was the correct course of action, was either a complete moron or in desparate need of drug testing.
Quote:You're really, really out of touch if you think that singular yellow cake report changed No votes to Yes votes in Congress.
Well, let's review what I wrote earlier . . .
(11-15-2016, 03:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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?
Yellow cake only pertains to nuclear weapons, not chemical or biological, and I clearly wrote programssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Plural. As in more than one program. In addition, I also listed the false claim of al Qaeda in Iraq. Addition is the process of adding something to something else. Adding means to join or put together one thing to another thing as to increase the number. You can tell I joined two ideas together by using the conjunction "and." It is obvious to anyone who can read above an 8th grade level I wasn't referring to a singular yellow cake report. You would have to be really, really out of touch to think otherwise.
(11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media.
Well, I listen to the Sean Hannity show, and last night Newt Gingrich noted that we have NEVER had a president with this much CEO experience. NEVER! LOL. The transition is going extremely well. Competent businessman in charge who knows how to delegate!
And Trump says there is no CHAOS--everything is going well.
So who are you going to believe--journalists who have been reporting on transitions for decades or Trump?
(11-16-2016, 05:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All the media I have seen says unprepared and overwhelmed. But I also don't follow the new state media.
I'd take it all with a grain of salt. Given how Trump's victory pulled most media outlets under the carpet, i'm surprised they have the galls to go on with business as usual. Have they even licked their wounds yet?
(11-16-2016, 05:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Absolutely correct, No Real EVIDENCE.
So much for the OP's complaint.
The Draining Starts:
Mr. Pence ordered the removal of all lobbyists from the transition team, said one transition team member with knowledge of the decisions.
Lots of partial truths in your post, you sound like CNN.
What "partial truths"? You haven't identified a single one. The US has never had a candidate with such bad impulse control, and everything in my post is evidence of it.
CNN is a reputable News organization. I have no problem "sounding like CNN."
(11-16-2016, 03:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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.
What "career staffers" are you referring to? None of the present White House staff will remain. If you are talking about lower level staffers in Defense or the CIA, those would be the "staffers" Cheney and Wolfowitz so easily sandbagged.
And of course it's different when a NORMAL PERSON is "sitting in the chair." But does a normal person parade four Clinton accusers in front of the nation for a presidential debate or send out late night tweets urging people to view a non-existent porn video, or threaten his opponents with suits and arrests? Does a normal person think we should have "taken the oil" or institute torture, breaking the international treaties we have signed?
And I TOTALLY AGREE with you that we cannot have effective foreign policy with "major shifts every 4-8 years" and there is no way any (incoming) POTUS will "have 1/10th the native knowledge."
My point is that we have enough evidence to expect that we ARE NEVERTHELESS in for A MAJOR SHIFT, because Trump, who knows more than the generals, does not think the way you think.
(11-16-2016, 03:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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.
Obama's reaction when he realized what could happen if he gave due process to detainees held indefinitely without due process.
(11-16-2016, 03:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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.
"Figuring out what he's going to do" is not the standard. Assessing the likelihood of competent performance is what every voter does. And I am hardly the only one who forsees a chaos presidency the likes of which we have never seen.
Interesting disjunct you assume between Trump's public behavior, foreign policy remarks, and business record, and suppositions regarding "what he will do" will do in the most powerful office in the world.
Imagine a corporate hiring board considering a potential CEO hire, while dismissing his public sexism and racism and bankruptcies and arrogant authoritarian policy recommendations as "half-truths" and no indication of how he will behave once hired. Imagine someone recommending they go ahead with the hire because they'll only have evidence of how he'll do when he is on the job.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: DJT_Headshot_V2_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_normal.jpg)
Donald J. Trump ![[Image: trump111616.jpg]](https://s22.postimg.org/aok52430h/trump111616.jpg)
![[Image: trump111616a.jpg]](https://s22.postimg.org/5r6kh011d/trump111616a.jpg)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
