2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Jawgap

Stheno wrote: »

Does anyone think a woman will occupy a cabinet position of significance?

US election 2016 results: Meet President Trump's possible cabinet

Christy42

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Considering the Obama/Hillary administration is as culpable as any other for the destabilisation of the Middle East and North Africa, while Trump seems to be far more accommodating towards some kind of entente towards Putin and Russia, I'd venture to suggest that Trump mightn't be half as hawkish as some people think he might be.

Bush was definitely worse. If anything Obama took too long to go into Syria which turned itself into a horror show and while they might not have done well in the aftermath Libya was already a war zone as well. Contrast that to Iraq.

Hillary was never going to start a war with Russia as some have claimed. The no fly zone would have been sorted through diplomacy, not just deciding to shoot down Russian planes one day.

While it might not involve American troops a lot of people in eastern Europe are a lot more scared today than they were a week ago. I also noticed in one of the threads here his supporters went from celebrating this candidate of peace to deciding that Iran should be invaded. We also have his statements of bomb them all to go on.

Zubeneschamali

Jawgap wrote: »

US election 2016 results: Meet President Trump's possible cabinet

Drain the swamp, then give the Alligators Cabinet positions?

Hank Scorpio

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no? I don't know enough about the rest to judge.

BoJack Horseman

Christy42 wrote: »

Hillary was never going to start a war with Russia as some have claimed. The no fly zone would have been sorted through diplomacy

Elaborate.... you seem to know more than Hillary there.

Explain her plan to "diplomatically" make SyAF air & air defence assets stand down in their own sovereign country?
Once you have worked that out, explain how she would have "diplomatically" grounded RuAF forces in Latakia, and their corresponding air defence apparatus on the ground and on their naval-flotilla off shore.

You know well that as with every previous no-fly zone, the safety of the patrollers is paramount so cannot function in a contested environment.
You know what is why with every previous no-fly zone the air and air defence assets of the patrolled country are first degraded to ensure that safety.

So, again..... how would Hillary have "diplomatically" made that surrender occur & by some unprecedented military miracle do this without harming any person or military asset?

Christy42 wrote: »

While it might not involve American troops a lot of people in eastern Europe are a lot more scared today than they were a week ago.

Is there some sort of eastern-euro fear index you have access to?
The US is nearly doubling its rotating assets in Eastern Europe.
Where is this fear coming from?

Zubeneschamali

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no?

No.

Jawgap

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no? I don't know enough about the rest to judge.

I don't doubt that they are (in certain quarters) but as usual you are deflecting - the question wasn't "will Trump appoint people who are highly respected to his cabinet, the question was "Does anyone think a woman will occupy a cabinet position of significance?"

The indications are, they are unlikely to.

Likewise, those likely to make up his economic team have a certain 'homogeneous' look about them.....

• Steve Mnuchin - Treasury Secretary? - A former Goldman Sachs executive
  
• Thomas Barrack - His day job is running Colony Capital, a real estate investment company
  
• John A. Paulson - hedge fund billionaire
  
• Wilbur Ross - Commerce Secretary? - (not if Christie gets it) billionaire backer of Trump.....made his money as a bankruptcy specialist at Rothschilds and is now what Forbes describes as a "distressed asset investor"
  
• Dan DiMicco - trade negotiator? Former boss, now executive chairman of the Nucor Corporation, America's largest steel producer, Dan DiMicco is one of the few industrialists among Trump's advisers........Nucor is proud of its record in remaining "union-free".

.....I'm sure there will be women in his administration, but how many positions of significance will be occupied by them?

.....the swamp is going to be a long time a' draining!

Hank Scorpio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

Jawgap

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

How about you explain how, where and by whom Gingrich and Giuliani are respected - seen as you first introduced the idea that they are.....

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gingrich and Giuliani are highly respected no? I don't know enough about the rest to judge.

Hank Scorpio

Jawgap wrote: »

.....I'm sure there will be women in his administration, but how many positions of significance will be occupied by them?

.....the swamp is going to be a long time a' draining!

Trump is loyal and will select people who've stuck with him during the entire campaign. Giuliani was on Fox earlier talking about the cabinet positions.

oscarBravo

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This is one of those situations where the FBI are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Not really, no. Comey went on a solo run and ignored FBI protocol and precedent, as well as advice from pretty much anyone who wasn't himself.

The FBI should have kept its mouth shut about the investigation, like they do about all investigations. But Comey had to do it his way.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

Newt "feelings are as valid as facts" Gingrich?

Rudy "there were no terrorist attacks on America when Bush was president" Giuliani?

Yeah, real serious people.

Hank Scorpio

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

Jawgap

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump is loyal and will select people who've stuck with him during the entire campaign. Giuliani was on Fox earlier talking about the cabinet positions.

.....

Again with the deflection - it's good that Trump is loyal....my two Newfies are loyal, it doesn't mean I'd give them my credit cards......

......no one was questioning his loyalty of him, Giuliani or Gingrich.....the question related to the possibility/probability of women being appointed to positions of significance in his cabinet....

Jawgap wrote: »

.....I'm sure there will be women in his administration, but how many positions of significance will be occupied by them?

......

Do you think someone who said that women who have abortions should be punished, and who made crude insinuations about a TV anchor's menstrual cycle, and who proudly declared that he didn't change nappies or do bedtimes....will be appointing many women to significant cabinet positions?

B0jangles

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump is loyal and will select people who've stuck with him during the entire campaign. Giuliani was on Fox earlier talking about the cabinet positions.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/792031499075944448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trump thinks it is good leadership to get rid of anyone who disagrees with you or says anything negative about you.

He thinks it is good leadership to surround yourself with nothing but yes-men.

Christy42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Elaborate.... you seem to know more than Hillary there.

Explain her plan to "diplomatically" make SyAF air & air defence assets stand down in their own sovereign country?
Once you have worked that out, explain how she would have "diplomatically" grounded RuAF forces in Latakia, and their corresponding air defence apparatus on the ground and on their naval-flotilla off shore.

You know well that as with every previous no-fly zone, the safety of the patrollers is paramount so cannot function in a contested environment.
You know what is why with every previous no-fly zone the air and air defence assets of the patrolled country are first degraded to ensure that safety.

So, again..... how would Hillary have "diplomatically" made that surrender occur & by some unprecedented military miracle do this without harming any person or military asset?



Is there some sort of eastern-euro fear index you have access to?
The US is nearly doubling its rotating assets in Eastern Europe.
Where is this fear coming from?

The fear is coming from Trump being friendly with the man who wants to invade said countries as well as his announcement that the US may not fulfill it's Nato obligations in defending them.

As for the first bit I don't know the details but you sit around a table and come to an agreement. You do it the same way you got all those forces to stand down (aside from patrolling their own areas) during cease fires that have occurred in the country. She was secretary of state for 4 years and didn't exactly come within a horses roar of a war with Russia.

Can you point out where she said she would start the no fly zone by shooting down a load of Russian jets for the laugh or are you just assuming that is how it would happen.
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-1.747305?v=C8FB69457300AD9101CC0444187BDD4C

( I just want the quote that says she wants leverage to bring the Russians to the table and it was a link with the quote I wanted).

She is advocating for it here and specifically mentions the negotiating table. If she failed to bring Russia to the table or couldn't find a way to get them to agree with her then it wouldn't happen and it would be a failure for her (the outcome I would have expected to be honest, I don't get why she is pushing the policy that won't be enacted in all likelihood and would have to give up a lot for it).

Jawgap

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

Seriously? He amy have prosecuted them but who gathered the evidence, prepared the case, ran the surveillance, turned the grasses etc.....

.....and btw, it was a couple of Irish-Americans - Maloney and Gleeson - who prosecuted Gotti - Giuliani made his bones prosecuting Wall Street - and was the US Attorney who indicted the bosses of the Five Families but it was Chertoff who actually prosecuted the case.

Hank Scorpio

Trump isn't stupid but everything he does seems to get questioned ten times on this forum. He's surrounded by experienced people assisting him.

The Podesta wikileaks quote is Trump trying to hammer down that her own team think she's a bad leader, I wouldn't read too much into it.

Trump hired Kennyanne Conway in July to help him so I doubt he can only surround himself with yes men or believe everything he does is the right way, she practically won him the election as you could see the change in his behavior and discipline. He had Giuliani coaching him for the debates.

The hatred here for Trump is pretty sad imo, no matter what he does he'll never get any credit.

Jawgap

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump isn't stupid but everything he does seems to get questioned ten times on this forum. He's surrounded by experienced people assisting him.

The Podesta wikileaks quote is Trump trying to hammer down that her own team think she's a bad leader, I wouldn't read too much into it.

Trump hired Kennyanne Conway in July to help him so I doubt he can only surround himself with yes men or believe everything he does is the right way, she practically won him the election as you could see the change in his behavior and discipline. He had Giuliani coaching him for the debates.

The hatred here for Trump is pretty sad imo, no matter what he does he'll never get any credit.

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet.....

okey-dokey, we'll leave it there so.

Hank Scorpio

Jawgap wrote: »

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet.....

okey-dokey, we'll leave it there so.

I don't know. Palin's been mentioned a few times

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet.....

okey-dokey, we'll leave it there so.

I will never understand the fixation on the genitals that an employee does or does not have.

If the best candidate for the job is a woman, then by rights that job should be hers. It's that simple. Why if we change the gender does that simple statement not stay true?

What female candidates do we think Trump is considering for roles in the cabinet? Who has put themselves forward?

There's a remarkably straightforward Bayesian issue at play here if there isn't an even number of male and female candidates. The cabinet makeup is a function of the pool of candidates, not of the pool of the population.

FWIW, if Palin is indeed the best candidate for a job, then that can be seen as a damning indictment of all of the other candidates (or the job itself)!

BoJack Horseman

Christy42 wrote: »

The fear is coming from Trump being friendly with the man who wants to invade said countries as well as his announcement that the US may not fulfill it's Nato obligations in defending them

Right.... so you have no proof of any actual fear.... grand.
(especially when the US will be rotating more forces into east europe from next February)
.... and we'll leave aside the likely zero inerest of NATO wanting to defend the Baltics, Will portugal or Belgium send thousands to their deaths for Estonia?
I doubt it.

You are welcome to be against the US & Russia reaching some sort rapprochement.
Personally I see no downside to the reduction in tensions between the two nuclear armed superpowers! (but that's just me).

As for the first bit I don't know the details

Indeed.... it seems that no one does.... least of all Hillary.

The reader will remember that the Iraqi air force wasn't "negotiated" into having its air force & air defence capability destroyed.
There wasn't "negotiations" with Serbia into having it's air force & air defence capability all but destroyed.....
And finally, the bold Col Ghadaffi wasn't extended the courtesy of those same "negotiations" before his military was annihilated as part of that no-fly-zone.

but you sit around a table and come to an agreement.

Didn't read past this slice of naievety.

An "agreement" between the invading US and the country its invading... 'allow a jet to take off & we (the invader) annihilate you'

Some agreement there Christy..... great plan!
It is remarkable that no one has thought of this in the 5 years of Syrian civil war!

Perhaps one day we will hear how Clinton planned to ground the worlds 2nd most powerful air force by sheer will alone.... and without any threat of violence!..... lol.

I really hope we do.
Wouldn't want her defeat to be down to her warmongering.

Jawgap

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't know. Palin's been mentioned a few times

As Interior Secretary - it's a cabinet post, but is it 'significant'

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

I will never understand the fixation on the genitals that an employee does or does not have.

If the best candidate for the job is a woman, then by rights that job should be hers. It's that simple. Why if we change the gender does that simple statement not stay true?

What female candidates do we think Trump is considering for roles in the cabinet? Who has put themselves forward?

There's a remarkably straightforward Bayesian issue at play here if there isn't an even number of male and female candidates. The cabinet makeup is a function of the pool of candidates, not of the pool of the population.

FWIW, if Palin is indeed the best candidate for a job, then that can be seen as a damning indictment of all of the other candidates (or the job itself)!

Well, underlying the question about women in the cabinet is the question of whether Trump - based on his utterances - is capable of objectively assessing people and their abilities without regard to their gender or ethnicity?

If you think he is then you can be satisfied that he has picked the best available for the jobs in question, regardless of its gender/ethnicity make-up.

So how confident would people be that he can be 'gender-blind'? And if he can be or is gender blind why say things he said? Why, for example, if a woman disagrees with him must it be attributed to her menstrual cycle?

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

As Interior Secretary - it's a cabinet post, but is it 'significant'

Do you think Palin is qualified for any of the cabinet posts?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Palin is qualified for any of the cabinet posts?

I think as a governor she brings executive experience and yes, if you had to pick one post in the cabinet for her, Interior would be a good fit given the amount of federal land in Alaska.

Do I think she'd make a good Secretary of the Interior? No, I think she'd unwind a lot of the protections in place on federal land and in the national parks and ANWR would be in serious trouble!

daithi7

Jawgap wrote: »

So, still no word on how many women he might appoint to the cabinet......

Who cares!?

I'm very interested in who Trump picks for his cabinet but to me their gender is completely irrelevant, why not talk about things that actually matter like their ability, politics and track record maybe!?

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, underlying the question about women in the cabinet is the question of whether Trump - based on his utterances - is capable of objectively assessing people and their abilities without regard to their gender or ethnicity?

So give me some examples of people he has 'ruled out' with his nonsense?

His campaign manager for the Presidential run was who?

Jawgap wrote: »

If you think he is then you can be satisfied that he has picked the best available for the jobs in question, regardless of its gender/ethnicity make-up.

So how confident would people be that he can be 'gender-blind'? And if he can be or is gender blind why say things he said? Why, for example, if a woman disagrees with him must it be attributed to her menstrual cycle?

I'm pointing out that judging and quantifying anyone's 'gender bias' using the results of the cabinet makeup is simply bad science. And an attempt to 'score points' without any real consideration of the problem. It is at best a weak point, at worst it serves to trivialize a serious issue.

Jawgap

daithi7 wrote: »

Who cares!?

I'm very interested in who Trump picks for his cabinet but to me their gender is completely irrelevant, why not talk about things that actually matter like their ability, politics and track record maybe!?

You don't think a government should reflect the citizenry it serves?

For example, do you think a bunch of middle-aged men are capable of legislating or governing on women's reproductive rights?

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

I think as a governor she brings executive experience and yes, if you had to pick one post in the cabinet for her, Interior would be a good fit given the amount of federal land in Alaska.

Right. So if we're trying desperately to ensure a female representative, then Palin gets the role.

Jawgap wrote: »

Do I think she'd make a good Secretary of the Interior? No, I think she'd unwind a lot of the protections in place on federal land and in the national parks and ANWR would be in serious trouble!

But wait! We don't think she's fit for it.

At least we have a female in there though. And the box can be ticked and we can continue paying lip service.

Skylinehead

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

I thought Trump was running on a platform of anti-establishment? Newt Gingrich is the epitome of establishment.

First Up

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think Palin is qualified for any of the cabinet posts?

The whole ethos of the Trump campaign has been that those with "qualifications" are disqualified as they are "insiders" and this resonates with the muttering classes who are happy to blame someone else for their own inadequacies. So by those standards, Palin is eminently qualified.

I'm sure he'll pick a few smart folk from his business network; the fun will be watching how they interact with the House and Senate about which they know little (and are proud of it) but who have the power to soften his cough. From what I hear, the GOP members of the Senate are far from impressed with him and he will not get an easy ride.

As someone said yesterday, Trump has been elected President, not King. He needs to figure out who it works. Lets see how the "Art of the Deal" translates.

AbusesToilets

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, underlying the question about women in the cabinet is the question of whether Trump - based on his utterances - is capable of objectively assessing people and their abilities without regard to their gender or ethnicity?

If you think he is then you can be satisfied that he has picked the best available for the jobs in question, regardless of its gender/ethnicity make-up.

So how confident would people be that he can be 'gender-blind'? And if he can be or is gender blind why say things he said? Why, for example, if a woman disagrees with him must it be attributed to her menstrual cycle?

Seems like he's damned either way so. I'd be less concerned with a Secretary's gender and more focused on what policies they will pursue. Crazy, right?

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't think a government should reflect the citizenry it serves?

For example, do you think a bunch of middle-aged men are capable of legislating or governing on women's reproductive rights?

Of course they are! Such a nonsense suggestion.

Do you think that it's crazy that no children wrote this? http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Have you ever heard of empathy? Objectivity?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

So give me some examples of people he has 'ruled out' with his nonsense?

His campaign manager for the Presidential run was who?

I'm pointing out that judging and quantifying anyone's 'gender bias' using the results of the cabinet makeup is simply bad science. And an attempt to 'score points' without any real consideration of the problem. It is at best a weak point, at worst it serves to trivialize a serious issue.

Which raises an interesting point - as the Donald is no stranger to 'bad science'

Trump's Views on Science Are Shockingly Ignorant

Anyway back to the matter at hand.....
Freud suggested there were four ways to the sub-conscious - so if you want to wait until the cabinet appointments are announced that's not a bad idea, but what in his talking about women would lead you to conclude he is capable of assessing a person's abilities without regard to their gender?

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you ever heard of empathy? Objectivity?

If empathy and objectivity were hallmarks of the middle-aged white men making laws about women's reproductive rights, women wouldn't be so worried about those laws.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

---

DEFLECTION

---

I am not a Trump supporter. I thought we were having a discussion about what his appointments to cabinet mean?

Jawgap wrote: »

Anyway back to the matter at hand.....
Freud suggested there were four ways to the sub-conscious - so if you want to wait until the cabinet appointments are announced that's not a bad idea, but what in his talking about women would lead you to conclude he is capable of assessing a person's abilities without regard to their gender?

I guess it would be his actions in employing females to jobs that they clearly do well in.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Right. So if we're trying desperately to ensure a female representative, then Palin gets the role.


But wait! We don't think she's fit for it.

At least we have a female in there though. And the box can be ticked and we can continue paying lip service.

No, there's two parts to the question -

1. Do I think Palin is qualified to be in Trump's cabinet?

Yes, I do based on her experience.

2. Do I think she'll make a good Secretary of the Interior? No, I don't.

If you asked an roughneck, a rancher or a hunter they'd probably answer yes and absolutely!

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If empathy and objectivity were hallmarks of the middle-aged white men making laws about women's reproductive rights, women wouldn't be so worried about those laws.

Are you suggesting that a persons' race, age or gender precludes them from the ability to legislate for others outside those strict boundaries?

Jawgap does

Jawgap wrote: »

For example, do you think a bunch of middle-aged men are capable of legislating or governing on women's reproductive rights?

Should I have told my younger brother not to vote for Zappone based on her age and gender?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not a Trump supporter. I thought we were having a discussion about what his appointments to cabinet mean?



I guess it would be his actions in employing females to jobs that they clearly do well in.

Kellyanne Conway only became campaign manager in August having joined the campaign in July......after he won the nomination

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Kellyanne Conway only became campaign manager in August having joined the campaign in July......after he won the nomination

What did he win since?

She became campaign manager for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on August 17, 2016.[1] Because of Trump's Presidential election victory on November 8, 2016, Conway became the first woman to manage a victorious presidential campaign in U.S. history

But of course, this does not suit your narrative that Trump cannot work with women. The truth is he will work with anyone that gives him results.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a persons' race, age or gender precludes them from the ability to legislate for others outside those strict boundaries?

Should I have told my younger brother not to vote for Zappone?

No, I'd say he's well capable of influencing the issue.....just not in the direction those most likely to be affected by it would like.....as he said in the final debate......

"I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case"

Donald Trump said the overturning of the landmark Supreme Court decision giving women the right to abortion "will happen, automatically," if he is elected president and gets to appoint justices to the high court.

"I am pro-life," Trump said during Wednesday night's presidential debate when asked whether he wanted that decision, Roe v. Wade, reversed by the Supreme Court.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'd say he's well capable of influencing the issue.....just not in the direction those most likely to be affected by it would like.....as he said in the final debate......

Plenty of US women want to do that too.

Not sure what point you are trying to make with all this. Can you summarise?

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'd say he's well capable of influencing the issue.....just not in the direction those most likely to be affected by it would like.....as he said in the final debate......

Yes. I understand his position. His position disagreeing with mine does not mean that he cannot legislate for something though. Something you have tried to suggest upthread.

Again, I'll ask. Should I have advised my younger brother not to vote for Zappone as her aged-femaleness means that she could not be capable of legislating for his rights and protections? Why is that not a fair comparison to what you have written above?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

What did he win since?



But of course, this does not suit your narrative that Trump cannot work with women. The truth is he will work with anyone that gives him results.

You think she was the catalyst?

I'm sure he will, but it's the nature of the results he'll be looking for that has everyone a bit edgy......

Donald Trump 'not opposed to Muslim database' in US

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

You think she was the catalyst?

Could be. I don't know. Does it shatter your caricature of him as some form of misogynistic tyrant that despises women and cannot work with them though?
Sure does.

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm sure he will, but it's the nature of the results he'll be looking for that has

---

Deflection

---

I thought we were discussing his cabinet appointments and the meaning we might infer from it?

It seems that he will appoint people to get results. People. Not men.

Can we put a fork in this one? It's done.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. I understand his position. His position disagreeing with mine does not mean that he cannot legislate for something though. Something you have tried to suggest upthread.

Again, I'll ask. Should I have advised my younger brother not to vote for Zappone as her aged-femaleness means that she could not be capable of legislating for his rights and protections? Why is that not a fair comparison to what you have written above?

Well, you tell us - what in his rhetoric would lead you to believe he is capable of governing in a way that is fair, and inclusive? What in his rhetoric would lead one to conclude he is capable of governing in a way that protects minorities, those who hold minority positions and those who dissent from majority positions?

Or should he just govern in way that satisfies the majority?

alastair

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Right.... so you have no proof of any actual fear.... grand.
(especially when the US will be rotating more forces into east europe from next February)
.... and we'll leave aside the likely zero inerest of NATO wanting to defend the Baltics, Will portugal or Belgium send thousands to their deaths for Estonia?
I doubt it.

You are welcome to be against the US & Russia reaching some sort rapprochement.
Personally I see no downside to the reduction in tensions between the two nuclear armed superpowers! (but that's just me).


Indeed.... it seems that no one does.... least of all Hillary.

The reader will remember that the Iraqi air force wasn't "negotiated" into having its air force & air defence capability destroyed.
There wasn't "negotiations" with Serbia into having it's air force & air defence capability all but destroyed.....
And finally, the bold Col Ghadaffi wasn't extended the courtesy of those same "negotiations" before his military was annihilated as part of that no-fly-zone.


Didn't read past this slice of naievety.

An "agreement" between the invading US and the country its invading... 'allow a jet to take off & we (the invader) annihilate you'

Some agreement there Christy..... great plan!
It is remarkable that no one has thought of this in the 5 years of Syrian civil war!

Perhaps one day we will hear how Clinton planned to ground the worlds 2nd most powerful air force by sheer will alone.... and without any threat of violence!..... lol.

I really hope we do.
Wouldn't want her defeat to be down to her warmongering.

The Russian airforce are not the Syrian airforce, and the prospect of a negotiated deal whereby Russian planes are allowed agreed movement, but the Syrian airforce is not, isn't exactly an impossibility to work out. The Russians aren't particularly wedded to Assad, and any deal that ensures their continued foothold in the country is well within the bounds of pragmatism. Putin knows, same as anyone else who's not delusional, that Assad is not going to retain power in the country. He's a busted flush. The only real question is what nature of coalition is going to offer stable governance down the road.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, you tell us - what in his rhetoric would lead you to believe he is capable of governing in a way that is fair, and inclusive? What in his rhetoric would lead one to conclude he is capable of governing in a way that protects minorities, those who hold minority positions and those who dissent from majority positions?

Or should he just govern in way that satisfies the majority?

These questions have nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Again I'll point out that
1 - I'm not a Trump supporter
2 - I don't like the guy nor will event spend a moment defending his ridiculous policies

BUT
3 - There is enough actual , genuine, remarkable ****e to put on his table that we don't need to invent stuff. The logic that you have used to push the narrative that you have is weak, and if it is somehow acceptable, then it could be accepted again to invent and smear others. Why invent stuff up about him and project it?

It is telling that you haven't answered the question about Zappone's representative abilities btw. I don't doubt her ability to represent fairly and objectively my brother, but you would question that (if the genders were reversed).

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Could be. I don't know. Does it shatter your caricature of him as some form of misogynistic tyrant that despises women and cannot work with them though?
Sure does.

I thought we were discussing his cabinet appointments and the meaning we might infer from it?

It seems that he will appoint people to get results. People. Not men.

Can we put a fork in this one? It's done.

How have I caricatured him? By using his own words? By pointing out the nature of likely cabinet picks?

Did he not say the things he was reported to have said? Was that not his voice on the tape? Did he not have openly criticise a grieving mother for her inability to talk in public about her dead son?

letowski

Found this on FB:

*Trump's first day at the Oval Office after being elected President.*

First briefing by the CIA, Pentagon, FBI:

Trump: We must destroy ISIS immediately. No delays.

CIA: We cannot do that, sir. We created them along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and others.

Trump: The Democrats created them.

CIA: We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.

Trump: Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.

CIA: We can't do that.

Trump: Why is that?

CIA: India will cut Balochistan out of Pak.

Trump: I don't care.

CIA: India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower. We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.

Trump: But you have to destroy the Taliban.

CIA: Sir, we can't do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes.

Trump: We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the Saudis.

Pentagon: Sir, we can't do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can't have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil - and we cannot let their people own it.

Trump: Then, let us invade Iran.

Pentagon: We cannot do that either, sir.

Trump: Why not?

CIA: We are talking to them, sir.

Trump: What? Why?

CIA: We want our Stealth Drones back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to our buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.

Trump: Then let us invade Iraq again.

CIA: Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.

Trump: Why not the whole of Iraq?

CIA: We need the Shi'ite govt of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.

Trump: I am banning Muslims from entering US.

FBI: We can't do that.

Trump: Why not?

FBI: Then our own population will become fearless.

Trump: I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.

Border patrol: You can't do that, sir.

Trump: Why not?

Border patrol: If they're gone, who will build the wall?

Trump: I am banning H1B visas.

USCIS: You cannot do that.

Trump: Why?

Chief of Staff: If you do so, we'll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which is in India.

Trump (sweating profusely by now): What the hell should I do as President???

CIA: Enjoy the White House, sir! We will take care of the rest!