2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Christy42 · 10-11-2016 08:54AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Considering the Obama/Hillary administration is as culpable as any other for the destabilisation of the Middle East and North Africa, while Trump seems to be far more accommodating towards some kind of entente towards Putin and Russia, I'd venture to suggest that Trump mightn't be half as hawkish as some people think he might be.

Bush was definitely worse. If anything Obama took too long to go into Syria which turned itself into a horror show and while they might not have done well in the aftermath Libya was already a war zone as well. Contrast that to Iraq.

Hillary was never going to start a war with Russia as some have claimed. The no fly zone would have been sorted through diplomacy, not just deciding to shoot down Russian planes one day.

While it might not involve American troops a lot of people in eastern Europe are a lot more scared today than they were a week ago. I also noticed in one of the threads here his supporters went from celebrating this candidate of peace to deciding that Iran should be invaded. We also have his statements of bomb them all to go on.

Zubeneschamali · 10-11-2016 10:31AM

Jawgap wrote: »

US election 2016 results: Meet President Trump's possible cabinet

Drain the swamp, then give the Alligators Cabinet positions?

Hank Scorpio · 10-11-2016 10:41AM

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no? I don't know enough about the rest to judge.

BoJack Horseman · 10-11-2016 10:59AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Hillary was never going to start a war with Russia as some have claimed. The no fly zone would have been sorted through diplomacy

Elaborate.... you seem to know more than Hillary there.

Explain her plan to "diplomatically" make SyAF air & air defence assets stand down in their own sovereign country?
Once you have worked that out, explain how she would have "diplomatically" grounded RuAF forces in Latakia, and their corresponding air defence apparatus on the ground and on their naval-flotilla off shore.

You know well that as with every previous no-fly zone, the safety of the patrollers is paramount so cannot function in a contested environment.
You know what is why with every previous no-fly zone the air and air defence assets of the patrolled country are first degraded to ensure that safety.

So, again..... how would Hillary have "diplomatically" made that surrender occur & by some unprecedented military miracle do this without harming any person or military asset?

Christy42 wrote: »

While it might not involve American troops a lot of people in eastern Europe are a lot more scared today than they were a week ago.

Is there some sort of eastern-euro fear index you have access to?
The US is nearly doubling its rotating assets in Eastern Europe.
Where is this fear coming from?

Zubeneschamali · 10-11-2016 11:01AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no?

No.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:05AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no? I don't know enough about the rest to judge.

I don't doubt that they are (in certain quarters) but as usual you are deflecting - the question wasn't "will Trump appoint people who are highly respected to his cabinet, the question was "Does anyone think a woman will occupy a cabinet position of significance?"

The indications are, they are unlikely to.

Likewise, those likely to make up his economic team have a certain 'homogeneous' look about them.....

Steve Mnuchin - Treasury Secretary? - A former Goldman Sachs executive

Thomas Barrack - His day job is running Colony Capital, a real estate investment company

John A. Paulson - hedge fund billionaire

Wilbur Ross - Commerce Secretary? - (not if Christie gets it) billionaire backer of Trump.....made his money as a bankruptcy specialist at Rothschilds and is now what Forbes describes as a "distressed asset investor"

Dan DiMicco - trade negotiator? Former boss, now executive chairman of the Nucor Corporation, America's largest steel producer, Dan DiMicco is one of the few industrialists among Trump's advisers........Nucor is proud of its record in remaining "union-free".

.....I'm sure there will be women in his administration, but how many positions of significance will be occupied by them?

.....the swamp is going to be a long time a' draining!

Hank Scorpio · 10-11-2016 11:14AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:17AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

How about you explain how, where and by whom Gingrich and Giuliani are respected - seen as you first introduced the idea that they are.....

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no? I don't know enough about the rest to judge.

Hank Scorpio · 10-11-2016 11:17AM

Jawgap wrote: »

.....I'm sure there will be women in his administration, but how many positions of significance will be occupied by them?

.....the swamp is going to be a long time a' draining!

Trump is loyal and will select people who've stuck with him during the entire campaign. Giuliani was on Fox earlier talking about the cabinet positions.

oscarBravo · 10-11-2016 11:23AM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This is one of those situations where the FBI are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Not really, no. Comey went on a solo run and ignored FBI protocol and precedent, as well as advice from pretty much anyone who wasn't himself.

The FBI should have kept its mouth shut about the investigation, like they do about all investigations. But Comey had to do it his way.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

Newt "feelings are as valid as facts" Gingrich?

Rudy "there were no terrorist attacks on America when Bush was president" Giuliani?

Yeah, real serious people.

Hank Scorpio · 10-11-2016 11:26AM

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:27AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump is loyal and will select people who've stuck with him during the entire campaign. Giuliani was on Fox earlier talking about the cabinet positions.

.....

Again with the deflection - it's good that Trump is loyal....my two Newfies are loyal, it doesn't mean I'd give them my credit cards......

......no one was questioning his loyalty of him, Giuliani or Gingrich.....the question related to the possibility/probability of women being appointed to positions of significance in his cabinet....

Jawgap wrote: »

.....I'm sure there will be women in his administration, but how many positions of significance will be occupied by them?

......

Do you think someone who said that women who have abortions should be punished, and who made crude insinuations about a TV anchor's menstrual cycle, and who proudly declared that he didn't change nappies or do bedtimes....will be appointing many women to significant cabinet positions?

B0jangles · 10-11-2016 11:28AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump is loyal and will select people who've stuck with him during the entire campaign. Giuliani was on Fox earlier talking about the cabinet positions.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/792031499075944448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trump thinks it is good leadership to get rid of anyone who disagrees with you or says anything negative about you.

He thinks it is good leadership to surround yourself with nothing but yes-men.

Christy42 · 10-11-2016 11:30AM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Elaborate.... you seem to know more than Hillary there.

Explain her plan to "diplomatically" make SyAF air & air defence assets stand down in their own sovereign country?
Once you have worked that out, explain how she would have "diplomatically" grounded RuAF forces in Latakia, and their corresponding air defence apparatus on the ground and on their naval-flotilla off shore.

You know well that as with every previous no-fly zone, the safety of the patrollers is paramount so cannot function in a contested environment.
You know what is why with every previous no-fly zone the air and air defence assets of the patrolled country are first degraded to ensure that safety.

So, again..... how would Hillary have "diplomatically" made that surrender occur & by some unprecedented military miracle do this without harming any person or military asset?

Is there some sort of eastern-euro fear index you have access to?
The US is nearly doubling its rotating assets in Eastern Europe.
Where is this fear coming from?

The fear is coming from Trump being friendly with the man who wants to invade said countries as well as his announcement that the US may not fulfill it's Nato obligations in defending them.

As for the first bit I don't know the details but you sit around a table and come to an agreement. You do it the same way you got all those forces to stand down (aside from patrolling their own areas) during cease fires that have occurred in the country. She was secretary of state for 4 years and didn't exactly come within a horses roar of a war with Russia.

Can you point out where she said she would start the no fly zone by shooting down a load of Russian jets for the laugh or are you just assuming that is how it would happen.
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-1.747305?v=C8FB69457300AD9101CC0444187BDD4C

( I just want the quote that says she wants leverage to bring the Russians to the table and it was a link with the quote I wanted).

She is advocating for it here and specifically mentions the negotiating table. If she failed to bring Russia to the table or couldn't find a way to get them to agree with her then it wouldn't happen and it would be a failure for her (the outcome I would have expected to be honest, I don't get why she is pushing the policy that won't be enacted in all likelihood and would have to give up a lot for it).

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:37AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

Seriously? He amy have prosecuted them but who gathered the evidence, prepared the case, ran the surveillance, turned the grasses etc.....

.....and btw, it was a couple of Irish-Americans - Maloney and Gleeson - who prosecuted Gotti - Giuliani made his bones prosecuting Wall Street - and was the US Attorney who indicted the bosses of the Five Families but it was Chertoff who actually prosecuted the case.

Hank Scorpio · 10-11-2016 11:37AM

Trump isn't stupid but everything he does seems to get questioned ten times on this forum. He's surrounded by experienced people assisting him.

The Podesta wikileaks quote is Trump trying to hammer down that her own team think she's a bad leader, I wouldn't read too much into it.

Trump hired Kennyanne Conway in July to help him so I doubt he can only surround himself with yes men or believe everything he does is the right way, she practically won him the election as you could see the change in his behavior and discipline. He had Giuliani coaching him for the debates.

The hatred here for Trump is pretty sad imo, no matter what he does he'll never get any credit.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:40AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump isn't stupid but everything he does seems to get questioned ten times on this forum. He's surrounded by experienced people assisting him.

The Podesta wikileaks quote is Trump trying to hammer down that her own team think she's a bad leader, I wouldn't read too much into it.

Trump hired Kennyanne Conway in July to help him so I doubt he can only surround himself with yes men or believe everything he does is the right way, she practically won him the election as you could see the change in his behavior and discipline. He had Giuliani coaching him for the debates.

The hatred here for Trump is pretty sad imo, no matter what he does he'll never get any credit.

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet.....

okey-dokey, we'll leave it there so.

Hank Scorpio · 10-11-2016 11:44AM

Jawgap wrote: »

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet.....

okey-dokey, we'll leave it there so.

I don't know. Palin's been mentioned a few times

10-11-2016 11:46AM

Jawgap wrote: »

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet.....

okey-dokey, we'll leave it there so.

I will never understand the fixation on the genitals that an employee does or does not have.

If the best candidate for the job is a woman, then by rights that job should be hers. It's that simple. Why if we change the gender does that simple statement not stay true?

What female candidates do we think Trump is considering for roles in the cabinet? Who has put themselves forward?

There's a remarkably straightforward Bayesian issue at play here if there isn't an even number of male and female candidates. The cabinet makeup is a function of the pool of candidates, not of the pool of the population.

FWIW, if Palin is indeed the best candidate for a job, then that can be seen as a damning indictment of all of the other candidates (or the job itself)!

BoJack Horseman · 10-11-2016 11:50AM

Christy42 wrote: »

The fear is coming from Trump being friendly with the man who wants to invade said countries as well as his announcement that the US may not fulfill it's Nato obligations in defending them

Right.... so you have no proof of any actual fear.... grand.
(especially when the US will be rotating more forces into east europe from next February)
.... and we'll leave aside the likely zero inerest of NATO wanting to defend the Baltics, Will portugal or Belgium send thousands to their deaths for Estonia?
I doubt it.

You are welcome to be against the US & Russia reaching some sort rapprochement.
Personally I see no downside to the reduction in tensions between the two nuclear armed superpowers! (but that's just me).

As for the first bit I don't know the details

Indeed.... it seems that no one does.... least of all Hillary.

The reader will remember that the Iraqi air force wasn't "negotiated" into having its air force & air defence capability destroyed.
There wasn't "negotiations" with Serbia into having it's air force & air defence capability all but destroyed.....
And finally, the bold Col Ghadaffi wasn't extended the courtesy of those same "negotiations" before his military was annihilated as part of that no-fly-zone.

but you sit around a table and come to an agreement.

Didn't read past this slice of naievety.

An "agreement" between the invading US and the country its invading... 'allow a jet to take off & we (the invader) annihilate you'

Some agreement there Christy..... great plan!
It is remarkable that no one has thought of this in the 5 years of Syrian civil war!

Perhaps one day we will hear how Clinton planned to ground the worlds 2nd most powerful air force by sheer will alone.... and without any threat of violence!..... lol.

I really hope we do.
Wouldn't want her defeat to be down to her warmongering.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:50AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't know. Palin's been mentioned a few times

As Interior Secretary - it's a cabinet post, but is it 'significant'

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I will never understand the fixation on the genitals that an employee does or does not have.

If the best candidate for the job is a woman, then by rights that job should be hers. It's that simple. Why if we change the gender does that simple statement not stay true?

What female candidates do we think Trump is considering for roles in the cabinet? Who has put themselves forward?

There's a remarkably straightforward Bayesian issue at play here if there isn't an even number of male and female candidates. The cabinet makeup is a function of the pool of candidates, not of the pool of the population.

FWIW, if Palin is indeed the best candidate for a job, then that can be seen as a damning indictment of all of the other candidates (or the job itself)!

Well, underlying the question about women in the cabinet is the question of whether Trump - based on his utterances - is capable of objectively assessing people and their abilities without regard to their gender or ethnicity?

If you think he is then you can be satisfied that he has picked the best available for the jobs in question, regardless of its gender/ethnicity make-up.

So how confident would people be that he can be 'gender-blind'? And if he can be or is gender blind why say things he said? Why, for example, if a woman disagrees with him must it be attributed to her menstrual cycle?

10-11-2016 11:55AM

Jawgap wrote: »

As Interior Secretary - it's a cabinet post, but is it 'significant'

Do you think Palin is qualified for any of the cabinet posts?

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 11:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Palin is qualified for any of the cabinet posts?

I think as a governor she brings executive experience and yes, if you had to pick one post in the cabinet for her, Interior would be a good fit given the amount of federal land in Alaska.

Do I think she'd make a good Secretary of the Interior? No, I think she'd unwind a lot of the protections in place on federal land and in the national parks and ANWR would be in serious trouble!

daithi7 · 10-11-2016 12:01PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet......

Who cares!?

I'm very interested in who Trump picks for his cabinet but to me their gender is completely irrelevant, why not talk about things that actually matter like their ability, politics and track record maybe!?

10-11-2016 12:04PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, underlying the question about women in the cabinet is the question of whether Trump - based on his utterances - is capable of objectively assessing people and their abilities without regard to their gender or ethnicity?

So give me some examples of people he has 'ruled out' with his nonsense?

His campaign manager for the Presidential run was who?

Jawgap wrote: »

If you think he is then you can be satisfied that he has picked the best available for the jobs in question, regardless of its gender/ethnicity make-up.

So how confident would people be that he can be 'gender-blind'? And if he can be or is gender blind why say things he said? Why, for example, if a woman disagrees with him must it be attributed to her menstrual cycle?

I'm pointing out that judging and quantifying anyone's 'gender bias' using the results of the cabinet makeup is simply bad science. And an attempt to 'score points' without any real consideration of the problem. It is at best a weak point, at worst it serves to trivialize a serious issue.

Jawgap · 10-11-2016 12:04PM

daithi7 wrote: »

Who cares!?

I'm very interested in who Trump picks for his cabinet but to me their gender is completely irrelevant, why not talk about things that actually matter like their ability, politics and track record maybe!?

You don't think a government should reflect the citizenry it serves?

For example, do you think a bunch of middle-aged men are capable of legislating or governing on women's reproductive rights?

10-11-2016 12:05PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think as a governor she brings executive experience and yes, if you had to pick one post in the cabinet for her, Interior would be a good fit given the amount of federal land in Alaska.

Right. So if we're trying desperately to ensure a female representative, then Palin gets the role.

Jawgap wrote: »

Do I think she'd make a good Secretary of the Interior? No, I think she'd unwind a lot of the protections in place on federal land and in the national parks and ANWR would be in serious trouble!

But wait! We don't think she's fit for it.

At least we have a female in there though. And the box can be ticked and we can continue paying lip service.

Skylinehead · 10-11-2016 12:05PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

I thought Trump was running on a platform of anti-establishment? Newt Gingrich is the epitome of establishment.

First Up · 10-11-2016 12:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Palin is qualified for any of the cabinet posts?

The whole ethos of the Trump campaign has been that those with "qualifications" are disqualified as they are "insiders" and this resonates with the muttering classes who are happy to blame someone else for their own inadequacies. So by those standards, Palin is eminently qualified.

I'm sure he'll pick a few smart folk from his business network; the fun will be watching how they interact with the House and Senate about which they know little (and are proud of it) but who have the power to soften his cough. From what I hear, the GOP members of the Senate are far from impressed with him and he will not get an easy ride.

As someone said yesterday, Trump has been elected President, not King. He needs to figure out who it works. Lets see how the "Art of the Deal" translates.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments