The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
- Status
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
He is going to listen to the best people:
Former CIA director James Woolsey quits Trump transition team
Former CIA director James Woolsey quits Trump transition team
Maybe Woolsey is part of the problem and not the solution?
Yup... CIA Director during first WTC bombing and Somalia. Oh yah and during Clinton presidency; not meeting with the President one-on-one during his whole tenure.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Lol. I almost wrote, "but most here will say he is the problem"
The way I see it, when a person hire's someone, then doesn't listen to their expertise, particularly if that person doesn't like what they say, the problem is that person.
Last edited:
I'm sure he was listened in the beginning of transition but they're in the home stretch and positions are filled. He's not filling any of those jobs and I don't blame PE Trump from focusing on the opinions of those that will be in his administration.
To add, from the moment Woolsey was added to the transition team; he seemed like a token Democrat to appease the left.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Like General Flynn?
He is also sparring with our lord and savior Gen Mattis:
Mattis clashing with Trump transition team over Pentagon staffing
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing I am fairly certain of...if PE Trump isn't sure that he wants people who will speak their mind and not simply be a "yes man", then Mad Dog isn't his man.
I trust GEN(Ret.) Mattis far more than I trust PE Trump, or anyone on his transition staff. I understand Mattis can't have his way 100% of the time, and I'm sure he understands that as well. I would hope, with such important positions, the transition team would defer to the expertise of Mattis. The Republicans can be just as guilty of elitism as the Democrats, and I hope they don't think they know better because of Mattis's warrior background.
Link to a podcast from WOTR that talks about PE Trump and the IC.
He's Just Not That Into You: Trump, Intel & the American Presidency
Link to a podcast from WOTR that talks about PE Trump and the IC.
He's Just Not That Into You: Trump, Intel & the American Presidency
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw an interview about Trump stating he basically didn't want the same old brief and only wanted to be briefed if things have changed or something new had come up. That pretty common in the corporate world. How that will work on Presidency level, I guess we will find out.
He has definitely stacked his key positions with solid people, so I think if he allows those people to do their jobs and listens to them, it should have a good result. We shall see what happens.
He has definitely stacked his key positions with solid people, so I think if he allows those people to do their jobs and listens to them, it should have a good result. We shall see what happens.
I thought Woolsey was a terrible CIA director and member of the administration. He, the FBI director (Louis Freeh I think) and the SECDEF under Clinton I think served the administration poorly - and were the source of major conflicts between them and the administration.
I think it's a natural tendency - and one I fall victim to - but a bad one to define people by their opposition. So, Woolsey has a good reputation amongst Republicans for being a thorn in President Clinton's side during his tenure (and concomitantly earns a poor reputation amongst Democrats). Then, fast forward to the Trump campaign and Woolsey is a clear example to pro-Trump folks that Trump can 'reach across the isle' and has ideals that appeal to national security experts - and on the other side to those that oppose Trump Woolsey is again showing himself to be significantly under-qualified for the positions he's ascending. Now that Woolsey found himself out of the decision circle (by his interpretation) he's shitting on the (pending) administration he's serving - the exact same thing he did in the Clinton administration - and the positions are flipped again with pro-Trump folks saying he's a dirtbag and anti-Trump saying how could you sideline such a great man.
I think it highlights the difficulty in our discussions of this stuff - something I just ran into in my postings yesterday. When the start positions are based on where you support/trust and interpretation of facts (or even what are facts themselves) comes after that it makes for some dizzying reverses in logic. The media is dishonest and lying when they report things I don't think are true - but any conspiracy or ill-founded trope in a news article that paints folks I don't like in a bad light should immediately be adopted as incontrovertible fact.
I don't mean to take the position of total factual relativism - everyone is bad, everything is false, all opinions are equal - but I do think the dynamic of the 24 hour news cycle really lends itself to this type of thing. I find myself caught in it as well. I had exactly the same reaction as @TLDR20 to the news on Woolsey - looks like somebody is getting wise to the Trump administration's emerging dysfunction. But, then I started thinking about what I knew about Woolsey and thought - 'that dude is out for himself, that's been his MO for his entire career, and he was wrong on a ton of issues during his professional career.'
I think ultimately we're going to have to wait and see on most of these things. I think the signs are a mix of incompetence, wishful thinking, and un-paralleled success. The thing is, if I'm honest with myself, because I oppose most of the policies of the incoming administration it's probably the 3rd one that gives me the most concern.
I think it's a natural tendency - and one I fall victim to - but a bad one to define people by their opposition. So, Woolsey has a good reputation amongst Republicans for being a thorn in President Clinton's side during his tenure (and concomitantly earns a poor reputation amongst Democrats). Then, fast forward to the Trump campaign and Woolsey is a clear example to pro-Trump folks that Trump can 'reach across the isle' and has ideals that appeal to national security experts - and on the other side to those that oppose Trump Woolsey is again showing himself to be significantly under-qualified for the positions he's ascending. Now that Woolsey found himself out of the decision circle (by his interpretation) he's shitting on the (pending) administration he's serving - the exact same thing he did in the Clinton administration - and the positions are flipped again with pro-Trump folks saying he's a dirtbag and anti-Trump saying how could you sideline such a great man.
I think it highlights the difficulty in our discussions of this stuff - something I just ran into in my postings yesterday. When the start positions are based on where you support/trust and interpretation of facts (or even what are facts themselves) comes after that it makes for some dizzying reverses in logic. The media is dishonest and lying when they report things I don't think are true - but any conspiracy or ill-founded trope in a news article that paints folks I don't like in a bad light should immediately be adopted as incontrovertible fact.
I don't mean to take the position of total factual relativism - everyone is bad, everything is false, all opinions are equal - but I do think the dynamic of the 24 hour news cycle really lends itself to this type of thing. I find myself caught in it as well. I had exactly the same reaction as @TLDR20 to the news on Woolsey - looks like somebody is getting wise to the Trump administration's emerging dysfunction. But, then I started thinking about what I knew about Woolsey and thought - 'that dude is out for himself, that's been his MO for his entire career, and he was wrong on a ton of issues during his professional career.'
I think ultimately we're going to have to wait and see on most of these things. I think the signs are a mix of incompetence, wishful thinking, and un-paralleled success. The thing is, if I'm honest with myself, because I oppose most of the policies of the incoming administration it's probably the 3rd one that gives me the most concern.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Not to take away from your other points, but this quip right here is on target. I think we are going to see a mix of the three, and not everyone (including me) is going to be happy with everything. Looks like this administration will not be a dull and static one at all.
Definitely agree - also think the definition of each of those things, 'success' being the most important will depend a lot on your where you're standing on issues.
Kind of gets to the overall philosophy. What's worse - doing what I disagree with, or doing what I disagree with and it actually working :). I'd like to think I've got the intellectual honesty not to malign the latter - but it's a tall order.
Kind of gets to the overall philosophy. What's worse - doing what I disagree with, or doing what I disagree with and it actually working :). I'd like to think I've got the intellectual honesty not to malign the latter - but it's a tall order.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
So, with NBC hiring all of the Fox women to come over are they attempting to become a middle of the road honest arbitrator and attempting to gain part of the ratings share? Or will Kelly and Susternan become liberals overnight?
Kelly is liberal leaning on more than few issues.
@ke4gde -sorry, I think the cross-thread quote was making the post wonky.
IMO people aren't as concerned with the information contained in the hacked/leaked material because that's not the issue. If EVERY email contained in the leaks (or none of them) contained hard, indisputable evidence of illegal activity it means nothing. The issue is Russia 100% committed international cyberterrorism in order to influence our election for their benefit and it worked. Putin directed it. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, and he did, and they were happy about it. That's fact. Not conjecture, not guessing, no % of probability. PE Trump was 100% wrong on this one. Mike Pence said he felt Russia was involved because the obvious evidence pointed that way in October!!! And the best we get is, "Yea, I guess that did happen (even though I have been saying outright that it didn't happen) but it didn't actually affect the election because they didn't hack the voting machines." True to form, he didn't wait for all the info to come out before tweeting out some ridiculous shit, even going as far as to say "I have inside information you don't have; trust me. You guys will find out like, Tuesday or Wednesday."
Side note- when people pull that shit here on the site they get called on it. "I know these things you don't but I cant't tell you but you have to believe me because trust me I have double secret top shelf clearance." Posers say that shit. It's the easiest way to catch someone in an obvious lie- I have a secret but I can't tell you. Anyway.
My big problem is that the answer from the right seems to be, "Lulz, Russia didn't hack us why don't we talk about what the DNC emails said, they were trying to influence the election and that got exposed" (exactly how you did) and NOT saying, "Holy shit, a state actor committed international cyberterrorism against America this must not stand!". Do you not care that Russia hacked a political party in America in order to undermine our democratic/republic process?
The further issue is that PE Trump fawns over Putin like a high schooler every chance he gets and has defended him since this whole thing started. Before that, even. "Russians didn't give Assange the info!!" Tweeted PE Trump. Uh, yeah, they did, and your intel SME's have been telling you that for weeks. But because of what would appear to be a very strong bias towards Putin and Russia, he refuses to believe the facts of the matter. That has to be somewhat worrisome to you, doesn't it?
What did you mean to say about "... waiting till it's official before we lambaste him."?
IMO people aren't as concerned with the information contained in the hacked/leaked material because that's not the issue. If EVERY email contained in the leaks (or none of them) contained hard, indisputable evidence of illegal activity it means nothing. The issue is Russia 100% committed international cyberterrorism in order to influence our election for their benefit and it worked. Putin directed it. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, and he did, and they were happy about it. That's fact. Not conjecture, not guessing, no % of probability. PE Trump was 100% wrong on this one. Mike Pence said he felt Russia was involved because the obvious evidence pointed that way in October!!! And the best we get is, "Yea, I guess that did happen (even though I have been saying outright that it didn't happen) but it didn't actually affect the election because they didn't hack the voting machines." True to form, he didn't wait for all the info to come out before tweeting out some ridiculous shit, even going as far as to say "I have inside information you don't have; trust me. You guys will find out like, Tuesday or Wednesday."
Side note- when people pull that shit here on the site they get called on it. "I know these things you don't but I cant't tell you but you have to believe me because trust me I have double secret top shelf clearance." Posers say that shit. It's the easiest way to catch someone in an obvious lie- I have a secret but I can't tell you. Anyway.
My big problem is that the answer from the right seems to be, "Lulz, Russia didn't hack us why don't we talk about what the DNC emails said, they were trying to influence the election and that got exposed" (exactly how you did) and NOT saying, "Holy shit, a state actor committed international cyberterrorism against America this must not stand!". Do you not care that Russia hacked a political party in America in order to undermine our democratic/republic process?
The further issue is that PE Trump fawns over Putin like a high schooler every chance he gets and has defended him since this whole thing started. Before that, even. "Russians didn't give Assange the info!!" Tweeted PE Trump. Uh, yeah, they did, and your intel SME's have been telling you that for weeks. But because of what would appear to be a very strong bias towards Putin and Russia, he refuses to believe the facts of the matter. That has to be somewhat worrisome to you, doesn't it?
What did you mean to say about "... waiting till it's official before we lambaste him."?
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Using your example of "I have a secret and I can't tell you" is the exact same thing the intelligence community and this administration has been doing since the election. They claim to have proof over and over that Russia was behind the hacks. Unnamed congressional officials are talking to the media and releasing more allegedly classified information than ol Manning and Snowden appear to have (a bit of dramatic flare, but you get my point). IF a state actor hacked into our information systems and affected the outcome of the election, I want to know. So far the only 100% fact provided was that Russia was happy with the results through some recorded conversations. Well, Duh. That is not a smoking gun and is circumstantial at best. The same intel SME also stated that the Russians did NOT change any votes. Propaganda? Sure, countries try to influence elections all the time through propaganda. Hell, we have done it countless times throughout our short history. Is it right? No, but it is the cost of doing business in the world today. We can do it to everyone else, but when someone does it to us "whoa tiger".
Since their actual role in counting the votes has been determined, I would think the more important observation should be the fact that the DNC essentially tried to cheat their way to the top seat. Was anything they did illegal? We don't know for sure what went on at the DNC because they won't release the server for a forensic review. Highly unethical? You bet. I hope people realize here that the accusations of cyber-terrorism, that influence our politics, or affect out infrastructure are akin to acts of war. Which, if Putin wanted to be a dick, could be moving much more aggressively against us. Probably because he sees this administration and all of its flunkies as the joke they revealed themselves to be to the international community (yeah that last sentence was a bit much, but I want to vent my frustrations in a somewhat healthy manner, so your patience is appreciated).
What I meant was to at least wait till he is officially the POTUS before we start pile driving on the what actions he has or has not taken as a statesman. Last I checked, legally, the current administration has not been given a severance package and still is finishing out their two week notice
I will grant you, that this PE is more vocal than any previous ones we have had, but he appears to be much more proactive (good or bad) than anyone before him.Oh and if we want to throw stones about "true to form" not waiting for the info before opening their mouth, I seem to recall several racially motivated cases where the current administration opened their mouth before all of the facts were in and promptly stuck their feet in their collective mouths. Just saying, if we are going to throw stones, let's not forget out recent past.
ETA: -1 for too many just sayins
Last edited:
SpongeBob*24
Verified Military
EASY BUTTON!!! :blkeye:
I won't dispute that at all, but I personally take issue with the general defense of "so-and-so did it therefore 'my' guy's actions are acceptable." I think every single adult on the planet has to take responsibility for their own actions instead of passing the buck to choices made by someone else.
- Status
