I'm going to surround myself with the best people.

I liked Tillerson - gone
I liked Jeff Sessions - gone
I especially liked Mattis - gone
John Kelly is another one.

These folks brought a calm voice of reason & experience to Trumps twitter laden clap trap.

I hope a couple of solid Supreme Court Justices are worth it.







«1

Comments

  • Well, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were really big gets. I was hoping that we’d get more progress from the N Korean thing.

    I wish he’d shut his mouth (or his twittering).
  • 2.FOH. said:


    I hope a couple of solid Supreme Court Justices are worth it.


    Seems to me you're overlooking all the lower court judges.

    Along with a bunch of other stuff.
  • I might very well be.

    I had just been giving him the benefit of the doubt since he was
    surrounding himself with solid picks, but they either end up
    getting fired or resigning after a short period.


  • 2.FOH. said:

    I might very well be.

    I had just been giving him the benefit of the doubt since he was
    surrounding himself with solid picks, but they either end up
    getting fired or resigning after a short period.


    And he continues to make major accomplishments under the radar while the world pays attention to the circus that the media gins up.

    Most of his accomplishments are structural and therefore not very flashy.

    Basically, we have to accept that we will never get an accurate picture of what's actually going on and that the only way to evaluate what he is doing is AFTER the fact.

    Trump isn't playing 3-D Chess, he's just acting and reacting in a way that is completely different than people are used to and it makes it hard to read the situation.

    He's also a lot smarter than he gets credit for and he's a long term strategic thinker.

    There's no way we're going to get everything we want, but we're going to get WAY the fuck more than we would have with some establishment GOP hack.
  • edited December 2018
    2.FOH. said:

    I might very well be.

    I had just been giving him the benefit of the doubt since he was
    surrounding himself with solid picks, but they either end up
    getting fired or resigning after a short period.


    This man and the media reaction to him screw with our perception of time.  On the one hand BHO seems to have left a very long time ago, but on the other hand every media crisis is delivered as some unprecedented disaster, even two years later.

    In fact, two years is a pretty routine time for a sec of def.  It's longer than Panetta served and about the same as Hagel and Carter.  The difference is that the story is reported as proof that DJT is an untutored maniac, rather than as follow through on policy DJT himself had announced.  The same media who weren't quite sure whether BHO really lied when he said we could keep our doctors are consumed with glee at the opportunity to call DJT a liar at his assertion that ISIS has been defeated (using a metric for defeat, erasure of the organisation itself, used in no prior conflict).

    There is certainly a policy debate to be had about whether and how we can most productively engage, but DJT didn't run on a platform of perpetual engagement or a larger commitment. 
  • Once he gets the wall, what else is there that he said he would do?  Maybe he only wants to be a one-termer.

    Would be nice if he reduced the deficit.
  • Once he gets the wall, what else is there that he said he would do?  Maybe he only wants to be a one-termer.


    Would be nice if he reduced the deficit.

    That’s on the House of Representin’.

    All Trump can do is veto a spending bill.
  • Once he gets the wall, what else is there that he said he would do?  

    Appoint judges and prune regs.
  • Pruning regs is nice, but just a band-aid.

    Putting the real power back in the hands of the Congress is better, constitutionally speaking.

    How do you stop Congress from ceding their power by giving the federal administrators the authority to "promulgate" every fucking whim they have?
  • edited December 2018
    dgm said:



    How do you stop Congress from ceding their power by giving the federal administrators the authority to "promulgate" every fucking whim they have?

    You can't ever stop someone from ceding their own power.  

  • So can we stop federal administrators from TAKING that power? Unaccountable appointed administrators making law is bad for the Republic.
  • edited December 2018
    dgm said:

    So can we stop federal administrators from TAKING that power? Unaccountable appointed administrators making law is bad for the Republic.

    The obstacle to forcing the issue before a judge rests in rules on standing, the quality that allows one to sue.  Some of the immigration cases within the last two years have exhibited dubious standing.  If you are Hawaii, arguing that you have a stake in immigration laws because you operate universities who might get fewer applicants is pretty flimsy.

    The problem I would see with something like DGM v. BATF contesting the right of the exec to arbitrarily redefine what words mean for the purpose of declaring a stock to be a machine gun is a court concluding that the power to promulgate regs isn't DGM's, but Congress', so unless Congress wants to join to complain about the over-reach, DGM isn't complaining about a right that is his own.  Standing is the doctrine that keeps ordinary tax payers from suing the fedgov over looney spending.

    So, an exec erasing a lot of regs that were never offered to congress for review, as required by law, may be a mere bandaid, but it's all there really is in a political process.

    The problem is a Congress that is all too happy to have an executive bureaucracy write and enforce volumes of regs, legislation never passed by elected legislators, and people who vote for that kind of Congress.
  • That leads us back to Eric's thing, about only property owners and vets being eligible to vote.
  • The real problem is that the only way a republic like ours works is if the various parts of government want it to work. If some cop violates your rights by stealing your money during a traffic stop and the courts let him get away with it then effectively you have legal theft.
  • I liked Sessions until he became AG. His performance after that was abysmal. He should've been canned the moment he recused himself. The idea that he was conflicted while Mueller and Rosenstein weren't is preposterous.

    The real problem is the Left's Long March Through The Institutions. Full bore "McCarthyism" practiced only by one side was allowed for so long that even if the Right were to respond in kind now it would do no good. Until we have a way to reverse the damage, I hold out little hope that the ship can be righted.
  • You nailed it with the long march comment.

    But once they run the ship onto the rocks we can shoot the mutineers and repair the ship.
  • I’m going to surround myself with the best people and then I’m never going to listen to them, because I know better than a decorated Marine with nearly 50 years of defense service.

    I’m still bitter about Mattis.

    It’s okay to admit we were wrong about Trump.
  • A) They can both have valid but mutually exclusive viewpoints. Only one is the commander in chief.

    B) Mattis is a globalist. Trump is a Nationalist. Which begs the question; what exactly are you bitter ABOUT?

    C) Same question, if you believe you were wrong about Trump...
    What exactly were you wrong ABOUT?
  • Mattis was leaving anyway.  DJT just switched the successor into Mattis' position after Mattis announced his own resignation.
  • edited January 2
    MC Escher said:

    A) They can both have valid but mutually exclusive viewpoints. Only one is the commander in chief.

    B) Mattis is a globalist. Trump is a Nationalist.
    ***



    I do not believe that is a substantive difference. What does it mean to say that Mattis is a globalist? That he recognizes that the political, diplomatic and military environment is global? That seems beyond reasonable dispute. What does it mean to say that DJ T is a Nationalist? That he recognized that nitwits everywhere would howl in protest and begin throwing their own feces as soon as he said it? That the “GWB is BushChimpHitler” alumni would touch themselves at the prospect of being able to recycle their Godwin-isms?
    MC Escher said:


    C) Same question, if you believe you were wrong about Trump...
    What exactly were you wrong ABOUT?



    I will concede that I was wrong about DJ T in the primaries. I fully expected a train wreck of policy free vacuity. I have not agreed with every policy he sets forth, but he demonstrates greater fidelity in action than I expected.

    I was not wrong about him in the general election. The only real alternative to him would have been a great harm. 

    I didn't expect him to win, so I didn't foresee how he would function as a piece of litmus paper.  My daughter said her fellow highschool students reported weeping parents, and the Henny Penny wing of the democrat party can't keep its unbalanced quality concealed for more than a tweet or two.  Some federalists will say that they wish DJT would just stop tweeting, but that would forfeit the strategy of engaging lefty opinion leaders in conversations they just can't help themselves from entering and that display their own silliness.
  • Mattis completely contradicted himself though. He said there was no military solution in the area, and then insisted the military stay? What's a President supposed to do with that sort of advice? Whatever he wants, IMO.
  • edited January 2
    Qwinn said:

    Mattis completely contradicted himself though. He said there was no military solution in the area, and then insisted the military stay? What's a President supposed to do with that sort of advice? Whatever he wants, IMO.

    This illustrates a reason I believe it can be unwise to lionize people whose entire adult experience is in military service.  Even if they are brilliant, they are highly seasoned and experienced bureaucrats.  That is not to demean the skill required to function within a bureaucracy, nor is it to suggest that every military leader is only a bureaucrat.

    Asking a general “Is the organization you have served for the last several decades useful in situation “X”?”  Is not likely to get the response “not at all”.  One would ordinarily expect a bureaucrat to seek a continuing and expanded role for his bureaucracy.  That doesn’t mean that the bureaucrat will be wrong about the utility of his organization, just that he will naturally seek a utility for his organization.

    We have relatively recent history in leveling Germany and Japan and then rebuilding them while we use them as military bases.  We also have recent experience in Korea and Vietnam projecting power onto the other side of the world; it’s expensive.

    We also have experience in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Taiwan and Salvador projecting influence without actually parking a giant Army on top of them.  It’s less expensive, but it takes a bit of foreign-policy focus that can be undone by one ninny with insufficient foresight.

  • Matt: A globalist, like Obama, thinks that the UN and the World Court should have sovereignty over the US. A nationalist, like Trump, accurately recognizes the UN and WC as immensely corrupt kleptocracies and tells them to pound sand (and further would not yield sovereignty even if they were competent organizations). A globalist believes in open borders, a nationalist believes in secure borders. Those are indeed substantive differences. Possibly the most important of our age.
  • Qwinn said:

    Matt: A globalist, like Obama, thinks that the UN and the World Court should have sovereignty over the US. A nationalist, like Trump, accurately recognizes the UN and WC as immensely corrupt kleptocracies and tells them to pound sand (and further would not yield sovereignty even if they were competent organizations). A globalist believes in open borders, a nationalist believes in secure borders. Those are indeed substantive differences. Possibly the most important of our age.

    Mattis holds the convictions you describe as those of a Globalist?  Do you really think Mattis doesn't think the UN is grossly problematic or that he believes in open borders?

    Was GWB a globalist?  We didn't sign onto the Rome Accord (the one that would subject the US to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court) under GWB, but he did seek to use alliances to US advantage.  

    Globalism is what anti-WTO protestors profess to break windows over, so in that sense it seems to be a recognition that the economy is substantially global, at least for easily transported commodities and goods.  I don't believe DJT is an economic nationalist, like Sherrod Brown and the trade union remnant of the democrat party.
  • GWB was and is definitely a globalist (open borders). I would not have been surprised if he had signed up for the ICC, and he might well have if the Left wasn't all screaming to use it to convict him personally.
  • edited January 2
    nbody said:

    Qwinn said:

    Mattis completely contradicted himself though. He said there was no military solution in the area, and then insisted the military stay? What's a President supposed to do with that sort of advice? Whatever he wants, IMO.

    This illustrates a reason I believe it can be unwise to lionize people whose entire adult experience is in military service.  Even if they are brilliant, they are highly seasoned and experienced bureaucrats.  That is not to demean the skill required to function within a bureaucracy, nor is it to suggest that every military leader is only a bureaucrat.

    Asking a general “Is the organization you have served for the last several decades useful in situation “X”?”  Is not likely to get the response “not at all”.

    Mattis is above that, I sincerely believe, and also believe he has demonstrated that throughout the years.

    You’ve got DJT telling Mattis country X and country Y are fighting and they’re both our enemies so let them fight. DJT lacks the intellect, or doesn’t see the need, to consider other allies country X and country Y have?

    And now DJT is saying he fired Mattis?

    If DJT is a long term strategic thinker, how do you explain his tweets? Pretty much the absence of long term strategic thinking.

    Don’t get me wrong, I voted for him. Better than Hillary. And i’m not saying he’s 100% wrong in everything.

    But his foreign policy sucks big hairy donkey balls.

    eta- apparently romney agrees:

    https://wapo.st/2EZXea8?tid=ss_sms-amp
  • edited January 2
    Funny that we both see Romney's position as reinforcing our own.

    I'm quite happy with Trump's foreign policy so far.

    The only thing I remember Romney for is rolling over and playing dead during the 2012 debates. I firmly believe that both he and McCain deliberately threw the 2008 and 2012 elections to Obama. Uniparty cucks, both of them.
  • nbody said:

    MC Escher said:

    I do not believe that is a substantive difference. What does it mean to say that Mattis is a globalist?  

    A Nationalist is to an Individualist as a Globalist is to a Collectivist.


    The problem of course is not the philosophical position, it is the desire to FORCE it instead of allowing it to happen organically.
  • jennifer said:


    Mattis is above that, I sincerely believe, and also believe he has demonstrated that throughout the years.




    It seems unlikely that a man who entered the Marine Corps a half century ago would be free of its institutional conceits.
    jennifer said:


    If DJT is a long term strategic thinker, how do you explain his tweets?




    I don't, and I don't know that DJT is a long term visionary. That doesn't keep his tweets from serving the larger purpose of discrediting people who are transfixed by them.

    I'd like to see Romney avoid the dangers of McCainism, presenting oneself for flattery from adversaries.
  • The last comment was for Eric.

    Yes, Mattis is USMC through and through, but he’s intelligent enough to see limitations
Sign In or Register to comment.