Jump to content


Trump's cabinet


Recommended Posts

Our dependence on foreign oil is decreasing overall and I don't think the mess in the ME has been particularly affected by this. Putin can (and does) find plenty of other customers; he does not need our business. Saudi Arabia is not an unstable source of oil. If the U.S. had anywhere close to that amount of leverage as an oil customer Saudi Arabia would be remaking themselves in our image; since they're not, why would Russia?

 

The problem as posed in the Medium article argues that oil dependence period is bound to decline and with it, the value of the market. You are arguing that increasing American reliance on Russian oil will align their Syria policy and human rights stances with ours, with the added bonus of severing ties with Saudi Arabia improving ME stability. It just seems fantastical.

 

What "we" need is to align our foreign and domestic policy with Russia in order to cooperate and fight back against quite concerted efforts that will devalue oil. "We" being a certain we here.

Link to comment

I fully understand that our dependence on foreign oil is dropping. My wish would be that it completely goes away.

 

I also agree that my idea is somewhat a fantasy. But, like I said, I was trying to look outside the box for a solution.

 

The gist of my question was, if you need to be aligned with someone that isn't the nicest people in the world, would you rather be aligned with Russia or Saudi Arabia? I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Especially if that alignment with Russia could help us stay out of more conflicts in the ME.

Link to comment

Ah, I see.

 

Well, to stay out of more conflicts in the ME all we have to do I suppose is yield completely to Russia's Syria policy; that would certainly be one way to go about it.

 

I get that Saudi Arabia isn't very savory either, though. And likewise, we'd be just as complicit in what Assad does to Aleppo as what Saudia Arabia does to Yemen.

Link to comment

Ah, I see.

 

Well, to stay out of more conflicts in the ME all we have to do I suppose is yield completely to Russia's Syria policy; that would certainly be one way to go about it.

 

I get that Saudi Arabia isn't very savory either, though. And likewise, we'd be just as complicit in what Assad does to Aleppo as what Saudia Arabia does to Yemen.

But, that's not acceptable. So, I was wondering if dangling our oil imports out as a carrot would make them change their view on Syria.

Link to comment

 

Ah, I see.

 

Well, to stay out of more conflicts in the ME all we have to do I suppose is yield completely to Russia's Syria policy; that would certainly be one way to go about it.

 

I get that Saudi Arabia isn't very savory either, though. And likewise, we'd be just as complicit in what Assad does to Aleppo as what Saudia Arabia does to Yemen.

But, that's not acceptable. So, I was wondering if dangling our oil imports out as a carrot would make them change their view on Syria.

 

 

Trump is the guy (singular, him and him alone) who didn't quite understand why we don't just bomb the sh*t out of Syria to eliminate ISIS. So I very much doubt he's going to be the firm hand that gets Putin to step down his bombing campaign there-- he supports it, why would he? If Bolton somehow gets installed in the State Department, forget about it. Tillerson is best buds with Vlad, and Bolton is a warhawk. Putin's bombing is going to sound completely acceptable to that duo, and Lord knows Trump doesn't want to risk irritating the most wealthy man in the world with so much to gain.

 

That Trump promotes surprise attacks for their effectiveness and doesn't understand the need to minimize civilian casualties shows this is another arena in which he is dangerously ignorant in. Good old Deferment Don.

 

It's a good question, BRB. I guess I just don't see the personnel in Trump's cabinet who would object to the way Russia is conducting themselves right now. So, they will almost certainly work with Russia to expand our fossil fuel relationship. But would they actually require concessions from Russia in terms of foreign policy order to do so? I very much doubt it.

Link to comment

I think probably the best way to put pressure on Russia is through economic sanctions and diplomatic opposition. That might not be too far from where you were going, in effect.

 

However, it seems we're going to lift sanctions and pass on making real demands of any kind so that certain industries can realize incredible profits in the short to medium term.

 

If yielding to Russia on Syria was not acceptable we really should not have elected Donald Trump as Commander-in-Chief. But the American public doesn't really care about this, apparently, or actively wanted such rapproachment; and now, our policy is going to be in the hands of men like Tillerson and Bolton.

Link to comment

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/21/14012552/trump-budget-director-research-science-mulvaney

 

"Do we really need government-funded research at all"?

 

Sheeeeeeeeee-yeeesh.

 

Well of course we don't. Those epidemics will just solve themselves. May the strongest survive!

 

I feel like we're about to be taken over by the reincarted souls of the people who decided to cut down all the trees on Easter Island.

Link to comment

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnGizzi/trump-carson-giuliani-cabinet/2016/11/09/id/758021/

Article is quoted below. Let the speculation begin, but I think Newt, Carson, Ruddy, CC, are no surprise as they have been mouth pieces for Trump for some time.

 

One surprise for me was Rick Perry as Sec of Ag. I figured if anything, he'd be sec of energy if he was in the cabinet.

I do like Larry Kudlow as Chairman of Council of Economic Advisers

This is a bit of a head scratcher but understandable from Trump's perspective: White House Chief of Staff: Trump’s son-in-law and confidante Jared Kushner

I found this one interesting, I was thinking surgeon general. Secretary of Education: Ben Carson

I'm sure this will bet some criticism and probably rightly so as a 'white man's club'. Not very diverse.

 

Quote:

No sooner had networks projected Donald Trump would be the 45th president of the United States than speculation began about who would be in his Cabinet.

But already informed sources in Trump’s circle say they have been talking about potential Cabinet and other senior administration officials for months.

Typically, Republican presidents draw heavily from the ranks of former Republican presidential administrations. Insiders tell me this won’t be the case for President Trump.

“Unless you strongly backed Donald, he will be looking for fresh, outside-the-box thinkers,” the source said. “He picked his campaign staff that way. He thinks that’s the best way to go”

Trump also loves to be around people “he’s comfortable with.”

Trump made that clear when he made his VP pick. Ohio Gov. John Kasich was the establishment favorite.

“But Donald thought he was a little weird, so that ended,” a close Trump friend tells me.

Trump does not want “yes” men either. Donald likes people who disagree with him. For example, Rudy Giuliani is no one’s yes man, but Trump listens to him and respects him.

In official Washington, speculation on Wednesday morning was focused on top level positions at the Cabinet and beyond.

Here’s some of the people being discussed:

  • Secretary of State: Newt Gingrich tops the list. The former House speaker was one of Trump's earliest supporters and staunchest defenders in the media. He’s a GOP heavyweight and can articulate Trump’s global vision to allies. Second choice: former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. A staunch conservative, he was a critic of Iraq war strategy, something Trump likes.
  • Secretary of Treasury: Steve Mnuchin has already been promised the job. A former Goldman Sachs executive and head of Trump campaign fundraising, Mnuchin will offer Wall Street credibility to Trump’s team. Backup choices: Billionaire investor Wilber Ross, Trump’s most notable Wall Street backer. Doubtful Ross will give up his global business empire, but he would be widely hailed. Steve Forbes is also in the mix, respected by Trump’s team for his Jack Kemp-style tax policies.
  • Secretary of Defense: Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), has the job if he wants it. Others say he may take National Security adviser or CIA chief, which could be elevated to Cabinet rank, as Reagan did with Bill Casey.
  • Attorney General: Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, considered the politician closest to Trump, has the job if he wants it. Some Trump insiders say Giuliani would rather play Trump’s eminence grise. (TG: had to look this up: definition: a person who exercises power or influence in a certain sphere without holding an official position.)
  • Secretary of Homeland Security: Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the first senator to back Trump and his point man on immigration and border security in the Senate.
  • Secretary of Education: Ben Carson is one of the people in Trump’s closest circles. While having a medical background, there has been talk that Carson would serve better at Education. Like Trump, Carson is a strong advocate of charter schools and vouchers. the Trump team believes it made significant inroads with African-American voters on this issue, and it wants to continue that effort.
  • Secretary of Health and Human Resources: Betsey McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, and healthcare expert, has been one of Trump’s fiercest and earliest supporters.
  • Chairman of Council of Economic Advisers: Larry Kudlow, longtime supply sider and Reagan budget deputy director, was Trump’s lead adviser on tax policy and his strongest financial media defender. Already talk of making the job Cabinet rank if Larry wants it. Kudlow is also talked about as Janet Yellen’s replacement at the Fed if her position opens.
  • Secretary of Agriculture: Rick Perry, former Texas governor and commissioner of agriculture; a one-time Trump critic, he loyally stumped for Trump after his own presidential bid ended.
  • Secretary of Commerce: One named being mentioned is the embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. An early Trump endorser, he could be Trump’s point man on jobs, trade, and the economy.
  • White House Chief of Staff: Trump’s son-in-law and confidante Jared Kushner is at the very top of the list. The job does not require Senate confirmation, and the position puts one of Trump’s most trusted advisers next to the president. Kushner served as de facto campaign manager and, as a Democrat, will have good ties with Senate and House Democrats in helping to push legislation through Congress.
  • White House Counsel: Joseph Schmitz is the former inspector general of the Defense Department and former Ed Meese aide at Justice. Highly respected, he was an early Trump foreign policy adviser.
  • RNC Chair: Not a government appointee but the president’s top political appointee as head of the party could be Roger Stone. A wildcard choice, the former Nixon and Reagan strategist is considered the architect of Trump’s political rise

 

 

That's one very impressive list. I am hearing Priebus or Conway could be chief of staff. They both worked their butts off to help him win last night.

 

 

If by "impressive" you mean overtly racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and morons...then yes.

Link to comment

 

America's new Israel policy?

 

Friedmans February 2016 column, titled End the Two-State Narrative, argues that the two-state solution has always been a con. The Palestinian Authority, he argues, have tricked Israelis and Americans into believing that they want an independent state in order to extract cash payments from the Americans. The US government goes along with this, he implies, because it is institutionally anti-Semitic.

 

The US State Department with a hundred-year history of anti-Semitism promotes the payoff of corrupt Palestinians in exchange for their completely duplicitous agreement to support a two-state solution, Friedman writes. US-brokered negotiations with the Palestinians, he concludes, are a discussion of an illusory solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Jesus.

 

Trump's picks are a bunch of liars and morons. Ya, Palestine is tricking the US and Israel and reaping the rewards!!!!!1one

 

 

20160310_Foreign_Assistance_2.jpg

 

 

 

So by my rudimentary math skills, we have 10 BILLION dollars annually to help people in foreign countries, but ZERO dollars to help people who are struggling/poor in our own country.

 

WTGDHFSIT!!!!!!!!!!

 

How many people in this country could we help with 10 BILLION dollars a year?

 

(And yes, that question is 100% rhetorical.)

Link to comment

 

 

 

America's new Israel policy?

 

Friedmans February 2016 column, titled End the Two-State Narrative, argues that the two-state solution has always been a con. The Palestinian Authority, he argues, have tricked Israelis and Americans into believing that they want an independent state in order to extract cash payments from the Americans. The US government goes along with this, he implies, because it is institutionally anti-Semitic.

 

The US State Department with a hundred-year history of anti-Semitism promotes the payoff of corrupt Palestinians in exchange for their completely duplicitous agreement to support a two-state solution, Friedman writes. US-brokered negotiations with the Palestinians, he concludes, are a discussion of an illusory solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Jesus.
Trump's picks are a bunch of liars and morons. Ya, Palestine is tricking the US and Israel and reaping the rewards!!!!!1one

 

 

20160310_Foreign_Assistance_2.jpg

 

So by my rudimentary math skills, we have 10 BILLION dollars annually to help people in foreign countries, but ZERO dollars to help people who are struggling/poor in our own country.

 

WTGDHFSIT!!!!!!!!!!

 

How many people in this country could we help with 10 BILLION dollars a year?

 

(And yes, that question is 100% rhetorical.)

We spend $ to help the poor in our country (see stamps/medicaid) but the Right does everything they can to fight against it.

 

Also, I'm okay with us helping some countries defend themselves. E.g. Georgia, Ukraine and any other country that borders Russia who isn't powerful enough to defend themselves. I'm not against us helping Israel. Iran leaders have flat out said they want to destroy Israel.

Link to comment

 

 

 

America's new Israel policy?

 

Friedmans February 2016 column, titled End the Two-State Narrative, argues that the two-state solution has always been a con. The Palestinian Authority, he argues, have tricked Israelis and Americans into believing that they want an independent state in order to extract cash payments from the Americans. The US government goes along with this, he implies, because it is institutionally anti-Semitic.

 

The US State Department with a hundred-year history of anti-Semitism promotes the payoff of corrupt Palestinians in exchange for their completely duplicitous agreement to support a two-state solution, Friedman writes. US-brokered negotiations with the Palestinians, he concludes, are a discussion of an illusory solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Jesus.
Trump's picks are a bunch of liars and morons. Ya, Palestine is tricking the US and Israel and reaping the rewards!!!!!1one

 

 

20160310_Foreign_Assistance_2.jpg

 

So by my rudimentary math skills, we have 10 BILLION dollars annually to help people in foreign countries, but ZERO dollars to help people who are struggling/poor in our own country.

 

WTGDHFSIT!!!!!!!!!!

 

How many people in this country could we help with 10 BILLION dollars a year?

 

(And yes, that question is 100% rhetorical.)

We spend $ to help the poor in our country (see stamps/medicaid) but the Right does everything they can to fight against it.

 

Also, I'm okay with us helping some countries defend themselves. E.g. Georgia, Ukraine and any other country that borders Russia who isn't powerful enough to defend themselves. I'm not against us helping Israel. Iran leaders have flat out said they want to destroy Israel.

 

 

I am okay with us helping other people in other countries also...but only if we've taken care of our own population first.

 

The fact that we are spending 10 BILLION dollars annually to help people in foreign countries while US citizens are homeless, living in poverty, and/or can't afford the basic necessities is an absolute disgrace.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

America's new Israel policy?

 

Friedmans February 2016 column, titled End the Two-State Narrative, argues that the two-state solution has always been a con. The Palestinian Authority, he argues, have tricked Israelis and Americans into believing that they want an independent state in order to extract cash payments from the Americans. The US government goes along with this, he implies, because it is institutionally anti-Semitic.

 

The US State Department with a hundred-year history of anti-Semitism promotes the payoff of corrupt Palestinians in exchange for their completely duplicitous agreement to support a two-state solution, Friedman writes. US-brokered negotiations with the Palestinians, he concludes, are a discussion of an illusory solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Jesus.
Trump's picks are a bunch of liars and morons. Ya, Palestine is tricking the US and Israel and reaping the rewards!!!!!1one

 

 

20160310_Foreign_Assistance_2.jpg

 

So by my rudimentary math skills, we have 10 BILLION dollars annually to help people in foreign countries, but ZERO dollars to help people who are struggling/poor in our own country.

 

WTGDHFSIT!!!!!!!!!!

 

How many people in this country could we help with 10 BILLION dollars a year?

 

(And yes, that question is 100% rhetorical.)

We spend $ to help the poor in our country (see stamps/medicaid) but the Right does everything they can to fight against it.

 

Also, I'm okay with us helping some countries defend themselves. E.g. Georgia, Ukraine and any other country that borders Russia who isn't powerful enough to defend themselves. I'm not against us helping Israel. Iran leaders have flat out said they want to destroy Israel.

I am okay with us helping other people in other countries also...but only if we've taken care of our own population first.

 

A lot of what we do internationally helps defend us.

 

However that brings up something that baffles me. I don't know why people are so supportive of high defensive spending that they think it's more important than basic necessities like universal health care. Which brings up the fact Trump wants to increase/improve our nuclear arsenal. The U.S. won't worth defending if we screw ourselves economically to make more nukes that we don't need. Honestly he's starting to sound like Kim Jong-Un.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...