so much for draining the swamp

[Dill]

(11-16-2016, 08:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2016/11/16/trump-denies-clearances-children-nbc-news-says-trump-sought-clearance-son-law/

Ha ha, thanks for saving me the trouble, Dino. For decades right-wingers accept the least innuendo as more solid proof of Clinton/Obama corruption and now we suddenly find reporting of Trump's very public foul ups dismissed as simply "half truths."  Can't trust CNN the mainstream media. They "got it wrong" because they thought a racist/sexist authoritarian populist could never appeal to enough Americans to win the White House. 

[Dill]

(11-16-2016, 03:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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).

Ha ha, he opposed nation-building AFTER the invasion too--part of why it all went south.

Nothing in what I have written fails to acknowledge "what it meant for the US to subjugate its security to the self-interest of other countries on the UN security council."  Wherever do you get that?  What does that have to do with your original contention that Clinton or Obama would likely have invaded Iraq as well--that is what I have been contesting.

You still don't seem to get that cooked intel was created outside official channels and presented to Powell and Congress and eventually the UN. That the CIA Rome office invalidated the yellowcake report is matter of record. Dated even. They weren't misled. The Energy Dept's assessment of the aluminum tubes is a matter of record. They weren't misled--but they were muzzled for the two weeks following the White Paper presented to Congress.  Powell HAD NO IDEA that what the Rome office said. And the Rome office assumed the yellowcake forgery was dead, a non issue--until they saw Powell presenting it to the UN--thanks to Berlusconi's end run. Powell had no idea that the bio weapons report came from a single source in Germany no one in the CIA had actually interviewed--a source the Germans considered an unreliable alcoholic looking to be paid for intel. And CIA intel analysts gasped when they saw that included in his presentation.  Much of  this only came out in the investigation afterwards.

And I repeat--to say that Clinton or Obama would have invaded Iraq is to say that they too would have cooked intel to fool Congress, because that is the only way they could have gotten the needed resolution.  The belief that Iraq could be broken and then democratized American style is a neo-liberal fantasy, far from anything found in either Clinton or Obama's administration.

And this is relevant to the current conjuncture because once again we have a cowboy in the White House who knows more than all the generals and liberals put together.  The Bush/Cheney intel fiasco refutes your thesis about "career staffers" providing a check on crazy. They are helpless when a strong-willed president or vice-president "knows better" than the generals.

[Dill]

(11-17-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which one did you believe about who would win the Presidential Election?

You seem to forget--Trump himself did not believe he would win the election. That is why he was trashing the
electoral college and claiming the system was rigged. Neither was correct.

Since the journalists tend to work more closely with evidence and have shown their behavior more cautiously rational, I will stick by them, even if they are occasionally wrong.

I forgive them for thinking the US electorate could not elect an authoritarian bigot with no government experience, someone whose nomination alone was an international embarrassment.

You, on the other hand, may take pride in the fact that their faith was misplaced.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-11-2016, 05:44 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The people who were an integral part of his successful campaign are now being trusted to be an integral part of his administration. CNN would find this shocking.

Nothing is this article changes Trump ability to deliver on his 5 point plan to roll back lobbying, auditing the Fed or renegotiate trade deals. Now if President Trump fails to keep hos promises, then CNN has a basis for an article.

Agreed. I'm not expecting much from a Trump Presidency, but if he can reform lobbying laws and foreign country campaign financing, that would represent probably the biggest step towards reducing corruption in some time, no? (I've already written off him getting term limits imposed. That's just not going to realistically happen.)

As with all the politicians, you're never going to get everything they promise before they get elected (how's the closing of Guantanamo Bay/the end of war in the Middle East coming along?) so you just need to celebrate the good parts that do happen, and hope for as few bad parts as possible.

Didn't want either of them as President, but now that Trump won, I am just trying to look at it as optimistically as possible. Otherwise I will just spend 4 years crying and butthurt to no end result. Who wants to do that? Lol... that's politics. Some good, some bad, and hope the good ends up outweighing the bad when all is said and done.

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2016, 11:38 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Agreed. I'm not expecting much from a Trump Presidency, but if he can reform lobbying laws and foreign country campaign financing, that would represent probably the biggest step towards reducing corruption in some time, no? (I've already written off him getting term limits imposed. That's just not going to realistically happen.)

As with all the politicians, you're never going to get everything they promise before they get elected (how's the closing of Guantanamo Bay/the end of war in the Middle East coming along?) so you just need to celebrate the good parts that do happen, and hope for as few bad parts as possible.

Didn't want either of them as President, but now that Trump won, I am just trying to look at it as optimistically as possible. Otherwise I will just spend 4 years crying and butthurt to no end result. Who wants to do that? Lol... that's politics. Some good, some bad, and hope the good ends up outweighing the bad when all is said and done.

Trump can stick with the rules implemented for the Executive branch about lobbying, but they won't pass laws for Congress. Those that aren't in there for the long term can make too much money as lobbyists. It's their gravy train. Even staffers for a rank and file MC can get a lobbyist job at 4-10 times the pay.

[6andcounting]

(11-17-2016, 11:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Trump can stick with the rules implemented for the Executive branch about lobbying, but they won't pass laws for Congress. Those that aren't in there for the long term can make too much money as lobbyists. It's their gravy train. Even staffers for a rank and file MC can get a lobbyist job at 4-10 times the pay.

Well Trumps a problem solver so yeah 

[Vas Deferens]

(11-17-2016, 11:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Trump can stick with the rules implemented for the Executive branch about lobbying, but they won't pass laws for Congress. Those that aren't in there for the long term can make too much money as lobbyists. It's their gravy train. Even staffers for a rank and file MC can get a lobbyist job at 4-10 times the pay.

Wait. Isn't this the swampy guy that's getting his swampy kids top swampy clearance?   Guess they hold down that blind swampy trust better that way.   Oh never mind.  The swampless transition team said nope. Good to hear. Never crossed his mind I'm sure. 

Praise Jesus. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-16-2016, 03:34 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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).

Invading Iraq and building a nation are two seperate things. Why would he campaign on nation building in Iraq during 2000 when he hadn't even mentioned invading the damn place, yet?

Why would you even want to build a nation in Iraq when the threat was in Afghanistan and we were already involved with nation building there and still are 15 years later?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-17-2016, 07:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, he opposed nation-building AFTER the invasion too--part of why it all went south.

Nothing in what I have written fails to acknowledge "what it meant for the US to subjugate its security to the self-interest of other countries on the UN security council."  Wherever do you get that?  What does that have to do with your original contention that Clinton or Obama would likely have invaded Iraq as well--that is what I have been contesting.

You still don't seem to get that cooked intel was created outside official channels and presented to Powell and Congress and eventually the UN. That the CIA Rome office invalidated the yellowcake report is matter of record. Dated even. They weren't misled. The Energy Dept's assessment of the aluminum tubes is a matter of record. They weren't misled--but they were muzzled for the two weeks following the White Paper presented to Congress.  Powell HAD NO IDEA that what the Rome office said. And the Rome office assumed the yellowcake forgery was dead, a non issue--until they saw Powell presenting it to the UN--thanks to Berlusconi's end run. Powell had no idea that the bio weapons report came from a single source in Germany no one in the CIA had actually interviewed--a source the Germans considered an unreliable alcoholic looking to be paid for intel. And CIA intel analysts gasped when they saw that included in his presentation.  Much of  this only came out in the investigation afterwards.

And I repeat--to say that Clinton or Obama would have invaded Iraq is to say that they too would have cooked intel to fool Congress, because that is the only way they could have gotten the needed resolution.  The belief that Iraq could be broken and then democratized American style is a neo-liberal fantasy, far from anything found in either Clinton or Obama's administration.

And this is relevant to the current conjuncture because once again we have a cowboy in the White House who knows more than all the generals and liberals put together.  The Bush/Cheney intel fiasco refutes your thesis about "career staffers" providing a check on crazy.  They are helpless when a strong-willed president or vice-president "knows better" than the generals.

Knowing what you don't know is just as important as knowing what you do know. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase W., we have a old phrase in Texas which comes from Tennessee, but we have it in Texas, too. He don't know what he don't know and to me that is the funniest damn part of this whole conversation. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-18-2016, 02:45 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Wait. Isn't this the swampy guy that's getting his swampy kids top swampy clearance?   Guess they hold down that blind swampy trust better that way.   Oh never mind.  The swampless transition team said nope. Good to hear. Never crossed his mind I'm sure. 

Praise Jesus. 

IIRC, Obama made a rule in his administration preventing employees from becoming lobbyists for 5 years. He said he wanted to keep lobbyists out of his admin together, but he had a hard time with that. So, really, Trump is continuing the same rule about becoming lobbyists and is putting in some extra effort on keeping lobbyists out, for the time being at least. It's a continuation of policy rather than anything new. That's more of what I am getting at.

But, the POTUS only has the power to unilaterally do this for the executive branch.

[Vas Deferens]

(11-18-2016, 10:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: IIRC, Obama made a rule in his administration preventing employees from becoming lobbyists for 5 years. He said he wanted to keep lobbyists out of his admin together, but he had a hard time with that. So, really, Trump is continuing the same rule about becoming lobbyists and is putting in some extra effort on keeping lobbyists out, for the time being at least. It's a continuation of policy rather than anything new. That's more of what I am getting at.

But, the POTUS only has the power to unilaterally do this for the executive branch.

So he's employing nepotism instead.  Should work out well.  

[GMDino]

(11-18-2016, 10:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: IIRC, Obama made a rule in his administration preventing employees from becoming lobbyists for 5 years. He said he wanted to keep lobbyists out of his admin together, but he had a hard time with that. So, really, Trump is continuing the same rule about becoming lobbyists and is putting in some extra effort on keeping lobbyists out, for the time being at least. It's a continuation of policy rather than anything new. That's more of what I am getting at.

But, the POTUS only has the power to unilaterally do this for the executive branch.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trump-introduces-unprecedented-5-year-lobbying-ban.html

Quote:Under President Obama, anyone who left his administration was prohibited from lobbying their former agency for two years, though they were still allowed to lobby different sectors of the government. But whereas Obama insisted that members of his team refrain from lobbying for a year prior to joining him, Trump has no such rules. New Trump administration members are allowed to lobby right up until they start government work, and are only then asked to sever ties.

[Belsnickel]

(11-18-2016, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trump-introduces-unprecedented-5-year-lobbying-ban.html

So I did not recall correctly.

Admittedly, this is a topic I have only recently spent any time looking into. I've been working with a political scientist who focuses on the revolving door of lobbyists in my spare time, helping with research, but that started only recently and before hand I knew next to nothing about this issue and really didn't care.

[GMDino]

(11-18-2016, 10:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I did not recall correctly.

Admittedly, this is a topic I have only recently spent any time looking into. I've been working with a political scientist who focuses on the revolving door of lobbyists in my spare time, helping with research, but that started only recently and before hand I knew next to nothing about this issue and really didn't care.

I meant no ill will.  I have a natural curiosity sometimes.  When you said Obama had a similar rule I looked it up because I didn't know that.

I just like knowing things!

[Belsnickel]

(11-18-2016, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote:

I meant no ill will.  I have a natural curiosity sometimes.  When you said Obama had a similar rule I looked it up because I didn't know that.

I just like knowing things!

I know you didn't. At least I was correct in that Obama had a similar rule, it was just a bit different.

But yeah, there is a professor here that will be publishing a book next year on the revolving door lobbying problem. For the past 20 or 30 years, lobbyists have had to submit a report, and on that report they are supposed to note if they previously held a position in government. Based on those reports 25% of lobbyists worked in government. Based on our research here, the actual number is well over 50%. Yet in the entire time since this law has existed about reporting, not one indictment has been made regarding the false reporting of this information. And in the realm of policy, the revolving door is the largest contributor to favoritism, even more than money.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-18-2016, 04:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Invading Iraq and building a nation are two seperate things.

They are clearly not.  When you replace a regime, you are rebuilding a nation.  You're grossly ignorant.

Seriously, I'm done with this. You're like 3 levels below competent (and by that I mean, like 3 links from Vox where you get your ideas) in this debate.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-17-2016, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: What "career staffers" are you referring to? None of the present White House staff will remain.

I understand you can't follow a simple argument.  I explained the point twice.  The above completely misunderstands what is being said. 

Appointed WH staff are not career staffers, obviously.  Jesus.

[JustWinBaby]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-19-2016, 04:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: They are clearly not.  When you replace a regime, you are rebuilding a nation.  You're grossly ignorant.

Seriously, I'm done with this.  You're like 3 levels below competent (and by that I mean, like 3 links from Vox where you get your ideas) in this debate.

We deposed Saddam in approximately three weeks. Thirteen years later Iraq is more broken.  You're arguing the invasion and nation building are the same? That's beyond absurd. Then you call me ignorant because you know so little you don't even realize how little you know. If I were you, I'd quit too because you've been done for quite some time. You're just the last to know. 

If the invasion and subsequent nation building are not two seperate issues like I so ignorantly claimed, but in fact the same as you have corrected me with your infinite wisdom, why was the invasion a success and the nation building a failure?  If they are the same shouldn't both be a success or a failure?  And if they are the same, why did I even refer to them as "both"?  Hell, if the are the same why do we refer to them by two different terms?  Why do we say invasion and nation building rather than invasion and subsequent invasion or nation building followed by subsequent nation building? You don't have to answer since you're seriously done with this. Seriously. 

I participated in both the invasion and subsequent nation building. I can tell you, unequivocally, they are not the same. It is unfortunate you're going to withhold your expertise from this debate. 

[Dill]

(11-19-2016, 05:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I understand you can't follow a simple argument.  I explained the point twice.  The above completely misunderstands what is being said. 

Appointed WH staff are not career staffers, obviously.  Jesus.

Arguments advanced in sweeping claims and fuzzy terms are oversimplified, not simple.

You claim the office of presidency changes people because Obama said so. So Trump won't do much damage. I say Obama's point only only applies to people who know what they are doing and have reasonably good judgment already. That's not trump.

And there are fewer checks on presidential power in  the foreign policy realm than anywhere else. Trumps' combination of ignorance and authoritarian impulsiveness will do more damage there in the short term, and more quickly.

So you posit some vague entity called "career staffers" who will check the crazy. They "really" determine foreign policy, you say.

I have no idea what this claim could be based on; hence I asked who your "staffers" are; they can't be White house. And you haven't "explained twice" who they are.

You may be referring to career foreign service officers and specialists, and other civil servants at the State Department--the people who will still be there when  the "career staffers" who came in with Obama's appointees are gone.  If so then  you are just wrong; those people don't and won't determine foreign policy. Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle certainly paid them no note during the Bush administration's foreign policy fiascoes.

Trump is picking a staff and cabinet to fit his authoritarian mold.  Many are angry misfits and outsiders who will pick the same for their staff. The most aggressive of the Bush team are in the mix as well, like Bolton. Outside of leaks and resignations, I don't see any checks here at all.