# Presidential First 90 Days Thread



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 10, 2016)

what do you think/want him to do the first 90 days?

- overturn specific executive orders
- revisit women/military policies
- continue to go after Hilary 
- Lift/increase specific sanctions 
- etc. 

Please try to keep the "resign" etc comments to a minimum. We've got a pretty intelligent group here, I'm genuinely interested in your opinions and thoughts.


----------



## CDG (Nov 10, 2016)

I would like to see an investigation into Hillary, led by newly appointed AG Trey Gowdy.  I would then like to see a repeal, or at least a temporary halt to, Obamacare.  After those two things, I would like to see him settle into the Office and get a lay of the land, listen to his advisors, and start working on all the other things he promised to the American people.  As TLDR20 said a couple times, there's no one else to blame now.  The Trump administration was voted for because it promised to stop the elitism and advocate for working-class Americans again.  I want to see that genuinely happen.


----------



## AWP (Nov 10, 2016)

I'd like to see him burn the VA to the ground and turn that bucket of fail around. It won't be overnight, but something has to change. I'd like to see him repeal NAFTA and the TPP. I'd like to see him curtail the H1B visa program, especially where IT is concerned. I'd like to see him call Iraq/ Syria for what it is and stop this childish "no boots on the ground" shit or ignoring those pesky self-described "lines in the sand." Obviously I'd like to see him tell Pakistan to eat a dick and tell the Afghans we wish them luck in their future endeavors. 

All-in-all, I want to see the economy improve. We can talk about war and social injustice, but if the economy's strong people can roll with a lot of crap. Does it make it right? Probably not, but I think some of our problems will naturally self-correct if the economy's strong.

Also, deport Blair Walsh and ban Nickelback. Fuck those guys.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 10, 2016)

Another investigation into Hillary might be unwise. It would be seen as kicking a dog when it's down. Her dream of power has been crushed yet again and further persecution would smack of retaliation at a time when conciliation is needed. (Incidentally, I think Obama will pardon her). I would also hope that Trump rises to the occasion and presents a more dignified front as befitting the office. It would also help if he becomes more circumspect before opening his mouth.

Other than that, after eight years of what I consider wimpy leadership, I'm hopeful he will restore respect for America's strength as Reagan did post-Carter.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2016)

In no particular order.....

1.  Reverse EOs.
2.  Revisit women in combat arms and all other mil policy
3.  Revisit Syria/ISIS/Iraq. 
4.  Economy, economy, economy.....
5.  Immigration reform/border security
6.  Constitutionally-sound SCOTUS appointments

I am all for an indep counsel to investigate Hillary, Inc., but would like to see it as an independent counsel and take the DOJ/AG out of it.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Also, deport Blair Walsh and ban Nickelback. Fuck those guys.


----------



## macNcheese (Nov 10, 2016)

Hopefully he sets up nation wide CPLs. And does away with gun free zones.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 10, 2016)

Trump won and I accept his presidency.  My first concern is his cabinet: who is he going to appoint to senior positions?  I haven't heard any definitive answers, but speculation is that New Gingrich is going to be tapped for SoS (ugh), Giuliani for AG (less ugh), Jeff Sessions for SECDEF (okay), some random Goldman Sachs guy for treasury (sure), Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil for Interior (okay).  I also heard that Sarah fucking Palin was being considered for Interior, which would be pants-on-head stupid, but it's still just a rumor.

I'll post some more stuff about policy issues later.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Stopping Obamacare would do what, take away insurance to millions of people? Or would they get to keep coverage while they figure out how to replace it?


Ocoka One said:


> Another investigation into Hillary might be unwise. It would be seen as kicking a dog when it's down. Her dream of power has been crushed yet again and further persecution would smack of retaliation at a time when conciliation is needed. (Incidentally, I think Obama will pardon her). I would also hope that Trump rises to the occasion and presents a more dignified front as befitting the office. It would also help if he becomes more circumspect before opening his mouth.
> 
> Other than that, after eight years of what I consider wimpy leadership, I'm hopeful he will restore respect for America's strength as Reagan did post-Carter.



Does she have to be indicted to receive a pardon? Do pardon's have to be specific to a crime?


----------



## Gunz (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Stopping Obamacare would do what, take away insurance to millions of people? Or would they get to keep coverage while they figure out how to replace it?
> 
> 
> Does she have to be indicted to receive a pardon? Do pardon's have to be specific to a crime?



I was mistaken in my assumption that she'd even be eligible for a Presidential pardon. Pardons are for people convicted of federal crimes. She hasn't been convicted of any so a pardon wouldn't enter the equation. And a person can't be pardoned in advance for a conviction that hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Trump won and I accept his presidency.  My first concern is his cabinet: who is he going to appoint to senior positions?  I haven't heard any definitive answers, but speculation is that New Gingrich is going to be tapped for SoS (ugh), Giuliani for AG (less ugh), Jeff Sessions for SECDEF (okay), some random Goldman Sachs guy for treasury (sure), Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil for Interior (okay).  I also heard that Sarah fucking Palin was being considered for Interior, which would be pants-on-head stupid, but it's still just a rumor.
> 
> I'll post some more stuff about policy issues later.



I could see Palin at Interior, theoretically.  From being governor of Alaska I think she would have a pretty good read on that, she understands how the states and NPS/Interior collaborate.  I do not get warm fuzzies on Gingrich for SoS, but I could see Giuliani for AG.  I COULD see Gingrich for Chief of Staff.  I think Trump's picks for cabinet and SCOTUS are extraordinarily important, and if he could appoint some good and knowledgeable SMEs that are democrats that would go a long way in assuaging some fears.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'd like to see him burn the VA to the ground and turn that bucket of fail around. It won't be overnight, but something has to change. I'd like to see him repeal NAFTA and the TPP. I'd like to see him curtail the H1B visa program, especially where IT is concerned. I'd like to see him call Iraq/ Syria for what it is and stop this childish "no boots on the ground" shit or ignoring those pesky self-described "lines in the sand." Obviously I'd like to see him tell Pakistan to eat a dick and tell the Afghans we wish them luck in their future endeavors.
> 
> All-in-all, I want to see the economy improve. We can talk about war and social injustice, but if the economy's strong people can roll with a lot of crap. Does it make it right? Probably not, but I think some of our problems will naturally self-correct if the economy's strong.
> 
> Also, deport Blair Walsh and ban Nickelback. Fuck those guys.



I was onboard until you went "Democrat" on the greatest musical sensation since Spinal Tap.

All the SESes at the VA should go through a Hunger Games-esque job retention format. Those that don't make the cut be hit with gross negligence "charges" from HR so we will never see them again within the USG.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I was mistaken in my assumption that she'd even be eligible for a Presidential pardon. Pardons are for people convicted of federal crimes. She hasn't been convicted of any so a pardon wouldn't enter the equation. And a person can't be pardoned in advance for a conviction that hasn't happened yet.



Apparently the law stipulates that POTUS can issue pardons pre-indictment.  In Murphy vs. Ford (1975) , a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland (1867) in its support.

No, I am not even good enough to be a sea lawyer...I just googled it :)


----------



## Gunz (Nov 10, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Apparently the law stipulates that POTUS can issue pardons pre-indictment.  In Murphy vs. Ford (1975) , a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland (1867) in its support.
> 
> No, I am not even good enough to be a sea lawyer...I just googled it :)




My google-fu lacks your Dragon Power but my Tiger Strength is strong when the moon is full.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 10, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I could see Palin at Interior, theoretically.  From being governor of Alaska I think she would have a pretty good read on that, she understands how the states and NPS/Interior collaborate.  I do not get warm fuzzies on Gingrich for SoS, but I could see Giuliani for AG.  I COULD see Gingrich for Chief of Staff.  I think Trump's picks for cabinet and SCOTUS are extraordinarily important, and if he could appoint some good and knowledgeable SMEs that are democrats that would go a long way in assuaging some fears.


This is a good point that I hadn't considered.  Palin could conceivably do well in a non-public cabinet position.  I'd prefer a conservationist, but as the former governor of a state like Alaska, she might just be fit for the Interior position.  Agree on Gingrich for CoS as well.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I was mistaken in my assumption that she'd even be eligible for a Presidential pardon. Pardons are for people convicted of federal crimes. She hasn't been convicted of any so a pardon wouldn't enter the equation. And a person can't be pardoned in advance for a conviction that hasn't happened yet.



Nixon wasn't convicted either. I think that "pre-pardoning" her looks like partisan cronyism, but there is a precedent for doing so.


----------



## Etype (Nov 10, 2016)

I'd like to see the rebuilding of the military NOT center around increasing manpower.

eta- and not involve a new camouflage pattern.


----------



## CQB (Nov 10, 2016)

There is always a division between what an elected official says to gain office and what they do once there. I see no reason that this will be any different. The news this morning was he had a longer than usual meeting with POTUS my feeling is he'll be engaged with the issues, he may not get all he wants but what pollie does?


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 10, 2016)

CQB said:


> There is always a division between what an elected official says to gain office and what they do once there. I see no reason that this will be any different. The news this morning was he had a longer than usual meeting with POTUS my feeling is he'll be engaged with the issues, he may not get all he wants but what pollie does?



Yeah and he's already deleted a bunch of the contentious issues off of his site.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2016)

Not necessarily a Trump administration request but a Congressional one, I'd like to see Congress pass a law banning Executive Orders and for Trump to sign it.  Doing so gets us back closer to the spirit of the Constitution and may help remove some of the jackassery in DC.  However, doing so would require a spine and I'm not sure we're there yet.

I'd also like to see the start of an IRS and federal tax overhaul as well as the beginnings of repeal/rework of the abomination known as Obamacare.

Would also like to see open arms extended to our long-time allies and begin patching up all the Obama miscues there when it comes to foreign policy; Israel comes to top of mind.

What I _don't_ want to see is any bullshit legislation or even discussion around social issues; ie gay marriage, drug legalization, etc.

That'd be a hell of a good start in the first 90 days.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> What I _don't_ want to see is any bullshit legislation or even discussion around social issues; ie gay marriage, drug legalization, etc.



I am as conservative as they come, but spot on.  They (Republicans) need to move on.  If he can fix taxes, infrastructure, these other issues, and the things that matter to everyone, he can be successful.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is a good point that I hadn't considered.  Palin could conceivably do well in a non-public cabinet position.  I'd prefer a conservationist, but as the former governor of a state like Alaska, she might just be fit for the Interior position.  Agree on Gingrich for CoS as well.


My view is that he'd be better off moving away from "establishment" personnel in high profile/high visibility roles.

I'll also walk back my comment on social issues one step.  The only acceptable action I'd like to see is a statement from that the government is now out of the marriage business; that it's now entirely a religious issue and the government doesn't give a shit whether you're married.  It then kills that discussion and simply becomes an individual tax issue where martial status is not a factor.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 10, 2016)

I hope he takes government out of marriage in his first 90 days.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> I hope he takes government out of marriage in his first 90 days.





Blizzard said:


> My view is that he'd be better off moving away from "establishment" personnel in high profile/high visibility roles.
> 
> I'll also walk back my comment on social issues one step.  The only acceptable action I'd like to see is a statement from that the government is now out of the marriage business; that it's now entirely a religious issue and the government doesn't give a shit whether you're married.  It then kills that discussion and simply becomes an individual tax issue where martial status is not a factor.



So would he take tax privileges for marriage out of the equation as well? Would only those with religiously approved marriages be eligible for tax breaks? What about people who aren't religious? Can they not get married? Do you not see the holes in your own position?


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> Not necessarily a Trump administration request but a Congressional one, I'd like to see Congress pass a law banning Executive Orders and for Trump to sign it.  Doing so gets us back closer to the spirit of the Constitution and may help remove some of the jackassery in DC.  However, doing so would require a spine and I'm not sure we're there yet.
> 
> I'd also like to see the start of an IRS and federal tax overhaul as well as the beginnings of repeal/rework of the abomination known as Obamacare.



Strongly disagree on the EO because they are designed to be a tool of running the Executive Branch but they have recently ran afoul by overreach, something SCOTUS can check or balance.

Very much agree on draining the swamp at the IRS to the extent of really looking at Lerner and whether she broke the law. All onboard on fixing Obamacare: costs, to individuals and collective tax payers, are way too high.


----------



## DC (Nov 10, 2016)

REMOVE ISIS/DAESH AND ITS ILK FROM THIS PLANET THEN:

1. R/R Obamacare
2. Trash TPP
3. R/R NAFTA to include building of a "wall"(detection technology, CCTV, ETC.) AND Mexico pitching in financially or NAFTA terminated
4. Bipartisianship throughout the government
5. Tax reform for businesses to function and return to the US
6. Tax reform and re write IRS tax codes


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Strongly disagree on the EO because they are designed to be a tool of running the Executive Branch but they have recently ran afoul by overreach, something SCOTUS can check or balance.
> 
> Very much agree on draining the swamp at the IRS to the extent of really looking at Lerner and whether she broke the law. All onboard on fixing Obamacare: costs, to individuals and collective tax payers, are way too high.



Fixing vs repealing are different, I would like to see it fixed without removing many of the new protections afforded. I'd prefer to keep the people under insurance insured, pre-existing conditions covered, keeping the age under parents to 26. Of course I'd like it to be cheaper, I would like healthcare costs to be cheaper as well.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So would he take tax privileges for marriage out of the equation as well? Would only those with religiously approved marriages be eligible for tax breaks? What about people who aren't religious? Can they not get married? Do you not see the holes in your own position?


Yes, we tax individuals, not martial statuses.  The government gets out of the business entirely.  Why should the government care if someone is married or not?  The only reason to do is for tax purposes.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

I'd also like to point out, once more, manufacturing isn't coming back to America.  It has never left, it has just been automated to a point that factories run with hundreds of employees rather than thousands.

I'd like to see Trump encourage people from manufacturing to explore options in emerging service industries...


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Fixing vs repealing are different, I would like to see it fixed without removing many of the new protections afforded. I'd prefer to keep the people under insurance insured, pre-existing conditions covered, keeping the age under parents to 26. Of course I'd like it to be cheaper, I would like healthcare costs to be cheaper as well.



That honestly would be a great way to bring both Clinton and Sanders camps together. I'll go further: fine the shit out of CGI and make that org pay for it! Republicans would back that too!

In 140 characters, I just solved domestic policy and united a fractured country.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> Yes, we tax individuals, not martial statuses.  The government gets out of the business entirely.  Why should they care if someone is married or not?  The only reason they do is for tax purposes.



Ok, so marriage is only a religious thing? Weird, for me and many other atheist types that are married. It is also strange that marriage co-dates or even pre-dates the Judeo- Christian belief system. But yeah totally a religious thing.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'd also like to point out, once more, manufacturing isn't coming back to America.  It has never left, it has just been automated to a point that factories run with hundreds of employees rather than thousands.
> 
> I'd like to see Trump encourage people from manufacturing to explore options in emerging service industries...



Ford did that very thing.

Ford to move all small-car production to Mexico from US


----------



## Gunz (Nov 10, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I could see Palin at Interior, theoretically.  From being governor of Alaska I think she would have a pretty good read on that, she understands how the states and NPS/Interior collaborate.  I do not get warm fuzzies on Gingrich for SoS, but I could see Giuliani for AG.  I COULD see Gingrich for Chief of Staff.  I think Trump's picks for cabinet and SCOTUS are extraordinarily important, and if he could appoint some good and knowledgeable SMEs that are democrats that would go a long way in assuaging some fears.



Agree, especially about Giuliani. He was an amazing US Attorney for Southern NY, led the charge in the successful prosecution of Mafia leaders and as Mayor of NYC is credited with significantly lowering the crime rate.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Ford did that very thing.
> 
> Ford to move all small-car production to Mexico from US



America leads the world in value of manufactured goods. America is projected to lead the world in total products manufactured by 2020. 

At worst we were number 2 in the world by.5 percent? Automation hurts jobs as much as globalization.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> America is projected to lead the world in total products manufactured by 2020.



Pffft...Trump's China policy will advance that shit but 24 months!

You REALLY have no idea how much it pisses me off when you're right.

The Facts About Modern Manufacturing | MAPI


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 10, 2016)

Anyone want to get in on the ground floor and help Make America Great Again?

Help Wanted: 4,000 Presidential Appointees


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Strongly disagree on the EO because they are designed to be a tool of running the Executive Branch but they have recently ran afoul by overreach, something SCOTUS can check or balance.


SCOTUS has already weighed in on them numerous times; almost always taking the side that allows them to stand.

The fact is that "the privilege" (more on that below) of EOs are now so overly used they've reached the point of abuse; and it's abuse well pre-dates our current President.

A little historical reference:
George Washington EO's

And check this chart out:
Here's every presidential executive order going back to George Washington

My view is that EO's generally stand in the face of the spirit of the Constitution.

Further, despite SCOTUS rulings upholding their use, there is nothing specifically in the Constitution that grants this privilege.   Article II, Section I states , "_*The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.*_ He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..."  But, in my view, that's a step back from allowing EO's in the way we see them today.  It's somewhat ambiguous as to what that actually does mean, especially in the context of the sentences that follow.

This viewpoint probably makes me some sort of crack pot but, oh well, I can live with that.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> SCOTUS has already weighed in on them numerous times; usually taking the side that allows them to stand.
> 
> The fact is that "the privilege" (more on that below) of EOs has become very abused; and it's abuse well pre-dates our current President.
> 
> ...



I think your view makes you out to be informed.

I agree that when EOs affect citizens, they (for me) generally cross the line into lawmaking reserved for Congress and the states but the Presidents need the ability to run/manage their branch effectively without a need to negotiate with Congress for everything. I like the EOs for DOD and other agencies but when he steps over to immigration, labor practices, land grabs, his Solicitor General should be standing before the Court explaining why the President is acting like a king.  An additional check, is the general election which recently CLEARLY demonstrated President Obama has deviated from the comfort zone of Joe Sixpack.

Barack Obama Executive Orders Subjects


----------



## DC (Nov 10, 2016)

Made in USA assembled in Mexico is a common tag line for Ford, Chrysler and GM. My GMC allegedly was assembled in Indiana per the body tag. My Dodge(POS) was assembled in Mexico.

Aerospace on the other hand is the opposite. Parts and assemblies are manufactured and/or assembled OCONUS. Back in the day it was all done here.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

Symbolic of recent events?

Eagle rescued after being stuck in storm drain in Orange County


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 10, 2016)

I'd like to see exactly what Trump put in his first 100 days outline. Ram it down their throats quick fast and in a hurry. About like how Obamacare was done in the beginning of his administration.  The Term limits ammendment would probably be the one best thing a Trump administration could do. Everything else would be awesome,  but term limits for Congress, would change politics forever.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I'd like to see exactly what Trump put in his first 100 days outline. Ram it down their throats quick fast and in a hurry. About like how Obamacare was done in the beginning of his administration.  The Term limits ammendment would probably be the one best thing a Trump administration could do. Everything else would be awesome,  but term limits for Congress, would change politics forever.



So you think a republican senate and congress are going to vote to impose term limits on themselves? All the lolz


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So you think a republican senate and congress are going to vote to impose term limits on themselves? All the lolz



No, I think it would be impossible for either party to pass. But I think push, when they refuse, get on prime time and point it out to the American people and call for a states convention. Get the states together,  with the current mood (obvious through the election) they could pass it without congress/senate...and boom, career fuck nuggets are done...from both parties.


----------



## DC (Nov 10, 2016)

Here is Donald Trump's plan for his first 100 days - Vox
Here is Donald Trump's plan for his first 100 days

Looks good. Hope they can do it.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 10, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> No, I think it would be impossible for either party to pass. But I think push, when they refuse, get on prime time and point it out to the American people and call for a states convention. Get the states together,  with the current mood (obvious through the election) they could pass it without congress/senate...and boom, career fuck nuggets are done...from both parties.



As much as I like the idea there's no way career politicians (writ large) are going to pull the e brake on their gravy train.  Especially if there's any threat of swift repercussion.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 10, 2016)

[QU


----------



## Grunt (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So you think a republican senate and congress are going to vote to impose term limits on themselves? All the lolz



They will grandfather themselves in with a 15 or 20 year grace period before it will take effect.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 10, 2016)

'


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 10, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Grunt (Nov 10, 2016)

I'm just looking forward to having a nice balanced budget....

Maybe...hopefully....:-"


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 10, 2016)

Alrighty!

So, here is what I would like to see-

- The election is over. I'd like to see "Presidential" behavior. Prove to me that the election was what you needed to do, but not who you are. I would love to come back after 100 days and say, "I felt like electing him was a mistake but now I think I need to reconsider that."
- Hard looks/revision/maybe outright withdrawal from TPP/NAFTA (I am only soft on this because I don't think I know enough about how much these policies hurt American trade and economy. Anyone with an "Idiots Guide to Geotrade" I would appreciate it)
- Agree with @Etype on the mil restructuring. It's obvious we aren't gonna get "more", so let's make us more efficient. Whether that answer comes in the form of "not as many people in as many places" or "leverage technology" or whatever buzzword I am supposed to use, great.
- Agree w @Freefalling about the VA. Burn it to the damn ground. Steps toward a more affordable, actually usable healthcare is important to me too, however, I don't know how realistic that is inside of 3 months. 

Even with a Republican House/Senate, the first 100 days are going to be gone before we know it. But progress, greatness, and a return to prosperity is what I was promised. I would like some tangible steps toward that.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 10, 2016)

No one is in TPP at the moment it didn't pass Congress IIRC. So there's nothing to withdraw from.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 11, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> No one is in TPP at the moment it didn't pass Congress IIRC. So there's nothing to withdraw from.


Noted, I misspoke there. 


I grouped it poorly; I would like a "hard look" about TPP, and up to a full withdrawal from NAFTA. I communicated that one in a confusing way. 

I don't like the TPP deal (again, only what I have read and I am no expert) and seeing as I am not an economist, I can't say the NAFTA shouldn't be revisited either.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

I don't know enough about these deals(NAFTA, TPP). I don't think anyone here, or most of those that voted either way do either.

No, Mr. Trump, NAFTA Was Not a 'Bad Deal'


----------



## Dienekes (Nov 11, 2016)

From what I've read, the main issues with the TPP have very little to do with the US losing jobs. It sure doesn't create any or increase our GDP much because the majority of US manufacturing deals in capital goods, but the TPP (from what I read) deals with a majority of textiles and other things we don't manufacture here anyway less expensive so the economics gain is on the side of the consumers. Where it falls extremely short is the liability that governments incur from foreign firms and investors as described here: Tricks of the Trade Deal: Six Big Problems with the Trans-Pacific Partnership - Roosevelt Institute



TLDR20 said:


> It has never left, it has just been automated to a point that factories run with hundreds of employees rather than thousands.
> 
> I'd like to see Trump encourage people from manufacturing to explore options in emerging service industries...
> 
> America leads the world in value of manufactured goods.



Expecially considering large amount of the economy that the service industry takes up.

The problem is the lack of resources encouraging fluidity in the labor market and the lack of people willing to use those resources to retrain into other careers. My dad for example can fix anything: heavy Caterpillar tractors, vehicles, HVAC, saw mills, and manufacture some other things he needs limited only by equipment. Because he couldn't afford to pay people to come out to the job site to fix it, he had to teach himself to put food on the table which means I'll probably never know 1/4 of the stuff he knows. However at 48, were the logging industry to eventually become automated, he would be absolutely screwed. Despite his robust accumulated knowledge, he couldn't find a job doing any of those things because of occupational licensing and other BS. This is very common for many of his friends too, and starting at the entry level in a new career for someone who spent most of his life busting his ass is very difficult for many men to handle so they simply don't try. I've seen it with his buddies that have been laid off from high-paying oil jobs in the past year.

I would absoultely love to see resources similar to veteran transition resources that teach people how to leverage their knowledge on a resume and reduce the stigma of starting over. Mike Rowe might be a hell of a person to tap for this to establish public support.



lindy said:


> The Facts About Modern Manufacturing | MAPI



From, lindy's link. This is the real problem affecting US manufacturing jobs.



> *American students are falling behind in math and science.* U.S. manufacturers are increasingly challenged to find workers suitably skilled in math and science. No wonder: the latest international assessment of high school students finds American 15-year-olds below the international average in math literacy and just slightly above the average in science literacy. German, Canadian, Japanese, and British youth all rank ahead of their American counterparts in these areas. Policymakers at all levels need to focus on strategies to improve our math and science capabilities.



STEM majors, specifically engineering from personal experience, have a much higher make up of international students than people think. I was certainly surprised to see the number in my program at a relatively regional school in Louisiana of all places so I can imagine how it is elsewhere in the country. 

What needs to happen economically is an overhaul of the dang corporate system. Transfer pricing for example. A firm with plants in multiple countries can "sell" each plant different parts of the whole to affect where it is taxed, thus, shifting the tax revenue to the lowest taxing country meaning the US is getting shafted in revenue. Don't forget the ridiculous regulations that allow a company to state the country of origin despite having a low percentage actually made there. Example:Top 10 Most American Trucks.

Unions are also just awful trade, jobs, and passing costs on to consumers. I was utterly amazed to discover that a Teamster at a company I had an internship at made no shit $70/hour to drive a truck and occasionally operate a forklift. They could have had two truck drivers and a forklift operator for that price. Not to mention, I was reprimanded simply for giving a thumbs up to the forklift operator that the forks were all the way under a pallet because the union workers were busy doing other things so I figured I would be helpful, but no "that's a union job". Speaking to other engineering students/oil and gas workers, unions commonly affect production for a myriad reasons, and union workers are almost impossible to fire.

Stuff like this and so many other stupid regulations that can and hopefully will be reduced by someone with Trump's business acumen would go a long way toward strengthening the economy. Better trade agreements are great, but there is a great saying about removing the beam from your own eye before you attempt to remove the splinter from someone else's. Sorry about the soapbox. I'm by no means an economist, but I do find economics absolutely fascinating.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So would he take tax privileges for marriage out of the equation as well? Would only those with religiously approved marriages be eligible for tax breaks? What about people who aren't religious? Can they not get married? Do you not see the holes in your own position?



I think you are reading too deep into my high level statement.  I don't believe the Government should be handing out marriage licenses. Who you want to marry sex wise shouldn't be up to the Government to decide. Why you should have to pay the Government money to get married is ridiculous .


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

A national Constitutional carry would be nice but only via a rider of some sort as an EO could be nullified like Clinton did of Reagan's (forgot which one).


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> I think you are reading too deep into my high level statement.  I don't believe the Government should be handing out marriage licenses. Who you want to marry sex wise shouldn't be up to the Government to decide. Why you should have to pay the Government money to get married is ridiculous .



Ok. Fair enough I may be. But Blizzard did say marriage should be up solely up to religion. That is why I quoted both of you.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Ok. Fair enough I may be. But Blizzard did say marriage should be up solely up to religion. That is why I quoted both of you.


If so, then I wasn't clear and my statement missed the point.  The real point was government has no business in marriage.

What marriage is and/or looks like is largely a religous decision for most but that doesn't mean or require a person be religious; that wasn't really my point.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

Looks like he will be at a trial in his first 100 days.

Trump’s lawyers seek to delay fraud case — until after he is sworn into office


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Looks like he will be at a trial in his first 100 days.
> 
> Trump’s lawyers seek to delay fraud case — until after he is sworn into office



Maybe he could carpool with the Clinton's .


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 11, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> As much as I like the idea there's no way career politicians (writ large) are going to pull the e brake on their gravy train.  Especially if there's any threat of swift repercussion.



But with the current mood of the nation, do you think the state governments would vote in a states convention for a term limit amendment? I think if Trump puts it forward and the congress/senate hold it up, sit on it or simply vote it out. All he would have to do, is get on all the cable networks and make the case of how corrupt these career politicians are, and how he is trying to fix it and how they are stonewalling him, and call on the states to move forward with an ammendment. It doesn't have to be drastic, give them 3 terms to a office (i.e. 3 terms as a congressman, 3 terms as a senator, etc). 

I also love the 5 year restrictions from working as a lobbyists after leaving government. 

I would even say that a term limit for supreme court justices would be a good idea. Say 10 year terms, with a maximum of two terms. That way there is no more freak out about the government going down the shitter due to left/right leaning justices. Take the politics out of the court system.

I'd also like to see the ability given to the the congress to impeach or more or less fire an attorney general, when it's obvious that it needs to happen.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 11, 2016)

RE: NAFTA, both Canada and Mexico are willing to renegotiate.  I don't know if it is out of fear/concern or an olive branch to work with Trump, but in any case it is telling that both came out the day after the election to support tweaking it.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 11, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> RE: NAFTA, both Canada and Mexico are willing to renegotiate.  I don't know if it is out of fear/concern or an olive branch to work with Trump, but in any case it is telling that both came out the day after the election to support tweaking it.



No matter how much of a dunce Trudeau is, he understands that the US and Canada have the largest trading partnership in the World.  And if he's not on board for changes, we'll be left in the dust.  Especially since his carbon tax will hurt us, since Trump has no plans for such stupidity.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 11, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> But with the current mood of the nation, do you think the state governments would vote in a states convention for a term limit amendment? I think if Trump puts it forward and the congress/senate hold it up, sit on it or simply vote it out. All he would have to do, is get on all the cable networks and make the case of how corrupt these career politicians are, and how he is trying to fix it and how they are stonewalling him, and call on the states to move forward with an ammendment. It doesn't have to be drastic, give them 3 terms to a office (i.e. 3 terms as a congressman, 3 terms as a senator, etc).
> 
> I also love the 5 year restrictions from working as a lobbyists after leaving government.
> 
> ...



While I think the "mood of the nation" is heading in the right direction I think it is insufficient to overcome the current politician structure. Both parties are currently built on this system and you would have to fight their combined effort to accomplish this. This is their lifeblood and they will fight with everything they have. 

I think Trump would waste all the gas in his tank and wouldn't be able to accomplish anything (and would burn almost all political capital for other issues doing so). That said if the idea were pushed by a more grassroots outside movement (Libertarian party kind of comes to mind... not sure if they would, but someone like that), they could use the momentum to push the issue forward. I doubt you'd see anything during the next administration, but you could put the idea firmly in people's heads, start asking very direct questions, and set the conditions for an actual push for term limits at a later date. 

It's like gun control. If the Brady Bunch push for AWB rightfuckingnow, they get thrown out the door. Incremental change is more palatable (on both issues).


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 11, 2016)

Looks like Trump is not the only one with 90 day plans....

Mayor: Database of undocumented New Yorkers could be deleted - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Etype (Nov 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Looks like Trump is not the only one with 90 day plans....
> 
> Mayor: Database of undocumented New Yorkers could be deleted - CNNPolitics.com


I hope they use BleachBit or CCleaner.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 11, 2016)

Some more names for top spots.....

Trump's Cabinet: Speculation mounts over president-elect's team


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 11, 2016)

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rick Perry in Trump's administration.  He is super strong on the getting businesses into the states, getting job growth and huge on the border security and immigration issues.


----------



## Etype (Nov 11, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to see Rick Perry in Trump's administration.  He is super strong on the getting businesses into the states, getting job growth and huge on the border security and immigration issues.


But he seems like such a dope. I'm sure he's a clever guy, but to me, he doesn't convey it well.


----------



## Ex3 (Nov 11, 2016)

So much for being an outsider. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/u...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share


----------



## reed11b (Nov 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is a good point that I hadn't considered.  Palin could conceivably do well in a non-public cabinet position.  I'd prefer a conservationist, but as the former governor of a state like Alaska, she might just be fit for the Interior position.  Agree on Gingrich for CoS as well.


Most of us from Alaska are not impressed with the leadership qualities of Sarah "quitter" Palin.
Reed


----------



## reed11b (Nov 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> I'd like to see the rebuilding of the military NOT center around increasing manpower.
> 
> eta- and not involve a new camouflage pattern.


Or new Gee-Wiz billion dollar toys. How about properly funded and prioritized training? My impression of Trump is that we are getting lots of expensive toys however.


----------



## compforce (Nov 12, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> No one is in TPP at the moment it didn't pass Congress IIRC. So there's nothing to withdraw from.



TPP hasn't been voted on yet.  TPA passed, giving the President the right to force a straight up/down vote without amendments on trade related agreements. TPP and TTIP are still on the table.



> No, Mr. Trump, NAFTA Was Not a 'Bad Deal'


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435009/donald-trump-nafta-free-trade-wrong

Yes, (IMO) it is...  Let me tell you why... NAFTA allows trade between Canada, Mexico and the US without import/export tariffs.  It also increased the number of work visas allocated to each of the countries.  That move enables a company to move its operations (and the associated jobs) to the country with the lowest taxes.  The US has a 38.9% corporate tax rate, Mexico has a 30% rate and Canada has a 26.5% rate.  While Canada has the lowest corporate tax rate, it also has the second highest currency value behind the US.  So where do you think the big corporations are moving their plants and other non-HQ operations?  They're creating subsidiary companies and doing 95% of the manufacturing under the non-US company.  Then the final manufacturing plant (actually an assembly plant) buys the parts from the non-US company at a rate that allows them to shift most of their profits out of the country tax-free in the US.

What does that really mean?  Let's think about Ford's new plant in Mexico.  They buy the raw materials from suppliers at a greatly reduced rate due to their volume and favorable currency exchange rates.  Then they use their plants in Mexico to do the assembly, meaning that any related manufacturing jobs are now Mexican workers rather than US workers (Nationality, not ethnicity).  So the Mexican government collects all of the income tax from those workers rather than the US.  All of the money spent by those workers into the economy goes into the Mexican economy rather than the US economy including any associated sales taxes.  Meanwhile the marketing organization already exists in the US and other countries.  Ignore the other countries and let's focus on the US.  The headquarters is 'technically' making the sales so all the REVENUE exists in the US, but then they turn around, skim the cost of global and headquarters operations off the top and use the rest to buy the cars from the Mexican subsidiary, leaving them with only cash that they keep for future projects and reserves as taxable corporate income. 

Because the market (and output) is gauged on revenue, it shows a strong manufacturing sector when the reality is that all of the profits are residing in another country, all of the workers contributions to the economy go to the other countries and all of the corporate tax is paid to the country with the best exchange/tax rate ratio, which is NOT the US.  We're the highest tax rate in the world and one of the strongest currencies (thanks to our reserve currency status).  Who would ever manufacture here when these types of trade agreements exist?  Hell, I'm sitting here looking at my Green Beret Foundation ball cap and it was made in Viet Nam...

This is the scenario for almost all of the major manufacturers in the US.  There's another leg that we could get into that is available to global companies until 2020 with the "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich" dodge that has been used for a long time.  That one gets a bit complicated, so if you want to read about it:  The 'Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich' Corporate Tax-Dodge Crisis | The Huffington Post  But right now we're talking about NAFTA. 

Yes, NAFTA increased the REVENUE to the US bolstering the manufacturing numbers, but it is a false economy because the profits, jobs and taxes all go to Mexico.


----------



## Etype (Nov 12, 2016)

reed11b said:


> Or new Gee-Wiz billion dollar toys. How about properly funded and prioritized training? My impression of Trump is that we are getting lots of expensive toys however.


Unfortunately, I think most civilian leadership thinks greater manpower and wiz-bang toys are what the military needs.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 12, 2016)

Here's a start....


----------



## Brill (Nov 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> Unfortunately, I think most civilian leadership thinks greater manpower and wiz-bang toys are what the military needs.



Karl Gustav for SECDEF!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 12, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 12, 2016)

Sarah Palin is hot (in a weird your buddies hot mom kinda way), but she is about as nutty as a jar of peanut butter.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 12, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Here's a start....


Where do you get these wonderful cartoons!?

Last couple of days has been pretty normal for any other presidential election winner- walking back his more aggressive promises, deleting them from his website, softening on Obamacare and prosecuting Hillary.

Maybe he didn't mean _drain _the swamp, maybe Pres Elect Trump meant _replace some of the water _in the swamp?

ETA- You drain a swamp, not a swam.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 12, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Where do you get these wonderful cartoons!?



Patriot Post

Looks like President-elect Trump is graduating to grown up food....


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 12, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Where do you get these wonderful cartoons!?
> 
> Last couple of days has been pretty normal for any other presidential election winner- walking back his more aggressive promises, deleting them from his website, softening on Obamacare and prosecuting Hillary.
> 
> ...



In the Trump administration, the swam drain YOU.  ;)


----------



## Snake (Nov 12, 2016)

Have y'all seen his 100 day plan?
Sign the Contract
I specifically like term limits, lobbyist rules, no funding to illegal immigrant cities, temporarily suspending terrorist country immigration, the offshore act, and new tariffs.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

These types of stories absolutely fascinate me. 

President-elect Donald Trump is about to learn the nation’s ‘deep secrets’


----------



## Gunz (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> These types of stories absolutely fascinate me.
> 
> President-elect Donald Trump is about to learn the nation’s ‘deep secrets’




The Donald...with the nuclear strike package. ...


----------



## reed11b (Nov 13, 2016)

I am NOT happy with his selections for administration and staff picks. Has there been any that don't have a history of hateful anti-lgbt comments?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 14, 2016)

Trump's first action after being sworn in will be an executive order banning the sale of pre-shredded cheese, to make America grate again.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 14, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Trump's first action after being sworn in will be an executive order banning the sale of pre-shredded cheese, to make America grate again.



Thirty days mess duty for that one.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 14, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Trump's first action after being sworn in will be an executive order banning the sale of pre-shredded cheese, to make America grate again.



"Hate" only because I don't have a drum for a rim-shot.....


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2016)

Anyone have anything good to say about the decision to bring on Bannon? 

I thought he would surround himself with "good"/"qualified" people.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Anyone have anything good to say about the decision to bring on Bannon?
> 
> I thought he would surround himself with "good"/"qualified" people.



I really don't know who he is. Apparently the media is calling him a white nationalist, whatever the hell that means. Is that some kind of white supremacy thing, or that he is white and a nationalist?

The media outlet he was running (Breit Bart?) always came off as click bait too me. But other than that, I can't really comment with any knowledge, other than obviously I don't support a white supremacist in the Trump administration, if that is in fact what he is.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Anyone have anything good to say about the decision to bring on Bannon?
> 
> I thought he would surround himself with "good"/"qualified" people.



I'm not very happy with his choices so far, but he has a lot of cabinet picks left to go.


----------



## reed11b (Nov 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm not very happy with his choices so far, but he has a lot of cabinet picks left to go.


What about Giuliani? I could see him as being an ok pick...maybe.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2016)

reed11b said:


> What about Giuliani? I could see him as being an ok pick...maybe.



You know brother, there is something about that man that I have never liked. The only problem is...I can't tell you what it is...if I tried, I would have to make it up, but personal feelings aside, I just don't see him as SoS. Again, not really sure why!


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2016)




----------



## Dienekes (Nov 14, 2016)

I was really pissed initially that his first pick was as insider as it gets with the RNC chairman, but I read on to the justification, and it did make a lot of sense. Trump is fairly on the outside and likely has little Congressional pull outside of appealing to the media, populism, and his new pulpit. In light of that, bringing in a super insider like Preibus to advance his Congressional agenda does make a lot of sense. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's immediately giving in to insiders as much as he is positioning himself to benefit from their connections. At least, that's how I'm rationalizing it right now. Whether thats how it will shake out remains to be seen. Regarding Bannon, "supposedly" Trump likes to have opposite spectrum advisors below him to battle it out and find the best option. That also shall remain to be seen.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> I was really pissed initially that his first pick was as insider as it gets with the RNC chairman, but I read on to the justification, and it did make a lot of sense. Trump is fairly on the outside and likely has little Congressional pull outside of appealing to the media, populism, and his new pulpit. In light of that, bringing in a super insider like Preibus to advance his Congressional agenda does make a lot of sense. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's immediately giving in to insiders as much as he is positioning himself to benefit from their connections. At least, that's how I'm rationalizing it right now. Whether thats how it will shake out remains to be seen. Regarding Bannon, "supposedly" Trump likes to have opposite spectrum advisors below him to battle it out and find the best option. That also shall remain to be seen.



I want to believe this and it ties in with my earlier post. I think the RNC is rudderless so Preibus appears to be the wrong guy for the job. Of course, Tom Coughlin was considered  garbage by the Jaguars and went on to win a Super Bowl or two. Maybe he was the right guy in the wrong place. Bannon and Breitbart? I can't stand Breitbart. Maybe he found the right guys for the job, but I'll remain skeptical until they start producing.


----------



## Dienekes (Nov 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I want to believe this and it ties in with my earlier post. I think the RNC is rudderless so Preibus appears to be the wrong guy for the job. Of course, Tom Coughlin was considered  garbage by the Jaguars and went on to win a Super Bowl or two. Maybe he was the right guy in the wrong place. Bannon and Breitbart? I can't stand Breitbart. Maybe he found the right guys for the job, but I'll remain skeptical until they start producing.



I don't know much about either one, and those particular selections could very well end up sucking more dick than a crackwhore behind a truck stop, especially given your points about the current state of the GOP. I just think his rationale behind Preibus is a little more thought out than a lot of people are giving him credit for. Breitbart founder? I think he could have done way better, but I just figure he wants to maintain a high-profilish outsider type to assuage his base of the electorate while hearing from polar opposites of the conservative spectrum. If I may speculate, he probably met him during his time at Goldman Sachs. I doubt it would take too much digging to find their connection.


----------



## Etype (Nov 15, 2016)

reed11b said:


> What about Giuliani? I could see him as being an ok pick...maybe.


An ok pick for a progressive. He's definitely not a conservative.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 16, 2016)

I've been Googling and coming up with zero so far - trying to determine if the perceived shit show that his transition team is broadcasting is normal, or a precursor of what's to come.

To add - typical CEO - delegate and follow up.  Example:  Putting VP in charge of running transition


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 16, 2016)




----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 16, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> View attachment 17199



Saw that on Facebook this morning, I laughed pretty damn hard!


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 16, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> if the perceived shit show that his transition team is broadcasting



Who exactly is doing to broadcasting?  I'll admit I haven't followed this with a microscope, but the press has put a bullseye on him ever since he exposed them for the clowns that they are... and they do quite a bit of broadcasting.


----------



## CDG (Nov 16, 2016)

I get email updates whenever the Mitchell Institute releases a new report or advisory.  This morning I got one with their recommended immediate actions to "get the Air Force back to a level capable of meeting the nation's security strategy".


Eliminate the defense provisions of the budget control act (BCA) of 2011
Reset USAF combat force structure objectives to a minimum of one combat coded squadron of new bombers per Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) (120 combat coded; 184 total), and seven combat coded squadrons of fighters per AEF (1680 combat coded; 2469 total).
Revitalize America’s aging ICBM nuclear deterrent and command and control force.
Initiate a new build of the “F-22B" with latest sensor, processing, and avionics enhancements—offer sales to Japan, UK, Australia, and Israel to offset starting the production line.
To optimize cost efficiency and recapitalization of our geriatric fighter force increase the USAF production rate of the F-35 from 43 a year in FY17, to 60/yr in FY18, to 100/yr in FY20.
Increase Air Force active duty personnel to numbers commensurate with above force structure changes and other service demands (approx 335,000).


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 17, 2016)

With Canada restarting our fighter replacement program with a competition, I could see us getting behind a fleet of F-22B's instead of the F35 that our current government vowed not to buy during the election.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 17, 2016)

Jim Webb for SECDEF??  I would not be sad...

Commentary: Will Jim Webb be Trump's secretary of Defense?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 17, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Jim Webb for SECDEF??  I would not be sad...
> 
> Commentary: Will Jim Webb be Trump's secretary of Defense?



Webb would be someone to consider, for several reasons. The reach across the isle would be one of them.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 17, 2016)

Webb would be a very smart move on Trump's part...but I'm not yet convinced he will make the smart moves. Giuliani is another guy with loads of street cred.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 17, 2016)

Giuliani has some business dealings that might hamper his confirmation hearings.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-rudy-giuliani.html?_r=0

Some highlights:
-Gave paid speeches to MeK
-Consulted for the Qatari govt.
-Consulted for TransCanada (owner of the Keystone XL pipeline)

While Rudy was never in the same position as Clinton was when she received donations from foreign governments, it seems like you could levvy a lot of the same arguments again Rudy, should his name be put in front of the Senate.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 17, 2016)

Anyone familiar with the good General?

_President-elect Donald Trump offered former military intelligence chief Michael Flynn the job of national security adviser as he began to build out his national security team Thursday, according to a senior Trump official. 

AP source: Trump offers Flynn national security adviser job_


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 18, 2016)

So, Jeff Sessions as AG and Mike Pompeo for CIA.

Sessions has AG creds as Alabama AG, was a US attorney, so he should be good to go.  Also former Army officer; I did not know that.  Pompeo is former Army officer, JD from _Hah-vahd, _but otherwise no intel background.

CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos


----------



## reed11b (Nov 18, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> So, Jeff Sessions as AG and Mike Pompeo for CIA.
> 
> Sessions has AG creds as Alabama AG, was a US attorney, so he should be good to go.  Also former Army officer; I did not know that.  Pompeo is former Army officer, JD from _Hah-vahd, _but otherwise no intel background.
> 
> CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos


Sessions was also only one of two individuals denied a federal judge position by a REPUBLICAN congress due to his on-record racist comments.  
Reed


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 18, 2016)

reed11b said:


> Sessions was also only one of two individuals denied a federal judge position by a REPUBLICAN congress due to his on-record racist comments.
> Reed



I read about that.  I also saw that the denial was politically motivated and the comments taken out of context, though I don't know what the comments were.

Of course, I have no dog in the fight, and base the question if he is qualified solely on his resume.  Whatever remarks he made, if they are still 'big enough' to be an issue, I hope it gets called out in the vetting process.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 18, 2016)

GEN. Mattis may have a home in a Trump administration....

Mattis Could Be Trump’s Defense Secretary

I would love to see him have a part; not sure about SECDEF.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 18, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> GEN. Mattis may have a home in a Trump administration....
> 
> Mattis Could Be Trump’s Defense Secretary
> 
> I would love to see him have a part; not sure about SECDEF.



I would LOVE to see him in charge of the VA.


----------



## reed11b (Nov 18, 2016)

Mattis I would support. Also, Gowdy.
Reed


----------



## Queeg (Nov 18, 2016)

If you only knew the power of the Knife Hand.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 20, 2016)

reed11b said:


> Sessions was also only one of two individuals denied a federal judge position by a REPUBLICAN congress due to his on-record racist comments.
> Reed





Devildoc said:


> I also saw that the denial was politically motivated and the comments taken out of context, though I don't know what the comments were.



I have to disagree with you, Reed.  Let me first open with a little bit of full disclosure: Sen. Sessions is from my hometown, and as an attorney, his name was a rather common one in my household, seeing as my father was an LEO for many years here.  

What does that have to do with anything?  Simple (and @Devildoc, this will answer your question), the comments were a part of gallows humor during a murder investigation.  Specifically, it was the Michael Donald murder (which my father responded to, as it was in his precinct).  Michael Donald was a 19yo black male who was kidnapped and murdered by Henry Hays and Tiger Knowles at the command of Henry's father, Bennie Jack Hays.  Bennie Jack was evil personified, and everyone in the county knew it.  He was also a senior member of Alabama's chapter of United Klan of America.  In fact, this case holds the dubious distinction of being the last lynching of a black man by the KKK in America.  A simple Google search will bring up all of the gory details, although I can give it a little more hometown flavor, but I'll be kind enough to save that for later.  

While certain members of the police department wanted to blame Donald's murder on a drug deal gone wrong, it was believed by the chief and several others that this was a race issue, and the investigation ended in the arrests of the Hayses, Knowles, and one other accomplice.  Since this was, indeed, a race based crime, it was well within the federal government's right to try it, and the convicted parties sentenced to life in prison without parole.  A state trial, however, would obviously be a capital case, with the death penalty on the table.  This required coordination between the DOJ and the DA's office.  While Chris Galanos (another name I was highly familiar with growing up) was the attorney that led the state prosecution of Henry and Bennie Jack, the attorney in charge of coordinating the entire effort between state and feds was one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.  

The end result of the case was that Knowles and Cox were sentenced to life without parole; Henry Hays was sentenced to death, and was executed in 1997; and that crotchety evil fuck Bennie Jack suffered a medical event during his trial.  His getting rolled out of the courtroom on a stretcher was newsreel footage for years.  While the initial trial was declared a mistrial, the stress of the state case -- and knowledge that he was going to lose just as badly as his son -- resulted in Bennie Jack suffering a fatal heart attack before a new trial could be convened.  As for UKA, they were sued into oblivion, with their national headquarters turned over to Donald's mother, who herself passed away roughly a year after the civil verdict was reached, if my memory serves me right.

The specific comments that Sessions made during the investigation were pertaining to statements made by certain individuals that after the Klan meeting which begat the plan to lynch a random black guy, they sat around and smoked some pot.  Now, I don't know if you have any "Okie From Muskogee" types up there in the Pacific Northwest, but that doesn't exactly comport with the Great White Protestant Saviour image that the Klan tried to project here in the South.  Also, keep in mind that the consumption of marijuana was nowhere near as socially accepted in the nation at that time, no matter what geographic region you hailed from.  Sessions's comments about "The Klan were okay, until they smoked some pot," were later determined to be gallows humor.  Had he been a JAG officer today, it would've been akin to a Man Love Thursday joke with some hajji bestiality tossed in just for shits and giggles.

Keep in mind, also, that what Sen. Kennedy and the like did to Sessions was a dress rehearsal for what they did to Robert Bork.  The difference is that Jeff Sessions was able to recover and went on to a successful political career; Robert Bork became synonymous with all-out destruction in a confirmation process ("Borking"), and died as an almost-was.

Furthermore, the efforts of Jeff Sessions in United States v. Greenough (a former Mobile Co. Commissioner) led to the dismantling of the old county commisioner system -- in which three people, typically well-connected white males, were elected to run the entire county, and the role of mayor rotated between the three -- and the implementation of the current system with a mayor and city councilpersons, which ensures proper representation of the minority districts.  While Fred Richardson is a turd, he's a turd that would never have had a chance if it weren't for Jeff Sessions's efforts in dismantling the Greenough/Mims/Doyle carousel.

I disagree with Sessions when it comes to the legalization of marijuana.  I'm undecided about his immigration stance; nobody's ever adequately enforced the laws that we already have, so I can't say for sure if they are effective or not.  However, from the positive effects that he has had on the Mobile community, I am confident in saying that Jeff Sessions is not a racist.

Epilogue:  The attorney that swears that Sessions is racist has, himself, been thoroughly chastised by the 11th Circuit for making bullshit claims about racism.  I wouldn't exactly call him "reliable."


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Anyone familiar with the good General?




Yep.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 20, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Yep.



Well now so am I, kinda. My buddy (who is an Army lawyer) claims he is the real life version of every over-the-top stereotype of a warmongering General you have ever seen in any move or TV show.

Now the good Captain is also a self proclaimed liberal who voted for Hillary so I have to question his bias just a bit.


----------



## Etype (Nov 20, 2016)

reed11b said:


> Mattis I would support. Also, Gowdy.
> Reed


I love Gowdy's style of speaking- clear, concise and powerful.  He wore Comey out, big league!


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Well now so am I, kinda. My buddy (who is an Army awyer) claims he is the real life version of every over-the-top stereotype of a warmongering General you have ever seen in any move or TV show.
> 
> Now the good Captain is also a self proclaimed liberal who voted for Hillary so I have to question his bias just a bit.




I wonder if your buddy actually worked with Flynn, or is repeating political tropes.  I worked for Flynn at JSOC and then had dealings with him both during my year at DIA and later in grad school.  I didn't think he was any of those things.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 20, 2016)

@Marauder06 -

I did ask him that.  His opinion is based on what "he's heard" from other officers who claimed to have worked with General Flynn and observations of seeing him on CNN/Fox.  Truth be told I was not at all familiar with him but did like this:

_Flynn, 57, entered the Army in the early 1980s. In 2012, he was tapped by President Obama to serve as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was fired from that position in 2014, amid reports that his views and management style were disruptive and chaotic.

In a column published in the New York Post earlier this year, Flynn said he was fired because of his stance on “radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda.”

Who is Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn?_


----------



## Etype (Nov 22, 2016)

reed11b said:


> Sessions was also only one of two individuals denied a federal judge position by a REPUBLICAN congress due to his on-record racist comments.
> Reed


Are you parroting or have you actually researched this?

Sessions filed desegration law suits in Alabama and prosecuted and PUT TO DEATH a Klan member for killing a black person.

There were no comments made on record, the claims came from a letter written by a former assistant attorney who was later indicted on bribery charges.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 22, 2016)

That would be the late Michael Figures.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 23, 2016)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Dems continue to eat their own young.

President Obama’s loyalists, uneasy with the progressive Ellison, have begun casting about for an alternative.

White House unsure about Rep. Keith Ellison heading Democratic National Committee

Had Hillary won, there is a zero-point-zero chance this would even be an issue- but I kinda-sorta applaud the Dems for stopping to pause for a moment.

Being from Minnesota, Keith Ellison is our local Al Sharpton - if there is an anti-police or BLM rally, you can be sure to see him standing front and center for a photo opp and mic time.

From the article, but still fresh in my mind are these fun facts about Mr. Ellison.

_But along with his inability to do the job full-time and his ties to Sanders, Ellison’s past criticism of Obama and praise for Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader, worry some Democrats looking for a figure to lead the opposition to Trump.

Ellison, a Muslim, defended Farrakhan in the 1990s, saying he was “not an anti-Semite,” and has positioned himself on the left flank of congressional Democrats on Israel.
_
Yeah, after what just happened I am sure this is who they want the face of their party to be.


----------



## AWP (Nov 23, 2016)

Ellison, Ventura, Bachmann, the Vikings....Jesus Christ, can we give that state to the Canadians?


----------



## CDG (Nov 23, 2016)

PE Trump's 100-day plan: Donald Trump's first 100 days: A breakdown of his plan - CNNPolitics.com

Nothing that wasn't already discussed and no surprises here really.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Ellison, Ventura, Bachmann, the Vikings....Jesus Christ, can we give that state to the Canadians?



We'll take the land but you keep the crazies and the debt.


----------

