Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

US Presidential Candidates

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by cthia   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:38 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Eyal wrote:
smr wrote:So, the liberals/progressives believe that a person (Ivanka Trump) should be punished for the sins of the father. That mindset is quite insane.


While I'd normally agree with you, she's prominently involved politically both during and after the campaign.

biochem wrote:Anyone noticed the anti-female bias of the media? The people around Trump who get the most attacks are KellyAnne and Ivanka. They're not being nearly so vicious to the men. So much for the liberal media being feminist. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.


I'd say Bannon and Spicer are taking a lot more heat than Ivanka Trump is. The others aren't seeing as frequent attacks/criticism because they haven't done much in this administration yet.
cthia wrote:Biochem, it is because men are idiots and there's always been a double standard enjoyed by us, and less is expected from them overall. Everyone knows that Trump is an idiot but since he is POTUS more is expected of him and rightly so. But when it comes to Trump's lack of regard towards women, psychologically it blows back onto his wife and daughter. The world's most intelligent species, women, expect, at the very least a "Daddy or Honey, you shouldn't say those sexist, racist, irresponsible, disrespectful, appalling and idiotic things about women. I'm a woman, don't you care about me, and what and who I represent?"

The old adage is implied in this case. "For evil to prevail, good simply has to do nothing."

The women in Trump's life appear to be doing nothing. It appears that they care about nothing but profit. So what better way to counter their madness than by hitting their pockets. I assure you what is on the minds of every potential female customer when they see Ivanka's clothing... "BITCH PLEASE! I'LL SHOW YOU!!!"

Do you think any other First Lady or First Daughters would have tolerated the sexist attitudes outwardly displayed by their husband or father?

Michelle would have torn Barack a new ass when he got home. "I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT CRAP!"

There's also an old saying that says "Behind every successful man STANDS a woman telling him he's wrong."

There are a few women standing behind Trump. :oops:

Perhaps the dumber the First Lady the dumber the President.



****** *


A quote from Watters World.
If Ivanka Trump's father was a Democrat, wouldn't we be hearing about "girl power?"

My point exactly!

A day late and a daughter short? IMHO, there is nothing wrong with this picture. This admisnistration has forgotten that not only is the president in the public's eye, but the First Lady and First Daughters are as well. There is something implied, something that is expected of them as well. A certain amount of decorum and savoir faire.

The thing is, I like Ivanka. She is business minded. Nothing wrong with that. She is drop dead gorgeous. Certainly nothing wrong with that. She is daddy's little girl. Nothing wrong with that either. But she cannot use her First Daughter status to bolster her business. She cannot play her title, as First Daughter, as a Trump card, pardon the pun. But as soon as her father solicited her for his Transition Team, her business life was in jeopardy.

I hate it for her, but the Emoluments Clause is there for a reason. The American people have a right to know and feel confident that every single presidential decision will be made in the best interest of the people, not made in the best interest of the president's or his wife or daughter's business concerns. No one is above the law, not even the president or his family. Breaching the Emoluments Clause is a serious offense. The fact that Trump does it is alarming. It possibly bespeaks his motives in seeking the presidency in the first place. It is the one thing he should have gone out of his way to avoid. Putting his daughter on his transition team was a bad move and made her ineligible to play "Monopoly."

"I've landed on Park Place. Pay me $200."

"No Ivanka, we won't," says America's female professionals.

"...and hopefully I can be there for him. And for those causes I've cared about my whole professional career." What causes Ivanka? Do they not naturally include girl power? You know, women's rights and the like? Enquiring minds want to know. Enquiring women nationwide demand to know, at the expense of your clothing line.


Throw us a bone. Throw Ivanka a bone Donald. If he had said "I apologize to women around the world. My daughter has seriously gotten on my case. I relent, I genuinely apologize" would have caused her clothing line to sell faster than $1 Super Bowl tickets.

Instead he goes on to show that he's simply a meathead with no bones about it.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by biochem   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:49 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

gcomeau wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/14/flynn-resigns-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-russia-links-live?CMP=fb_gu

Shortest tenure by a National Security Advisor ever, by a mile.

Boy, good thing we don't have to worry about Trump being completely incompetent, ignorant, and lacking any self control or maturity because his management style is "picking the best people" to do all those jobs he doesn't understand or have the capability to handle.



So....

Who had "less than a month" in the "Scandal bad enough to bring down a Cabinet Member" pool?


If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:59 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

biochem wrote:
gcomeau wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/14/flynn-resigns-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-russia-links-live?CMP=fb_gu

Shortest tenure by a National Security Advisor ever, by a mile.

Boy, good thing we don't have to worry about Trump being completely incompetent, ignorant, and lacking any self control or maturity because his management style is "picking the best people" to do all those jobs he doesn't understand or have the capability to handle.



So....

Who had "less than a month" in the "Scandal bad enough to bring down a Cabinet Member" pool?


If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?


Hubris, Biochem. He was likely very capable but just didn't constrain himself until Trump took office. Glad his hubris flared this early. Later could have been worse.

As it stands, what doesn't lead to an impeachment conviction will only make the administration stronger.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:32 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

biochem wrote:
gcomeau wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/14/flynn-resigns-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-russia-links-live?CMP=fb_gu

Shortest tenure by a National Security Advisor ever, by a mile.

Boy, good thing we don't have to worry about Trump being completely incompetent, ignorant, and lacking any self control or maturity because his management style is "picking the best people" to do all those jobs he doesn't understand or have the capability to handle.



So....

Who had "less than a month" in the "Scandal bad enough to bring down a Cabinet Member" pool?


If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?



You have got to be kidding me. You're going to try to put the blame for this on the United States Military rather than the one guy who picked him for this job who is supposed to be responsible for the entire country? Long way from "The Buck Stops Here" these days aren't we?


The Military is huge. In any organization that big basic human nature is going to allow at least a certain percentage of people to rise through the ranks who just shouldn't be there. Sorry, it's just going to happen.

The question I have for you is... how high do you think that percentage is in the US military?

90%? Do you think 9 out of 10 people in the US military who rise to the rank of General are conspiracy peddling political opportunists, so Trump was going to be screwed almost no matter who he picked?


50% maybe? Was it a coin flip if Trump picked someone from the ranks of the generals who was going to be this big a screw up?


My evaluation would be that number is in the single digits somewhere for people who rose to those levels primarily through politics and patronage rather than primarily through ability. And if we're talking about people as *exceptionally* unsuitable as Flynn, put a 0 and a decimal point in front of whatever that number is.


And Mr. "Picks the very best people, trust me, I know all the best people, the greatest, just the best"... Mr. "I know more than the Generals"... managed to find him.


And if you had been paying any level of attention through the entire campaign you would know how that happened. You see Trump doesn't pick people based on ability. Trump doesn't understand how to do that, he can't gauge ability because he has it confused with "thinks I'm great". The only thing Trump knows how to do when picking people (and this should be painfully obvious to anyone who looked at his Cabinet picks) is to check one or more of the following boxes:

1. This person is rich/powerful (therefore smart and skilled and someone I crave the approval of)
2. This person is famous/controversial (therefore someone who will get me attention by association and also someone I crave the approval of)
3. This person tells me how great I am. (therefore they are smart and skilled and have good judgement because they recognize how great I am)

Now occasionally he's going to get good people doing that just by happenstance. And a lot of the time he's going to get people who can, oh, bankrupt a freaking Casino if they're left to manage one.



Wake. Up.


And it's not like Flynn is a big shock that just got sprung on everyone in late breaking new FFS. EVERYONE knew he was a problem. EVERYONE has known it for months, except freaking Trump. Because he lacks the capacity to evaluate people beyond their quality of ass kissing, levels of fame, or zeros in their bank balance.


He may be referred to as "retired" but everyone knows he was effectively fired during the Obama administration. (But of course to anyone clustering around Trump, that's just going to be a selling point)


Back in October 2015 he was going on RT peddling propaganda that the US made a willful decision to allow the rise of ISIS.


This was December 2015, beginning of the Primary campaign:

http://static4.businessinsider.com/imag ... 995132.jpg

Oh look who that is sitting next to Putin at dinner. How many retired Generals do you think would let themselves end up sitting at the right side of Vladimir Putin at some gala event for the Kremlin's propaganda channel? Red flag in a prospective US National security Advisor maybe? If you're reasonable sure, not if you're Trump.


This is the kind of whackjob conspiracy theory bullshit the dumbass was tweeting back in November a week before the election:

Image


Did that cost him the job? Of course not, that kind of crap GOT HIM the job. Because Trump liked it.


Then while waiting for the inauguration he illegally goes behind the then administration's back and discusses sanctions with the Russians, word gets out, he denies it. But FFS, how many red flags does it take??? STILL gets made NSA


And the guy who appointed him after ALL of that is the guy you keep making arguments will be able to do the job of president based on a claim he "picks good people".



Trump is dangerously incompetent and frankly there are serious questions to be asked about his mental health. His ONE demonstrated skill in life is self promotion. That's it. And you're turning a blind eye and saying "well the military shouldn't have let Flynn make it to General" (before he got fired)???


I would make yet more references to rose colored glasses, but it's looking more like rose colored welding goggles at this point.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by Tenshinai   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:59 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

biochem wrote:If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?


Because in US military, seniority and servicetime is the only thing that guarantees anything.
Survive long enough in the service without any blatant black marks, and a general you will be.

It´s one of the reasons US military officers average quality is, not so great.




##########
gcomeau wrote:My evaluation would be that number is in the single digits somewhere for people who rose to those levels primarily through politics and patronage rather than primarily through ability.


While you´re right that the percentage of poor vs ok or better isn´t huge, it´s almost certainly a lot worse than you think it is.

The US military is a huge mess of patronage and politics, and as i said above, add to that that servicetime can make almost any officer end up as a general, and well, the result isn´t pretty.

If the US MoD PM system was still open to the public, i could have sent you links to the most hilarious "domestic" arguments there, think "Yes, minister" mixed with "House of Cards" then take the weird up to 11 and throw in military leetspeak, including a crapload of arguing about how bad that is and how to get things changed, from what i read there, that discussion has been ongoing for decades, the internet just made it that much livelier.

The numbers often touted by posters there suggested that at least 10% of US military officers above captain rank were unable to do their jobs.
The discussions about whether it was more or less at captain and below was hot enough to melt stars.

On an institutional basis, the US military is a very very sick puppy. It generally works by throwing obscene amount of resources and effort against any problem.


You´re still not wrong that it takes effort or some serious idiocy to pick outstandingly BAD choices...
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by Daryl   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:40 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3607
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Our military works in with the US a lot, and has similar systems. The first career check is at Major, no matter how competent and hard working you are, if you don't have politicial and networking skills that's it.
The next is full Colonel where you get Command College or not.
I was working in our Army Headquarters when the then Chief of Army appointed three spin doctors or publicity specialists to promote the army's image. Yeah right, just one member of the army.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:32 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

Aaaaand.... from the party that had to hold their eighth investigation into Benghazi after the first seven told them the administration hadn't done anything scandalous...


No expressed intent to investigate the National Security Advisor having illegal contact with the Russians. After MONTHS of everyone up to and including the CIA and NSA telling everyone that there was a serious problem with the Russians and this administration.

Because it's "been handled". Which when dealing with another Republican means "we made the guy go away and get out out of the media spotlight now shut up... we have a very important investigation into a cartoon character to conduct"



(I wish that last part was a joke.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 901f7ee20f




(Although apparently there are today signs that the pressure may be building enough to get Chaffetz off his backside and doing his job)
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by gcomeau   » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:41 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ?CMP=fb_gu


At what point do the great billowing clouds of smoke mean "fire" in the eyes of conservatives here, exactly?
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by Eyal   » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:47 am

Eyal
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Israel

biochem wrote:If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?


And yet we know that in the military - like any large organization - not everyone who rises to the top is competent. And Flynn had been fired from his position before (although according to some things I've read, Flynn was fairly competent during most of his military career and went off the deep end/rose to his level of incompetence afterwards).

On another subject:

PeterZ, as you may recall we had a discussion earlier in the thread on conflicts of interest. We now have an example of why that's problematic for a president.

When he was till President-Elect, Trump spoke with the president of Taiwan and stated the US' stance towards One China was negotiable. A few days ago, he backed down on this.

Trumps has been fighting legal battles over trademarks in China for years. In one particular case, over construction services, Trump has been fighting for the trademark for over a decade and has lost multiple times. The, in September, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board agreed, to invalidate the previous trademark holding, after years of denying Trump.

Now, as the article states, this may have nothing to do with Trump's candidacy and victory. On the other hand, it's quite possible the Chinese reversed stance to curry favor in general and, more specifically, that Trump was told explicitly or implicitly that it would allow this to go through (the decision could be challenged until today, IINM) as well as favor him in future trademark disputes (of which there are a lot, and he has a large number of trademarks up for renewal in China this year) if he backed down on One China and possibly for future favors.

So the US President may have made this decision legitimately or in favor of his business interests. The thing is that we have no way of knowing which it is, which is exactly why conflict of interest is important and why Trumps refusal to divest is very problematic.

gcomeau wrote:Aaaaand.... from the party that had to hold their eighth investigation into Benghazi after the first seven told them the administration hadn't done anything scandalous...

No expressed intent to investigate the National Security Advisor having illegal contact with the Russians. After MONTHS of everyone up to and including the CIA and NSA telling everyone that there was a serious problem with the Russians and this administration.

Because it's "been handled". Which when dealing with another Republican means "we made the guy go away and get out out of the media spotlight now shut up... we have a very important investigation into a cartoon character to conduct"

(I wish that last part was a joke.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 901f7ee20f

(Although apparently there are today signs that the pressure may be building enough to get Chaffetz off his backside and doing his job)


Well, per Rand Paul, investigating your own party is pointless...
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by PeterZ   » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:20 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Eyal, I am not as woried about those sorts of decision. It's fine to scrutinize them. Characterize them as you will, just as the media does. I am more worried about insisting that any president MUST forsake any company he spent his life building to become president. That nearly requires anyone wanting to become president to follow a government tract to achieve that goal. This will serve to insulat all candidates in the cocoon of the government establishment and the donors that fund them.

All this leaking going on right now suggests the interests of the establishment is not aligned with the goals of this administration. That's a conflict of interest I am much more concerned about.
Top

Return to Politics