I thought you were a big Hillary guy?

What does being for Hillary have to do with 'liberals' being unaware of big voices in the Democratic party talking about the corrupt intersection of government and companies?

And if you do think that they were unaware even with folks like Warren, Sanders, etc. talking about it. What makes you think they'll think Trump has it right (considering some of his plans already seem to be boondoggles for business)?

It means they nominated nominated somebody who conducts their dealings with big business in much the same way as Trump seems to. So you can say there are certain Democrats (one of them is actually an independent) who oppose it but it would be like arguing Rand Paul or Mike Lee speak for the Republican party when they really don't.

Sanders is now officially a Democrat and in the Senate Democratic leadership, along with Senator Warren). And the comparison with Paul or Lee is off... it's better to argue that Sanders and Warren are more akin to John McCain. No, they don't speak for the Democratic Party as a whole, but they speak for a very large portion of it - who may be getting their choice (Rep. Keith Ellison) as head of the DNC.

You also don't necessary support everything about the candidate you end up voting for. I ended up making a choice of who is best, not who is perfect. There's a lot about Hillary I would change, but she was still the best choice for me.

If the choices are "Negotiate or leave" or just "leave" I'm glad there are forthcoming options for you! I hope your company and your jobs stay.

Well that didn't work out so well. Apparently Pelosi crushed Ryan.

Eh, was likely just an attempt to gain greater statewide appeal cause he's going to run for Governor probably.

Ryan got more votes than he should have under smooth waters. This sort of thing doesn't happen easily, and even less so from a "hail mary" guy out of the blue.

Yeah, that's a pretty significant number given the circumstances.

Personally, I have less problem with Pelosi, as she knows how to obstruct, than I do with the rest of the leadership team. They need to get younger.

dola

The new Commerce Secretary:


Did he just say Trump lied a lot during the campaign?

A politician lied a lot during a campaign. In other news...

Obama Mocks Trump For Suggesting He Can Bring Back Carrier Jobs - YouTube

I don't see jobs being brought 'back' - he's bribed a company into keeping a small handful (no idea exactly what that bribe entailed yet - its been partially revealed but not fully) in the country ... whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective.

I fear it will encourage other companies to play hard-ball and threaten to leave unless they've given tax breaks and such, time will tell how it plays out .. but this is being presented as saving 700-1,000 jobs and as such is a fantastic piece of PR by both Trump and the company in question, as it could have been displayed as them moving the 1,000 jobs being cut to another country as equally easily (and if Hillary had come in and the same had happened I'd have expected that to have been the note being played personally).

They are still moving 1,200 jobs to Mexico. Originally it was going to be all 2,200, but they are keeping 1,000 in Indiana.

When does the swamp get drained? Feels like it's just filling up more and more with some of these picks.

The networks already have stories on a ball bearing factory down the street which wants Trump to save their jobs as well. Gonna be a lot of deals that need to be made.

http://www.pid.gov.pk/?p=30445

I'm pretty sure I could script a Trump Chat bot in about 20 minutes that could fool anybody.

I'm not thrilled that the Mattis nomination essentially cedes civilian control of the military, but at least he should be a strong and much needed voice for NATO.

It's an interesting pick because Mattis is a real strong NATO guy and Trump says it's obsolete. Pretty enormous gap in their defense strategies.

There's also likely to be incredible stories leaking out about clashes between Flynn and Mattis.

He's probably going to be in the administration, so relevant I guess.

Medical examiner 'threatened' by Clarke over jail deaths

We need a new deal, then.

But of course!

How did even you remember that!? :D

Have to laugh at all these people getting worked up over how Trump addresses various foreign leaders. We're the ones for years that don't always know where we stand in regards to other foreign leaders. I'm alright with them not having a clue where we stand in regards to them for a change.

I think it's fine if you're not being looked to to lead. Which we generally are as the whole "leader of the free world" deal. But hey, if we don't want to do that anymore and would like these countries (or the UN!) to take the forefront in running the show...

Certainly, you make a fair argument and my post was a **wink wink** at some level. But Trump did run on a platform where basically he said that the other countries need to start making decisions (and backing up those own decisions on their own) rather than using the U.S. to prop up their stance or expecting the U.S. to fix their problems for them. I don't think that's going to change much, even if he's shaking hands and smiling in front of the cameras. I'd say Israel (and some countries with ISIS issues) is probably about the only ally outside of our continent who shouldn't be worried about any changes in support by the U.S. in a Trump administration.

As for the bad guys? Everyone is still well aware of who they are and Mr. Trump isn't going to change that with a few back rubs along the way. I'd like to see less of us sending trillions of our money overseas just to keep people happy. Trump would definitely be the candidate to do that if anyone would.

There is more to geopolitics than just who the US considers friends and enemies.

A lot is made of the US paying other countries - but are people aware of the amount that other countries pay to fund the US military? - of the ones I know about Japan pays $2bn/year (a deal which Hillary Clinton brokered), South Korean pays $800m/year and on top of this most countries with bases help fund their construction and such which is not inconsiderable (and often uses US companies for the construction).

How much do allies pay for U.S. troops? A lot more than Donald Trump says - LA Times

Trillions?

Wait, wait, wait, wait a gosh darn, cotton pickin minute here. Lance Bass is gay?

Countries that do that are usually third world shitholes with despots trying to make a name for themselves. Telling important strategic allies that you may or may not support them does not seem like a strong strategy for the leader of the free world.

Trump wants to build luxury hotels in Taiwan’s Taoyuan: mayor | Taiwan News

This Trump trope is going to get really old. Pres does something, his business gains, lather rinse repeat.

Yeah this seems more like a business call than a President call.

Apparently it came from Taiwan and was encouraged by one of Cheney's confidants.

Taiwan news is reporting Trump called them.

I wonder if both stories are true. Perhaps Taiwan called and then Trump called back?

Maybe it was one of those weird things where one of them made the call, but never heard a ring, and then the other one just answered and they were like "whoa, I never even heard it ring. Did it ring on your end? Weird."

He told Siri to call Thailand, but you know how those things are with any kind of accent

SNL does a sketch about Trump tweeting. Minutes later Trump tweets about how unfunny SNL is. Can't make it up.

To be fair, that's probably the most accurate tweet he has ever sent

Armed man arrested near D.C. pizzeria targeted by fake news - POLITICO

eh, guess the Post has more details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.065ed0bcc877

Super curious how you're defining that. Because if you're talking about foreign aid spending, it would take twenty years at current spending levels to even approach a single trillion in aid spending.

Our annual budget is a bit over $4 trillion. Of that, we spend about $50 billion on foreign aid. If you're doing the math, that's about 1.25% of our annual spending. Of *that*, just 36%, about $18 billion, is earmarked for economic assistance. The largest recipient of economic aid is Afghanistan, at about $1 billion per year.

The rest? Military assistance. And 75% of that goes to Israel and Egypt, our two biggest allies in the Middle East and the countries on whom we lean the most heavily to maintain stability in the region. Buuuut...it's like food stamps. We give that money to Egypt and Israel, sure, but they have to spend it on contracts with American defense corporations. It's essentially a government subsidy for our defense contractors in the name of "securing Israel."

So you could cut every penny of economic aid for underdeveloped countries because "we have to take care of our own first," and you'd cut .0045% of our federal budget. Meanwhile, people in those countries now go hungry over about one half of one percent of our federal budget. Yay America? Yank the Israeli and Egyptian aid, and you're going to piss off the Jewish vote and the fundamentalists who believe that the American/Israeli relationship is sacred and we're supposed to support them because Armageddon will happen eventually. We can agree that's a "third rail" that isn't getting touched, so that three quarters of one percent of our federal budget doesn't get touched.

Now...if you want to lump in American foreign adventurism and the concomitant military spending that it takes to support efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 16 years, or the proposed escalation of efforts in Syria, then, sure - you're talking trillions and not billions.

But if the money "to keep people happy" you're talking about is the military and economic aid we send overseas, we're not even going to spend $1 trillion on that in the next generation, let alone trillions, plural.

My current guess with Trumps stance with China - he's happy to take a trade war and the negatives which go with that in return for having an 'enemy' to blame things on and also being able to use the increased tensions to fuel military spending and increased demand for weapons (which will drive US jobs as the industrial military machine in the US is huge).

It's an incredibly horrific play to make imho because the risks involved are untenable to my morals - but I can see it going down well with his supporters so long as it remains purely a 'Cold War' and their preferred luxuries remain cheap ...

Not to mention what that type of thing (as in trade war, and expansion in military spending that drives deficits) would do to the economy. Nothing like turning the keys of the car you've had for a while to a new owner who revs the engine up and then smashes the car into a wall.

I don't think he cares about the military-industrial complex, but agree on the first half. I do wish that people stopped pretending it was a one way street though - after about 30 years of continuous progress towards openness and Western ideals China has grown increasingly insular and centralized in the last 5 years under its current administration. As suspect as the Trump call was for other reasons, even the Taiwan kerfuffle illustrates that - I'm kind of past the point where we need to tip toe around on eggshells and pretend Taiwan isn't a real country deserving of full diplomatic recognition in 2016.

The cold reality is we need China more than we need Taiwan. To some degree we have to placate the Chinese on this issue, because it's trivial in comparison to North Korea.

This. Modern nations don't need this kind of pussyfooting around any more. We need more of people (and gov't) simply calling it like it is.

Yeah, I mean, we're supposed to take him seriously, but not literally, right?

At some point, push will meet shove and I hope that we're prepared.

Yeah!

We should all do this in our personal lives, too. Easy Mac - tell your wife what's what regarding your parking card. No pussyfooting around! Let her know where she stands with REAL TALK.

Equating Easy Mac's wife to China? That should go over well in the Mac household.

Yeah, I mean, why even have a State Department. No sense in treating complex issues with a long term view of things. Just spout off whatever you feel like at the moment.

Diplomacy is easy. Don't know why we make it so difficult with long term thinking.

We're all obviously qualified to be general managers for professional sports teams by posting on this site so I don't see why we can't act as secretary of state as well.

She does think I have a thing for Asian women.

I mean, he was tweeting about being made fun of on SNL. How in the literal fuck is he going to react when something that really matters on the world stage occurs? He hasn't been conferring with the State Department AT ALL on any of these calls he has been making to world leaders.

What about modernity has eliminated the need for diplomacy?

I can't believe I am saying this, but in the end, deeds are a more important than words, even in diplomacy. I just think that we might be overreacting to the volumetric fuckton of horseshit being spewed from his twitter account.

Eh... in diplomacy, words can be just as important as deeds.

Maybe y'all should have thought about this before parading Hillary around as a viable candidate. Good job! :)

This.

Yeah but we've been overreacting for the past year and a half. Why stop now?

But there exists the awkward fact that Taiwan (or Republic of China, as they refer to themselves) asserts a claim to the entirety of mainland China. So in acknowledging the RoC, you have to be careful as to what you are acknowledging.

There is the separate issue that because of the rival claims, the PRC refuses diplomatic relations the states that recognize the RoC. Perhaps the US can negotiate between the two to get the RoC to drop its claims on mainland China, which may allow for recognition of both countries... but I don't think that's likely.

I mean, I don't necessarily blame them, it'd be like if Jamaica (as a British Commonwealth country) asserted a claim over the entirety of the USA due to pre-revolution sovereignty of the colonies by the UK. We'd be a little pissed at that.

But we would have a cool story involving John Candy and a bobsled team!

I'm pretty sure since Chiang Kai-Shek's death, or at least the official dissolution of the national assembly in 2005, that Taiwan would be more than happy to give up any claim to mainland China if the PRC reciprocated. ;) And even the most hardline anti-PRC elements of our foreign policy establishment would laugh at any idea that Taiwan deserved any mainland territory, so I'm not worried about anyone either proposing we recognize ROC's claims or anyone taking that idea seriously on the PRC side.
We "need" China less than they "need" us, and the North Korean regime would be out within a year if the Chinese and South Korean governments stopped propping it up because they're terrified of what will happen if/when it falls.

But you (and plenty of other people) are still talking about us needing to coddle and placate China like they're some naive little child, when they're the ones being aggressively expansionist, internally repressive and increasingly hostile to foreign interests. I don't want Trump to do it in his haphazard short-term way, but I have zero problem with a more firm policy that essentially says if you're going to try and bully your neighbors and only partake in the parts of international trade you want to we'll show you how the "decadent West" still has a bigger economy and a more powerful military. Which is actually something Obama has been doing, even if he doesn't use bombastic rhetoric.

I think the one thing I'm blown away with is all these people who Trump trashed groveling at his feet for positions now. Trump likened Carson to a child molester months back. He called Cruz's wife ugly and his Dad a traitor. Called Nikki Haley an embarrassment to the state.

Maybe that's just politics but it's weird that there is not a line that he can cross with people where their pride steps in.

No. I'm saying that a fight over Taiwan will likely cost us more than we can possibly gain. Because of that, it's stupid to pick a fight, even if we can "win."

And if he ignored the call from the Taiwanese leader you would have said that was stupid.

The thing is ALL these calls normally happen I'd expect however they're done quietly and only made public in sensible circumstances in order to ensure that decent relationships are maintained throughout.

It's a bit like the situation where you're friends with two people who hate each other, that's not a problem unless you continually tell them about how great the other person is and that you're their best friend ... that would be stupid and a guaranteed way to wind them up.

Trump says 'cancel order' on too expensive new Air Force One

If there's actually truth to this then I may actually believe Trump wants to tackle government bloat.

I suppose the tradeoff depends on whether or not there are security and operational capabilities that the new design would bring that outweigh the inconvenience of doing without or the cost of refurbishing. Is thirty years too soon to retire a platform? I've just got a feeling that once he flies on it a couple of times, Trump is going to complain on Twitter about how outdated and sad the AF1 experience is and decide either to spend $2B to renovate the interiors or try to muscle his way into using a Gulfstream or something dumb like that.

No. That's what we've been doing since Reagan.

I will say that the change of actually having the (soon to be) president openly posting his thoughts to social media is a fantastic change of pace IMO. Now you can agree/disagree with his decisions in each instance, but I'm not sure I've ever felt like I had a window into the Oval Office like this before.

Of course, his detractors are pointing out every situation where it may be a problem, but I think the benefits of information to the U.S. as far as what he's thinking far outweigh the consequences. Also, he can get far better feedback by just throwing ideas out there to see if they stick on social media as opposed to the ridiculous lengths that politicians go to in order to leak out information to see if people like it currently.

By all means. Let's embrace a platform with a limit of 140 characters to introduce and debate national policy matters.

I'm betting he doesn't use Air Force One and charges the government for his Trump jet.

Son and I have long considered that.

This story in which Boeing CEO expressed concerns about Trump's views on trade posted just before Trump tweet --https://t.co/aBvK87GzzW

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) December 6, 2016

Sounds like this isn't about government bloat but it is about dissent Trump's trade policies.

He's fixing the conflict, remember?

4 billion for an Air Force One seems reasonable, regardless of who is inside. We can't have the president in danger, regardless of whether you like him or not.

PS Mike Pence would be worse.

Let me start by saying I don't think this happened in this case...

But, would it be illegal for the president to dump or buy stock before a policy announcement directly effecting the company? Can you insider trade based off of what you are going to say?

Apparently members of congress are immune from insider trading rules, so I'd assume the president is as well.

Plus he's not President yet.

Except that when you're substituting press conferences with actual people asking you questions you need to answer on the spot with 140 character statements about what you want to talk about it only serves the person posting on Twitter.

It doesn't serve the people. It doesn't serve the office. It holds no accountability to the job. It's a limit on openness and a much lower standard of communication than any other means we've had before.

Why not just come out and say what you want? Let everyone argue at your feet while they figure out what you meant? No follow up questions, no immediacy of people questioning your facts, you just get to say whatever is on your mind.

It's a terrible, terrible con job on the populace.

It's actually 2 AF 1's and they wouldn't even be in service until 2024. After Trump, even if he were re-elected.

And it would cost China and the ruling party more than it would cost us, so I remain convinced neither side will actually get further than talk and possibly some tariffs. But Trump's not the only one picking a fight. Circumstances are changing over there, between an increasingly antagonistic China and a new Taiwanese ruling party. I'm fine with people who think we should favor mainland China over Taiwan out of naked self-interest but the US policy and response can't be the same it has been.
Nixon broke with decades of policy when he visited China. Carter broke with decades of policy when he recognized Beijing. Obama broke with decades of policy when he lifted the embargo on Cuba. I'd say all those decisions were correct. But putting aside my idealism and dislike of ambiguity, this is a phone call. We sell Taiwan billions in military technology, Congress repeatedly renews the Six Assurances, and we create a special non-embassy Embassy but we can't accept a phone call? China's just bitching because they're trying to expand their power in what they perceive as their sphere of influence and using the Putin playbook. If they weren't complaining about this they'd find something else to badger us about and use the useful idiots in foreign policy circles and the media to try and prevent us from pushing back more effectively against their agenda.

If China were to invade Taiwan and take it over with force, the US would be pressured much more to do something about it with official diplomatic status rather than as an un-official position. As it is right now, we provide weapons as a deterrence to Chinese aggression, but the lack of full diplomatic presence is what keeps our noses clean if China went full Stalin, and gives us an out in a war we don't want to be a part of.

They also don't cost $4 billion.

I feel like this pizza place story isn't getting nearly the amount of press it should.

Looking on news sites for it, when I actually see it, I'd say comments are 2-1 in favor of the gunman. I just can't fathom how there are that many of these people out there.

The argument is, the mainstream media lies... except it doesn't. That's the argument of the people who put out these insane stories and conspiracies. Somehow, it seems that the world really has turned into a place where if you just yell and repeat something enough times, it has more weight than actual truth.

Like this?

CNN commentator Scottie Nell Hughes: Facts no longer exist - The Washington Post

But who's counting. Let's just random tweet out BS and see what sticks.

I love how the new thing is to claim a lie, and then say it's true until it is disproven (the pizza story).

It's a strange world now. I do think the media deserves some blame for the situation we're in. They have been bias and done poor, sensationalist reporting for a long time now. That has consequences. Now you have a segment of the population who doesn't believe a word they say and gets caught up in dopey conspiracy theories.

It doesn't help either that our President-elect is a conspiracy theorist. He surrounds himself and gives credibility to them too.

Facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter. It's just a game of propaganda at this point by extremists. Everyone in the middle now gets screwed by it.

They have been bias. Indeed. Bias itself. They have been.

LOL. This is a bit ridiculous. He's doing a lot of stuff, but he's not even president yet. If he starts skipping out on regular press conferences once he's in office, then we'll talk. He's just making a victory tour right now and little else. No other presidents had regular news conferences before they were in office or had completed their cabinet.

Interesting opinion from a Democrat. I continue to be amazed at how many politically-motivated people are missing that Trump is clearly drawing the line in the sand with something as simple as a chat with Taiwan.

I'm a Democrat but I've gotta admit it's now Trump 2, Dems 0 | Fox News