WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
It seems silly to resign now from the State department. I think the resignations would be more impactful if they were resigning because of actually policy changes in the future. Then the media would report on it.
aren't those resignations protocol with each new administration, and the incoming admin team decides to accept or reject, and Trump accepted?
I dunno. Sounds more like that's a formality, as the new President tends to keep them on?
Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department. Just days before he resigned, Kennedy was taking on more responsibility inside the department and working closely with the transition. His departure was a surprise to other State Department officials who were working with him.
One senior State Department official who responded to my requests for comment said that all the officials had previously submitted their letters of resignation, as was required for all positions that are appointed by the president and that require confirmation by the Senate, known as PAS positions.
“No officer accepts a PAS position with the expectation that it is unlimited. And all officers understand that the President may choose to replace them at any time,” this official said. “These officers have served admirably and well. Their departure offers a moment to consider their accomplishments and thank them for their service. These are the patterns and rhythms of the career service.”
aren't those resignations protocol with each new administration, and the incoming admin team decides to accept or reject, and Trump accepted?
Yes, the resignation are. But "...Trump issued a blanket order earlier, distributed as a diplomatic cable by the State Department, ordering all political appointees to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day.
The New York Times said the order appeared to break with decades of precedent by indicating that affected ambassadors would not get even the briefest extension of their appointments, for reasons such as completing a child’s school term or dealing with family health issues.
A senior member of Trump’s transition team told the Times there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Obama’s overseas envoys leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do.
“The only thing that is different is that they are not letting any of them have extensions,” Neumann told VOA. “That is a little unusual.”"
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
CNN is saying they were told to leave. The positions are appointed by the president, but they usually stick around for a few months during the transition as the new people come in. You know, like in professional work environments where important work is passed along so things don't get dropped or missed.
aren't those resignations protocol with each new administration, and the incoming admin team decides to accept or reject, and Trump accepted?
I dunno. Sounds more like that's a formality, as the new President tends to keep them on?
Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department. Just days before he resigned, Kennedy was taking on more responsibility inside the department and working closely with the transition. His departure was a surprise to other State Department officials who were working with him.
One senior State Department official who responded to my requests for comment said that all the officials had previously submitted their letters of resignation, as was required for all positions that are appointed by the president and that require confirmation by the Senate, known as PAS positions.
“No officer accepts a PAS position with the expectation that it is unlimited. And all officers understand that the President may choose to replace them at any time,” this official said. “These officers have served admirably and well. Their departure offers a moment to consider their accomplishments and thank them for their service. These are the patterns and rhythms of the career service.”
Yeah, I read it. It goes on to say:
"Ambassador Richard Boucher, who served as State Department spokesman for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said that while there’s always a lot of turnover around the time a new administration takes office, traditionally senior officials work with the new team to see who should stay on in their roles and what other jobs might be available. But that’s not what happened this time.
The officials who manage the building and thousands of overseas diplomatic posts are charged with taking care of Americans overseas and protecting U.S. diplomats risking their lives abroad. The career foreign service officers are crucial to those functions as well as to implementing the new president’s agenda, whatever it may be, Boucher said.
“You don’t run foreign policy by making statements, you run it with thousands of people working to implement programs every day,” Boucher said. “To undercut that is to undercut the institution.”
By itself, the sudden departure of the State Department’s entire senior management team is disruptive enough. But in the context of a president who railed against the U.S. foreign policy establishment during his campaign and secretary of state with no government experience, the vacancies are much more concerning.
Tillerson’s job No. 1 must be to find qualified and experienced career officials to manage the State Department’s vital offices. His second job should be to reach out to and reassure a State Department workforce that is panicked about what the Trump administration means for them."
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Missed my point here I said the left does everything the same, and even worse.. gave multiple examples if you care to read above.
So it's Trump vs entire left at its most radical. That's a fair comparison. I looked at another Trump speech: “Clinton wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.” -DJT 6/13/16
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Missed my point here I said the left does everything the same, and even worse.. gave multiple examples if you care to read above.
So it's Trump vs entire left at its most radical. That's a fair comparison. I looked at another Trump speech: “Clinton wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.” -DJT 6/13/16
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
What you're describing is shame, not fear. (Could you also link to where that quote was used in the campaign?)They're totally different. Fear is what conservatives run on. trump continually would go on about how our country is in horrible shape, and that we used to be great, and if you vote for him it'll be great, and if you vote for Clinton, it'll be a disaster. This theme is repeated with nearly all republicans: Our country sucks, vote for me and I'll save it from destruction.
Fear of being shamed with such terrible labels. It's a fear tactic, come on. Yeah, saying you're better for the country than the person you're running against is far worse, my bad. You do realize that it was the left, including Hilary herself, who said if Trump wins there will be WWIii, nuclear war, Halocaust 2.0 and so on. But Trump saying he will make America great is running on fear? I gotta call this BS out when I see it man.
So when he was stating that Mexicans are rapist and murderers and Muslims should be kept out or put on list that's not a fear tactic ..
Ah, interesting. Wow, well that reflects even worse on Trump. The WP article didn't make him look totally irresponsible and wreckless, lol. I wonder if the WP article was deliberate or just badly sourced? (i.e. fake news vs not very good journalism)?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sure he has bad temper many and throws tantrims like a 2-year-old, but it's a little far to claim one will lead to nuclear war. Trump said he wants to deport illegals (and have them re-enter legally). Clinton responded by saying if Trump wins then all illegals crowded in box trains as they are forced to leave. No one mentioned box trains but her, box trains would be a completely impractical way to massively deport people (which he wont by the way) so why would she do that? To associate Trump with Hitler and the Halocaust. That is some heavy BS and good use of fear tactics right there.
Wasn't a massive component of Trump's campaign centred around Hillary and her carelessness with matters regarding national security?
That's fear mongering... is it not?
Sure, I guess you could argue that. Personally I don't think so, but maybe to some it is. My point was for all the times "fear mongering" are referring to a campaign ran on fear are thrown out there referring to the right, the left is worse. I asked for examples where the right was worse, and the only responses I've seen are a) Trump said he is going to make America great again. Really? That's fear mongering to some? Name one candidate in the history of the world who ran on making things worse. b) Trump said Clinton is careless with national security. Well, that is a proven fact. Maybe others were careless too, but according to the left Russia has all her emails. I just don't see that as fear mongering since it is true.
But lets just assume it is, fine. How is that as bad as saying Trump will cause nuclear war, Trump will create the next Nazi Germany, Trump will deport people in box cars. Sorry, but that's a thousand times worse than any fear mongering example I've heard about the right. Here is the defense I've heard so far today. a) labeling an entire group isn't fear mongering because its true. Although, isn't that much more like Nazi Germany than anything Trump has actually done? I wouldn't call it that, because that is disrespectful for anyone who lived through it or fought to end it. b) I never heard Hilary claim Trump was going to cause nuclear war, so next. Well it was an add than ran for weeks, and she even said it herself at rallies. She is invoking the fear of nuclear war to get votes! c) compares Trump to Nazi Germany, Hitler and the Holocaust Only defense I heard to this was to point out my typo.
I was calling it out because I think it's total BS to throw that word around given the circumstances. And so many on the right are frustrated with the extremes of the left. You didn't vote for Hilary then your a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. But heaven forbid we use the phrase "Islamic terrorist." Its this sort of extremism that the left is so blind to that gave Trump the edge on this election, while at the same time making all sorts of accusations about anyone who doesn't agree with them.
mace,
First, I'm never in favour of the embellishment or sensationalization of an idea, but I do understand why politicians do it: the American population, by and large, has admitted that they are participants in democracy not to be informed, but to be entertained. Until this changes, politicians will deliver their grandest performances, and they will be nothing more or less than actors.
Next, Make America Great Again on its own is a noble pursuit, but rather than focus on what greatness looks like, Trump instead talked about the abolishment of today-state. This definition of today-state included epidemics of corrupt politicians who will not speak for you, joblessness through a malicious China, an influx of rapists from Mexico, terrorists from Muslim nations, gun violence from inner city residents, attacks on national pride through poor trade deals, nuclear warfare from Iran (and the perception that they are not being watched), abandonment of principled efforts to unequivocally and unilaterally support Israel. Were those not fear-mongering tactics? Some of these issues exist, but when the scale of an issue is inflated so greatly, the only reason I can think of is to induce fear of the trajectory of a Trump-free United States. For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest that raising regulations on car safety requirements or mandating grippy shower floors (yes, I shit you not) would yield fewer casualties at a lower cost in America than extreme vetting of Middle East-originated humans in America, and with no increase in divisive social rhetoric.
On Clinton: the thing about mistakes, is that people have opportunities to learn. Do you think any Clinton would ever again negate security in his or her dealings? I doubt it. It's only the unintelligent and/or arrogant who will repeat the same mistakes again and again without reflection on how to learn from mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was either.
On "Islamic terrorists": frankly, I don't really care, any reasonable person shouldn't care, and we shouldn't be pandering to the person who does. I've said it here as well, but call them the Parade of Bombing Teddy Bears if you want - we're still zero steps closer to resolving the perceived problem. The fixation on a name is an attempt at misdirection from both pacifists and interventionists alike.
On comparisons to Nazi Germany - applying censorship, judging human worth by place of origin and/or by religious affiliation, discrediting dissidents, diminishing checks and balances, and broadcasting conclusions based on skewed versions of reality are all welcome methods of thought control employed by most authoritarian regimes. It is inevitable that Trump would be compared to history's most well-known authoritarian dictator when he exhibits the same methods of control.
Thank you for an actual thoughtful response, one of about two I've read.
First I'm not a fan of Trump and I'm not going to pretend he's going to go down as one of the best presidents in history. My first post was in response to multiple claims of a fear-mongering campaign from the right. I agree with your opening paragraphs, but my argument was, and still is, that the claims the left and Clinton made are worse. Seems extremely hypocritical to me by what the left gets away with.
Repeatedly on AMT, and just about any other social networking site, anyone who voted for or supports Trump is immediately given a nasty label. It's been defended as "shame" or several other similar terms, but its not. People have the right to believe who will make a better president, and to immediately label them for having a different view is wrong, and I stick by that being a more powerful fear tactic than any Trump used. People are afraid to admit in the work place or on social media that they voted for Trump, and not because they regret it, it is because of the stigma the left has placed on you if you don't agree with them. People can't support Trump at work because of the labels the left will give them-that is a fantastic fear tactic-fear of being labeled horrible names.
I'm not stuck on the phrase "Islamic terrorist" either, but just used that as an example how quickly you earn a label for having one view point, but you can shoot 100 people in a theater and no one wants to label that.
There can be comparisons between Nazi Germany and Trump, but I just don't see the level of comparison that has been drawn. For Clinton to paint the image of people being deported by box cars was to serve only one purpose, to put the fear of Hitler in everyone's head. There was no truth to that comment. His all out bans of races and religions have been retracted as well.
If you don't agree with the left on nearly every issue you're labeled sexist, racist, homophobic, a bigot, etc. If you voted for another candidate you have the same stigma. And very few acknowledge that. Pro-life females were not allowed to march in the women's marches that occurred this weekend, how hypocritical is that to march for your rights, but not allow a certain group to march because of their belief? How am I the only one that sees this?
Not to say there wasn't any fear with Trump's campaign, but I still stand by the fear tactics used on the left are worse. Hilary herself called you a deplorable if you didn't vote for her (or at best a 50/50 chance of being one). Vote for me or else you're a sexist, racist deplorable who hates gays and will be responsible for nuclear war and WWIII and the fall of mankind. Doesn't even seem to compare with Trump's lack-of-thought comments.
Ah, interesting. Wow, well that reflects even worse on Trump. The WP article didn't make him look totally irresponsible and wreckless, lol. I wonder if the WP article was deliberate or just badly sourced? (i.e. fake news vs not very good journalism)?
I really think that it is a such a dog eat dog media climate right now that everyone is drooling to be the first to report on something...whether they are reporting all of the facts or not. Chaos...
Its going to be a long post so it'll take two but this "screed" from a friend makes some points:
My screed after Trump's win, written to my Trump supporting friends that I was trying to flip:
-------------------------------
I was wrong. But I fell asleep before it was all over so missed all the drama -- thankfully!
Looks like you had lots of company. Even if many came outta their duck blinds, donned their dress camouflage hats, and voted!
Maybe Nixon was right about the silent majority! They apparently just couldn't understand the more subtle dog whistles from conventional politicians. They needed to hear it plainly said. But I think most were just shamelessly misled. Those beyond the alt-right deplorables, that is. They knew the truth they were seeing.
In the end, Trump got all the same constituencies as Romney, somewhat fewer. Hillary similarly got less than Obama, but still won the popular vote overall. All considered, apparently none of the campaign really mattered. We're now a nation of identity politics, like Sunni vs Shia, impervious to reason, simply opposing the other.
Trump did realize that, credit where due. He hurled his epithets daily through regular media, which ate it up. So he could funnel incoming cash contributions toward more profitable entities, like rent in his buildings, or probably some wholly owned hat maker? That's why I think he got involved in the first place, to harness some of that free money available. That's why there's more than 15 candidates on the Republican side, all trying to raise their speaking fees and sell books.
I bet when people look closely at the election results, they'll see clear evidence of egregious and effective voter suppression in Republican led states. North Carolina was so obvious there was a court ruling. But watch for it in Wisconsin (Scott Walker, Gov.) and Michigan, maybe even Pennsylvania. All single day voting states are vulnerable to such things. Early voting should be everywhere, if only to alleviate Election Day counting! It was rigged! Leave it to Trump to betray his every fear and tactic by trying to project it onto his adversaries.
So when confusion over IDs (PA) or purged voter rolls (FL) trim a couple percentage points, and he wins those states by only a single point, it's all working as planned.
The margins were also less than the Green Party and half the Libertarian party combined. It's like 2000 with Nader. What are these third party candidates thinking? What is their point? The Green Party especially. Are their interests going to be served now? No. Quite the contrary. Exponentially so. Was Ralph Nader pleased with the Bush administration? I expect not.
Of course, it works both ways. Bill Clinton won with 43% or so, because Ross Perot got near 18%. I guess they all have Perot in mind. Wacky as he was, he still did well.
In the end, the Republican approach during the Obama administration, including frequent Govt shutdowns and obstruction of everything, has paid off. They were brilliantly insightful about that --knowing people weren't paying close enough attention to know who to blame.
For example, Trump blaming Democrats for free trade agreements back in the day is like blaming Republicans for setting up collective bargaining unions. The policy impetus is and always was obvious, but compromises used to be a thing.
I've been saying for a while now that Trump did everybody a service in the primaries by blowing up the myth that Republican orthodoxy in fiscal policies (and social policy diversions) were ever going to help common folk. Bernie tapped into this as well.
He told lies at a shocking 85% rate according to Politifacts. Hillary was just under 50%. But when he was telling the truth, it was invariably some rebuttal to Republican orthodoxy. Bush didn't "keep us safe," social security is good, etc. I'm sure some picked up on that as a breath of fresh air.
Low wage workers have been voting against their own economic interests for twenty years or more. It was unions that were helping their fathers scratch out middle class lives. Obviously much to the chagrin of the owners and management. Now we're down to 10% of workers in unions. And it's a race to the bottom for wages, benefits, safety, etc.
You think that might contribute to some feelings of concern for working class folks? Republicans in Wisconsin even went after firefighter unions, "why should those Govt workers get health care and pensions when you don't!"
And can you imagine the relief of those folks, 20 million of them, when they could finally get health insurance for their families even with pre-existing conditions? The responsible ones anyway, who jumped at the chance. Credit where due, it was Republicans, back in the day, that provided the impetus for that health care mandate -- they were all for "personal responsibility" back then. As in, why should I have to pay for your emergency room bill! We'll now see if they've actually moved off that position, or if repealing ObamaCare was just a rallying cry -- a newly effective social wedge when the old ones (gay marriage, etc) started failing.
By the way, notice that hardly any incumbents lost in the House and Senate -- so much for that "change" mantra, and "drain the swamp."
When that turns into the term limit discussion, again, beware. That's a bad idea because it just makes congress even dumber than it is. The elected people will barely know where the bathrooms are in the building, let alone how a bill becomes a law. So all the power (knowledge) will simply devolve to the unelected staff level, which can't be voted out of office. The elected ones would be eying their next lobbying gig starting day one in office. Now, at least they're trying to get re-elected (endlessly!), so presumably incentivized to represent their constituents.
Back to this election, a fair bit of propaganda helped swing it as well, along with some Russian hacking, and that last twist of the knife by the FBI. The House committee and a few internal FBI agents clearly won that checker game, forcing Comey to act before the leaks ensued. But he could have added a few more explanatory sentences to his initial letter knowing it would be wildly distorted. And it surely was -- epic! Or better yet, he could have evaluated the emails first, what a concept!
But all three branches of Govt is a big prize. Let authoritarian rule begin! I hope there isn't another market crash like only 8 years ago, resulting from the last time they had total control -- anybody heard from W and Cheney lately? Or trade wars, or expanded shooting wars (Syria, Iran, South China Sea), etc.
I hope Trump somehow severs his ties to his Russian oligarch bankers, though I bet he can't. He's more useful now. Think he'll ever release his taxes? No.
Instability in our allies is sure to follow. German elections are next, as Putin supports their Nationalist parties who are railing against the refugees he's helping to push toward them from Syria. Putin is actually playing chess, but it's all so obviously desperation due to the stranglehold we've applied diplomatically with international sanctions and very helpfully low oil prices crashing his economy. Russia is half the GDP of California, roughly equivalent to our 4th biggest state, I believe, but with nukes.
Elsewhere, I actually bet the Brits back away from Brexit-ing, now that they've decided their Parliament has to vote to make it happen. Representative democracy at work. It's prudent to rely not on the marginal will of the masses overall. But maybe smaller states can get away with it. Great Britain is just a bit smaller than California in terms of GDP.
That's why we don't have national referendums, because mob rule always wins -- not reason. And minority rights get squashed.
The electoral college is a similar hedge against majority/mob rule. It helps to represent minority issues even in very small states. Heard enough about New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) and Iowa?
Beware anybody seeking to simply abolish the electoral college. It can't happen without an amendment, so it won't. But it also would make every single vote in podunk states like Wyoming matter entirely -- more than enough to throw the election this time. Multiply that times all the marginal voting issues in every state. Bad idea.
Adjusting the proportions of electors to come into line with actual state populations is clearly needed though. That's why the popular vote isn't lining up this year (and with Bush v Gore). I think California's electors are 55. But relative to Wyoming's 3, California should have nearly 200! A majority of electors nationwide should still win.
We'll see if the Republicans can govern, or if dramatic obstructionist tactics are all they've got. For example, the next debt ceiling increase in March will be a good indicator. Hint: divest from the market just in case.
The Senate's filibuster rule is probably history, so inconvenient to authoritarian rule. Their brazen obstruction over filling the open Supreme Court seat paid off as well. And they'll almost certainly fill the 100's of lower court appointments they refused to fill all through Obama's administration -- all in the next two years unless the Senate democrats adopt similar obstructionist tactics. And so it goes.
Winter is coming! Especially for voter rights, given the last round of clearly prejudicial policies in North Carolina and elsewhere that were struck down this time. Won't be so next time. That's how they'll hold onto power. The next mid-term election has even fewer Republican seats up for grabs in the Senate, so the knot will tighten.
Similar jeopardy for reproductive rights, marriage rights, health insurance, financial regulation, climate agreements, maybe even privatization of Social Security. Which would simply be the ultimate boon for the financial industry in terms of commissions and capital. We'll see.
In any case, I bet he'll call the first economic report after Jan 20 the most "beautiful" unemployment rate, growth rate, crime rate, gas prices, etc. ever, rather than the "disaster" they are now. Even though they're ranging from historically good to pretty good, especially considering the circumstances internationally.
Then he'll set about gleefully dismantling the last 8 years. He'll get the last laugh. His consistent birtherism didn't quite delegitimize Obama during his Presidency, except for that alt-right crowd. Although it was certainly corrosive, with that bold lie lasting years even after evidence quelled most others. Erasing Obama's legacy will be even more satisfying.
He may now be President- elect, but he's still a farce! We'll see how it plays out nationally and internationally.
Ben Franklin famously said "It's a Republic, if you can keep it." But our founders, brilliant as they were in their compromises, appear to have relied at least somewhat on public shame to keep the actors inside nominal bounds. To avoid constitutional crisis.
I'm pretty certain Trump didn't know there were three branches of Govt when he started this odyssey. So I expect he didn't know about the bounds. It appears he still doesn't know shame. But maybe he will learn humility. I hope so.
But even if so, I fear we as a country have already descended into a place where most are impervious to reason, too distracted to even notice. Propaganda works, and that's probably why! It's us vs them. Sunni vs Shia. Maybe it's simply a more natural state for humankind, and America was bucking that tendency all along. We were the best example of compromise the world over, and that's what made us "exceptional."
So Trump got no more votes than Romney. In fact, the electorate looked strikingly similar. But Hillary, flawed as she is (but not as Republicans say), didn't inspire all the votes Obama did. So that's where we are. Kind of similar to people rather having a beer with Bush than Gore, a completely competent individual, if somewhat uninspiring. The things we look for in our presidents, astonishing.
Trump did us all another service, in showing the utter charade of our political seasons. Just a jobs program for media and political pundits. Unnecessary to its core, save for a few key positions around the candidate to lie, and spin, and make excuses for whatever the candidate says (in this case to confiscate Trump's Twitter account!). All that is apparently needed is to be as salacious as you can be without having to beep too many parts so the media can feed it live to the masses. Any mention is good no matter the reason. It's all name recognition for those pulling their blinders off for that brief moment wondering who they'd like to have a beer with.
So now, are we going to have chants of "lock her up" at Rose Garden ceremonies? Think about that for a second. All those instigators will be running the White House? That's his staff. Oh yeah, and he's our President.
Looking forward to arguing more over a third beer or more!!!
Mace, several of your conclusions are wrong, but one in particular about trump voters being afraid to admit they voted for trump. I disagree. People want to know how they voted for a bigot. A trump voter should be able to explain this and defend their position. They can't. That's why they don't admit it.
The US State Department has asked some 170 ambassadors to tender their resignations in a routine move before Barack Obama is inaugurated as president, an official said Thursday.
how can i contact the president?anyone can help? i need to build a wall so the goat of my neighbor doesnt jump on my yard..and need the mexicans to pay for it
Comments
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Border Patrol Chief Mark Morgan Resigns
http://www.the-postillon.com/2017/01/trump-dump.html?m=1#.WIla2KFhM78.facebook
www.headstonesband.com
One senior State Department official who responded to my requests for comment said that all the officials had previously submitted their letters of resignation, as was required for all positions that are appointed by the president and that require confirmation by the Senate, known as PAS positions.
“No officer accepts a PAS position with the expectation that it is unlimited. And all officers understand that the President may choose to replace them at any time,” this official said. “These officers have served admirably and well. Their departure offers a moment to consider their accomplishments and thank them for their service. These are the patterns and rhythms of the career service.”
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
The New York Times said the order appeared to break with decades of precedent by indicating that affected ambassadors would not get even the briefest extension of their appointments, for reasons such as completing a child’s school term or dealing with family health issues.
A senior member of Trump’s transition team told the Times there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Obama’s overseas envoys leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do.
“The only thing that is different is that they are not letting any of them have extensions,” Neumann told VOA. “That is a little unusual.”"
"Ambassador Richard Boucher, who served as State Department spokesman for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said that while there’s always a lot of turnover around the time a new administration takes office, traditionally senior officials work with the new team to see who should stay on in their roles and what other jobs might be available. But that’s not what happened this time.
The officials who manage the building and thousands of overseas diplomatic posts are charged with taking care of Americans overseas and protecting U.S. diplomats risking their lives abroad. The career foreign service officers are crucial to those functions as well as to implementing the new president’s agenda, whatever it may be, Boucher said.
“You don’t run foreign policy by making statements, you run it with thousands of people working to implement programs every day,” Boucher said. “To undercut that is to undercut the institution.”
By itself, the sudden departure of the State Department’s entire senior management team is disruptive enough. But in the context of a president who railed against the U.S. foreign policy establishment during his campaign and secretary of state with no government experience, the vacancies are much more concerning.
Tillerson’s job No. 1 must be to find qualified and experienced career officials to manage the State Department’s vital offices. His second job should be to reach out to and reassure a State Department workforce that is panicked about what the Trump administration means for them."
I looked at another Trump speech:
“Clinton wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.”
-DJT 6/13/16
www.headstonesband.com
Trump’s candidacy relies on the power of fear. It could be the only way for him to win.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/
The Fear Factor
Donald Trump is trying to spread the politics of fear in the presidential campaign.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-24/donald-trumps-campaign-of-fear
Donald Trump's Campaign of Fear
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/donald-trumps-campaign-of-fear.html
Fear of being shamed with such terrible labels. It's a fear tactic, come on.
Yeah, saying you're better for the country than the person you're running against is far worse, my bad.
You do realize that it was the left, including Hilary herself, who said if Trump wins there will be WWIii, nuclear war, Halocaust 2.0 and so on. But Trump saying he will make America great is running on fear? I gotta call this BS out when I see it man.
So when he was stating that Mexicans are rapist and murderers and Muslims should be kept out or put on list that's not a fear tactic ..
Donald Trump is going to publish a list of crimes committed by immigrants. Hitler did the same
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-weekly-list-immigrants-crimes-hitler-comparisons-7547211
I wonder if the WP article was deliberate or just badly sourced? (i.e. fake news vs not very good journalism)?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
First I'm not a fan of Trump and I'm not going to pretend he's going to go down as one of the best presidents in history. My first post was in response to multiple claims of a fear-mongering campaign from the right. I agree with your opening paragraphs, but my argument was, and still is, that the claims the left and Clinton made are worse. Seems extremely hypocritical to me by what the left gets away with.
Repeatedly on AMT, and just about any other social networking site, anyone who voted for or supports Trump is immediately given a nasty label. It's been defended as "shame" or several other similar terms, but its not. People have the right to believe who will make a better president, and to immediately label them for having a different view is wrong, and I stick by that being a more powerful fear tactic than any Trump used. People are afraid to admit in the work place or on social media that they voted for Trump, and not because they regret it, it is because of the stigma the left has placed on you if you don't agree with them. People can't support Trump at work because of the labels the left will give them-that is a fantastic fear tactic-fear of being labeled horrible names.
I'm not stuck on the phrase "Islamic terrorist" either, but just used that as an example how quickly you earn a label for having one view point, but you can shoot 100 people in a theater and no one wants to label that.
There can be comparisons between Nazi Germany and Trump, but I just don't see the level of comparison that has been drawn. For Clinton to paint the image of people being deported by box cars was to serve only one purpose, to put the fear of Hitler in everyone's head. There was no truth to that comment. His all out bans of races and religions have been retracted as well.
If you don't agree with the left on nearly every issue you're labeled sexist, racist, homophobic, a bigot, etc. If you voted for another candidate you have the same stigma. And very few acknowledge that. Pro-life females were not allowed to march in the women's marches that occurred this weekend, how hypocritical is that to march for your rights, but not allow a certain group to march because of their belief? How am I the only one that sees this?
Not to say there wasn't any fear with Trump's campaign, but I still stand by the fear tactics used on the left are worse. Hilary herself called you a deplorable if you didn't vote for her (or at best a 50/50 chance of being one). Vote for me or else you're a sexist, racist deplorable who hates gays and will be responsible for nuclear war and WWIII and the fall of mankind. Doesn't even seem to compare with Trump's lack-of-thought comments.
My screed after Trump's win, written to my Trump supporting friends that I was trying to flip:
-------------------------------
I was wrong. But I fell asleep before it was all over so missed all the drama -- thankfully!
Looks like you had lots of company. Even if many came outta their duck blinds, donned their dress camouflage hats, and voted!
Maybe Nixon was right about the silent majority! They apparently just couldn't understand the more subtle dog whistles from conventional politicians. They needed to hear it plainly said. But I think most were just shamelessly misled. Those beyond the alt-right deplorables, that is. They knew the truth they were seeing.
In the end, Trump got all the same constituencies as Romney, somewhat fewer. Hillary similarly got less than Obama, but still won the popular vote overall. All considered, apparently none of the campaign really mattered. We're now a nation of identity politics, like Sunni vs Shia, impervious to reason, simply opposing the other.
Trump did realize that, credit where due. He hurled his epithets daily through regular media, which ate it up. So he could funnel incoming cash contributions toward more profitable entities, like rent in his buildings, or probably some wholly owned hat maker? That's why I think he got involved in the first place, to harness some of that free money available. That's why there's more than 15 candidates on the Republican side, all trying to raise their speaking fees and sell books.
I bet when people look closely at the election results, they'll see clear evidence of egregious and effective voter suppression in Republican led states. North Carolina was so obvious there was a court ruling. But watch for it in Wisconsin (Scott Walker, Gov.) and Michigan, maybe even Pennsylvania. All single day voting states are vulnerable to such things. Early voting should be everywhere, if only to alleviate Election Day counting! It was rigged! Leave it to Trump to betray his every fear and tactic by trying to project it onto his adversaries.
So when confusion over IDs (PA) or purged voter rolls (FL) trim a couple percentage points, and he wins those states by only a single point, it's all working as planned.
The margins were also less than the Green Party and half the Libertarian party combined. It's like 2000 with Nader. What are these third party candidates thinking? What is their point? The Green Party especially. Are their interests going to be served now? No. Quite the contrary. Exponentially so. Was Ralph Nader pleased with the Bush administration? I expect not.
Of course, it works both ways. Bill Clinton won with 43% or so, because Ross Perot got near 18%. I guess they all have Perot in mind. Wacky as he was, he still did well.
In the end, the Republican approach during the Obama administration, including
frequent Govt shutdowns and obstruction of everything, has paid off. They were brilliantly insightful about that --knowing people weren't paying close enough attention to know who to blame.
For example, Trump blaming Democrats for free trade agreements back in the day is like blaming Republicans for setting up collective bargaining unions. The policy impetus is and always was obvious, but compromises used to be a thing.
I've been saying for a while now that Trump did everybody a service in the primaries by blowing up the myth that Republican orthodoxy in fiscal policies (and social policy diversions) were ever going to help common folk. Bernie tapped into this as well.
He told lies at a shocking 85% rate according to Politifacts. Hillary was just under 50%. But when he was telling the truth, it was invariably some rebuttal to Republican orthodoxy. Bush didn't "keep us safe," social security is good, etc. I'm sure some picked up on that as a breath of fresh air.
Low wage workers have been voting against their own economic interests for twenty years or more. It was unions that were helping their fathers scratch out middle class lives. Obviously much to the chagrin of the owners and management. Now we're down to 10% of workers in unions. And it's a race to the bottom for wages, benefits, safety, etc.
You think that might contribute to some feelings of concern for working class folks? Republicans in Wisconsin even went after firefighter unions, "why should those Govt workers get health care and pensions when you don't!"
And can you imagine the relief of those folks, 20 million of them, when they could finally get health insurance for their families even with pre-existing conditions? The responsible ones anyway, who jumped at the chance. Credit where due, it was Republicans, back in the day, that provided the impetus for that health care mandate -- they were all for "personal responsibility" back then. As in, why should I have to pay for your emergency room bill! We'll now see if they've actually moved off that position, or if repealing ObamaCare was just a rallying cry -- a newly effective social wedge when the old ones (gay marriage, etc) started failing.
By the way, notice that hardly any incumbents lost in the House and Senate -- so much for that "change" mantra, and "drain the swamp."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
When that turns into the term limit discussion, again, beware. That's a bad idea because it just makes congress even dumber than it is. The elected people will barely know where the bathrooms are in the building, let alone how a bill becomes a law. So all the power (knowledge) will simply devolve to the unelected staff level, which can't be voted out of office. The elected ones would be eying their next lobbying gig starting day one in office. Now, at least they're trying to get re-elected (endlessly!), so presumably incentivized to represent their constituents.
Back to this election, a fair bit of propaganda helped swing it as well, along with some Russian hacking, and that last twist of the knife by the FBI. The House committee and a few internal FBI agents clearly won that checker game, forcing Comey to act before the leaks ensued. But he could have added a few more explanatory sentences to his initial letter knowing it would be wildly distorted. And it surely was -- epic! Or better yet, he could have evaluated the emails first, what a concept!
But all three branches of Govt is a big prize. Let authoritarian rule begin! I hope there isn't another market crash like only 8 years ago, resulting from the last time they had total control -- anybody heard from W and Cheney lately? Or trade wars, or expanded shooting wars (Syria, Iran, South China Sea), etc.
I hope Trump somehow severs his ties to his Russian oligarch bankers, though I bet he can't. He's more useful now. Think he'll ever release his taxes? No.
Instability in our allies is sure to follow. German elections are next, as Putin supports their Nationalist parties who are railing against the refugees he's helping to push toward them from Syria. Putin is actually playing chess, but it's all so obviously desperation due to the stranglehold we've applied diplomatically with international sanctions and very helpfully low oil prices crashing his economy. Russia is half the GDP of California, roughly equivalent to our 4th biggest state, I believe, but with nukes.
Elsewhere, I actually bet the Brits back away from Brexit-ing, now that they've decided their Parliament has to vote to make it happen. Representative democracy at work. It's prudent to rely not on the marginal will of the masses overall. But maybe smaller states can get away with it. Great Britain is just a bit smaller than California in terms of GDP.
That's why we don't have national referendums, because mob rule always wins -- not reason. And minority rights get squashed.
The electoral college is a similar hedge against majority/mob rule. It helps to represent minority issues even in very small states. Heard enough about New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) and Iowa?
Beware anybody seeking to simply abolish the electoral college. It can't happen without an amendment, so it won't. But it also would make every single vote in podunk states like Wyoming matter entirely -- more than enough to throw the election this time. Multiply that times all the marginal voting issues in every state. Bad idea.
Adjusting the proportions of electors to come into line with actual state populations is clearly needed though. That's why the popular vote isn't lining up this year (and with Bush v Gore). I think California's electors are 55. But relative to Wyoming's 3, California should have nearly 200! A majority of electors nationwide should still win.
We'll see if the Republicans can govern, or if dramatic obstructionist tactics are all they've got. For example, the next debt ceiling increase in March will be a good indicator. Hint: divest from the market just in case.
The Senate's filibuster rule is probably history, so inconvenient to authoritarian rule. Their brazen obstruction over filling the open Supreme Court seat paid off as well. And they'll almost certainly fill the 100's of lower court appointments they refused to fill all through Obama's administration -- all in the next two years unless the Senate democrats adopt similar obstructionist tactics. And so it goes.
Winter is coming! Especially for voter rights, given the last round of clearly prejudicial policies in North Carolina and elsewhere that were struck down this time. Won't be so next time. That's how they'll hold onto power. The next mid-term election has even fewer Republican seats up for grabs in the Senate, so the knot will tighten.
Similar jeopardy for reproductive rights, marriage rights, health insurance, financial regulation, climate agreements, maybe even privatization of Social Security. Which would simply be the ultimate boon for the financial industry in terms of commissions and capital. We'll see.
In any case, I bet he'll call the first economic report after Jan 20 the most "beautiful" unemployment rate, growth rate, crime rate, gas prices, etc. ever, rather than the "disaster" they are now. Even though they're ranging from historically good to pretty good, especially considering the circumstances internationally.
Then he'll set about gleefully dismantling the last 8 years. He'll get the last laugh. His consistent birtherism didn't quite delegitimize Obama during his Presidency, except for that alt-right crowd. Although it was certainly corrosive, with that bold lie lasting years even after evidence quelled most others. Erasing Obama's legacy will be even more satisfying.
He may now be President- elect, but he's still a farce! We'll see how it plays out nationally and internationally.
Ben Franklin famously said "It's a Republic, if you can keep it." But our founders, brilliant as they were in their compromises, appear to have relied at least somewhat on public shame to keep the actors inside nominal bounds. To avoid constitutional crisis.
I'm pretty certain Trump didn't know there were three branches of Govt when he started this odyssey. So I expect he didn't know about the bounds. It appears he still doesn't know shame. But maybe he will learn humility. I hope so.
But even if so, I fear we as a country have already descended into a place where most are impervious to reason, too distracted to even notice. Propaganda works, and that's probably why! It's us vs them. Sunni vs Shia. Maybe it's simply a more natural state for humankind, and America was bucking that tendency all along. We were the best example of compromise the world over, and that's what made us "exceptional."
So Trump got no more votes than Romney. In fact, the electorate looked strikingly similar. But Hillary, flawed as she is (but not as Republicans say), didn't inspire all the votes Obama did. So that's where we are. Kind of similar to people rather having a beer with Bush than Gore, a completely competent individual, if somewhat uninspiring. The things we look for in our presidents, astonishing.
Trump did us all another service, in showing the utter charade of our political seasons. Just a jobs program for media and political pundits. Unnecessary to its core, save for a few key positions around the candidate to lie, and spin, and make excuses for whatever the candidate says (in this case to confiscate Trump's Twitter account!). All that is apparently needed is to be as salacious as you can be without having to beep too many parts so the media can feed it live to the masses. Any mention is good no matter the reason. It's all name recognition for those pulling their blinders off for that brief moment wondering who they'd like to have a beer with.
So now, are we going to have chants of "lock her up" at Rose Garden ceremonies? Think about that for a second. All those instigators will be running the White House? That's his staff. Oh yeah, and he's our President.
Looking forward to arguing more over a third beer or more!!!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©