Trump's cabinet

[BigRedBuster]

[zoogs]

Slate too recently sounded the alarm bells on Bolton, who on the surface might cause less coverage than Tillerson: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/john_mccain_and_lindsey_graham_are_not_your_friends_democrats.html

Bolton is expected to be Trump’s pick for second-in-command at the State Department—if he wins confirmation. If his selection is finalized, forget about Tillerson or the waiver for “The Mad Dog” or whatever. Stopping Bolton—who on Monday suggested aloud that the Russian hacks may have been an Obama administration false-flag operation—should become the top priority. He is a madman whose only wish is to bomb Iran into oblivion. He is anti-diplomacy personified.

If you oppose both hawks and loons, these are bad times to be forced to pick battles.Trump holds all the cards and his administration is going to be worked with on one front or the other.

 

Kudos to Rand Paul, by the way; it's too bad guys like him are nobodies to the GOP base.

 

Regarding Bolton, this is how wars start. By elevating people determined to wage them.

[TGHusker]

I would have been very happy wt Rand Paul as Pres or VP.

[NM11046]

I hear ya TG. Totally liberal here, but pretty much any of those who were at the initial debates are more qualified than this joker.

[Fru]

Intriguing article highlighting the education drop off between Obama's Cabinet and Trump's Cabinet

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-huge-education-level-drop-off-trump-cabinet-picks-article-1.2911859

 

The one that sticks out to me most is Rick Perry replacing two of the most brilliant men on earth, Ernest Moniz and Steven Chu, for a department that he forgot he wanted to eliminate. Truly astounding.

[QMany]

Intriguing article highlighting the education drop off between Obama's Cabinet and Trump's Cabinet

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-huge-education-level-drop-off-trump-cabinet-picks-article-1.2911859

 

The one that sticks out to me most is Rick Perry replacing two of the most brilliant men on earth, Ernest Moniz and Steven Chu, for a department that he forgot he wanted to eliminate. Truly astounding.

 

WOW!

 

Thank you for that link, that is terrifying.

 

 

Perhaps no contrast is more stark than the difference between who President Obama has appointed as Secretary of Energy versus who Trump has appointed. Obama’s first Secretary of Energy was Steven Chu — a Nobel Prize winning physicist who is currently the Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular & Cellular Physiology at Stanford University. He has a B.A. in Math, a B.S. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Physics from Berkeley.

 

After Chu served the Department of Energy for four years, he was succeeded by Ernest Moniz — who earned his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford University. Moniz went on to join the faculty at MIT and eventually became the head of the physics department and co-chair of the MIT Research Council. These men are brilliant.

Trump just appointed Rick Perry — who failed his college chemistry course and had a transcript riddled with C’s & D’s. The former governor of Texas struggled his way into earning a bachelor’s degree in Animal Science from Texas A&M. He doesn’t have any graduate degrees. He is famous for saying that if he became president, he would disband the Department of Energy, but he couldn’t even remember the name of the department.

These dropoffs in education level between the Obama Administration and the incoming Trump administration aren’t rare.

[zoogs]

America's new Israel policy?

 

Friedman’s 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.

[Moiraine]

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

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

Good lord. Guy sounds like your run of the mill conspiracy theorist.

 

I remember a time when folks would argue that Trump would bring the best and brightest with him and that they'd limit any damage he could do. So much for that theory...

[zoogs]

If ex-Bushies wanted to recommend a conventional Republican to Trump, they could have picked almost anyone. They landed on Tillerson because they thought that as long as Trump was determined to make a pro-Cabinet choice, they might as well put someone smart and competent on his radar to set against Rohrabacher.

This is a very interesting perspective on the recommendations (as well as abilities) of the SecState nominee.

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971322/trump-tillerson-russia

 

And I think it goes without saying, but I think the assessment of Trump's selection criteria is quite accurate.

[TGHusker]

 

If ex-Bushies wanted to recommend a conventional Republican to Trump, they could have picked almost anyone. They landed on Tillerson because they thought that as long as Trump was determined to make a pro-Cabinet choice, they might as well put someone smart and competent on his radar to set against Rohrabacher.

This is a very interesting perspective on the recommendations (as well as abilities) of the SecState nominee.

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971322/trump-tillerson-russia

 

And I think it goes without saying, but I think the assessment of Trump's selection criteria is quite accurate.

 

Yes, that is a very interesting article. So the question is: Is an improved relationship with Russia a worthy goal? Of course that question must be clarified by: What do we mean by improved and what is the 'cost/benefit' of such a change??

On the surface, one could argue that improved relationship with any country is a good thing. But dig deeper. Was Chamberlain's improved relationship wt Hitler's Germany a good thing in 1939? No, it allowed for the invasion of Poland and

then France, and the on set of WW2. If improved relationship wt the Putin led Russia comes wtout a concession on their end & allows for their continued misdeeds in Ukraine and Syria then NO to the improved relationship.

And if the purpose of such an improved relationship is to open up greater trade and greater investment into the Russian economy by USA corporations only, then that improvement is not worth the cost of allowing Putin to have free reign in the world & it will only empower him & encourage him to have a heavy hand elsewhere.

[zoogs]

The argument that has made the most sense to me in view of Trump's determined pro-Russia stance as well as his alliance with the fossil fuel industry: https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.fgmioyk6n

 

Russia is a petrostate. It’s the number one gas exporter and number two oil exporter in the world, but it’s[sic] economy is otherwise stagnant and out-of-date. Those oil and gas assets are controlled by a small number of oligarchs gathered around Putin, the former head of the KGB. Those oligarchs may be the one group of investors who stands to lose the most from the popping of the Carbon Bubble.

 

People who are looking to understand what the Trump gang is up to would do well to consider his gang’s actions through the lens of the Carbon Bubble. Understand that the amounts of money at stake are vast, nearly inconceivable to most of us, and highly concentrated in the hands of the people in Trump’s cabinet and their close friends and business allies.

Money talks. Especially so in certain circles.

[BigRedBuster]

Let's think way out of the box here.

 

Right now, we are fighting multiple wars in the ME which have stemmed from our need for their oil. It's not a short story as to how we got here. It literally goes back almost a century...or more. But, the fact remains, our mess in the ME is in large part due to us needing to be involved there because of their oil. This is compounded by our relationship with Israel ever since the end of WWII.

 

Russia is one of the really big boys in the oil and gas market.

 

What if we can negotiate with Putin a situation where we switch any oil we get from the ME to investment and importing oil from Russia? In return, he has to stop supporting bad people in Syria and leave the Ukraine alone. He gains a MAJOR customer for their oil and gas business along with major amounts of investment in his country. We gain a more stable access to oil and gas reserves with a country we at least can sit down at a table with and discuss the relationship....not like dealing with all the terrorist and rogue governments of the ME.

 

If we could do that, would an improved relationship with Russia be worth it?

[zoogs]

I don't think that corresponds to reality very much.

 

 

Russia looks out for Russia, which is going to mean they keep doing things the way they do. Trump looks out for Trump's fossil fuel tycoon buddies.

 

U.S. interests don't come into play here. If they did a real commitment to going green would be part of the incoming administration's continuing push.

[BigRedBuster]

How does that not correspond with reality?

Your graph shows at least 14% of our oil coming from the ME (Saudi Arabia). If we agreed to switch that over to Russia in exchange for what I asked for my post, my question still stands.

 

Is that worth improving our relationship with Russia?