Results 1 to 20 of 2107

Thread: The Trump impact on US policy

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Azor...this simply shot holes in the massive worker voter support for Trump who claimed he was going to stop jobs going to Mexico and he was going to create good paying manufacturing jobs......and goes to why I stated I could not move my company to the Rust Belt......

    This is interesting, some 85% of jobs in US manufacturing have been lost to automation not trade,
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brook...trade-policy/#

    Many US Trump voters would have a hard time understanding how it is possible that the Germans have a far higher average labor cost in manufacturing than the US does yet with all the higher costs the German export economy is growing and growing and growning....AND the first truly robot produced BMWs are now rolling off the assemble line....YET the economy is stronger than before 1991......

    How is that possible should be the shouts coming from the US Rust Belt....answer is simple...strong unionization....strong company management and strong government involvement in the process....AND a strong education system capable to producing qualified workers for the 21st century......

    YET all we hear from US workers is complaints...complaints and it's the fault of others.....easily exploited by Trump and company...

    BTW....a German study indicates that one robot replaces five workers....and the main builders of manufacturing robots with a global reputation for quality....are the Germans...

    Something that is typical for German and not for the US...how do you hold onto your older employees....meaning after 30-40 years of experience why lose them to retirement...so manufacturing looked at the processes and designed a new series of devices allowing older workers to continue doing what they have done in the past on the assembly lines and not hurting their health in the process..AND making it even easier for the younger workers in the process...THIS led to a whole new export market around the world....

    WHY hold onto the older workers....their experience cannot be replaced when they leave by the younger generation.....that experience is worth millions to manufacturers here....

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Trump already on path to extradite a man Turkish president wants and who is using blackmail on Trump biznes to get.
    http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/23/d...s-531140.html#

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Trump administration's 1st #NATO decision could lead to US losing "its highest-ranking official in NATO"

    http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...nato-official#

    The incoming Trump administration is looking to get rid of the No. 2 official at NATO, an American nominated by President Obama whom most Republicans don’t trust. But NATO’s Brussels leadership may not play along, setting up an early confrontation with President Trump.

    Two Trump transition sources told me that a representative of the transition team met late last month with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Brussels and delivered a private but deliberate message: The incoming administration would like Stoltenberg to replace Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller. Gottemoeller, who was nominated for the post by Obama this past March, started her job in Brussels only in October and has a multi-year contract. She works for NATO, not the U.S. government.

    If NATO leadership agreed to remove Gottemoeller, it would set a new precedent for U.S. government control over American officials in top NATO positions. If the NATO leadership doesn’t agree, the incoming Trump administration could work to marginalize Gottemoeller and render her ineffective. Either way, her role is set to change when the new U.S. president comes into office....

    Trump transition sources told me that Stoltenberg agreed to look into how Gottemoeller might be removed. But NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu told me there has been no formal request from the Trump transition team for Gottemoeller to be let go and that no process for examining such a move is underway.

    “This is not a national appointment, and the selection is made in a competition, based on merit,” Lungescu said. “Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller enjoys the full support of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the North Atlantic Council....”

    Gottemoeller’s allies see the Trump transition team’s quiet move to replace her in NATO as a brazen, brute-force tactic to pressure the alliance to bend to Trump’s will.

    “This is a whispering campaign by schoolyard bullies to try to pressure an organization they have already disrespected,” said Ellen Tauscher, who served as undersecretary of state for arms control before Gottemoeller. “Do they really want to pick a fight with the first American woman who is in NATO leadership, somebody who was confirmed by the Senate more than once?”

    There is no formal mechanism for a member country to ask NATO to remove an official. Stoltenberg may rebuff the effort altogether. If the Trump administration can’t get Gottemoeller removed, it could just work around her, limiting contact to whomever Trump appoints as the U.S. permanent representative to NATO. Gottemoeller would stay in place, but without the backing of her home government and without access to any American officials....

    If Gottemoeller decides to step aside, there’s no guarantee an American would be chosen to replace her. Trump would be able to nominate someone for the job, but other countries would nominate their citizens as well. The United States might lose its highest-ranking official in NATO.
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 12-13-2016 at 05:27 PM.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Outlaw,

    1. I completely agree that the Financial Crisis and Great Recession laid bare the increasing inequality of American society as well as the impacts of globalization, as lower-skilled and lower-earning Americans had relied upon real estate speculation to achieve the “American Dream”. As Thomas Friedman observed: “If you were born in Minnesota in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, you needed a plan to fail…today, you need a plan to succeed.”

    2. The Russian Federation became the successor state of the Soviet Union, and it would not make sense to either apportion the UNSC permanent seat among the former SSRs nor to transfer the seat to say Ukraine or Belarus. Without Russia on the UNSC, the UN will resemble the LON and start breaking down.

    3. The UPR has never been used by the GA to override a SC veto, nor can I see it compelling military action. The UN is a forum for diplomatic resolution of conflicts and a coordinator of international aid; it has no ability to coerce the great powers either diplomatically or militarily. I could write over 10,000 characters on its “failures” in the 20th Century…

    4. The fact that the United States deplores the mass murder and other crimes in Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East, does not mean that it is responsible for intervening. Was the United States also responsible for mass murder in China under Mao or in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union or in Chechnya by Russia? If the United States is to be the “world’s policeman” then it should receive compensation for this burden and the Chinese and Russians should disarm, no? Many feared ethnic and sectarian violence would break out as the Eastern Bloc crumbled, although the Soviet republics received more attention because of the reasonable possibility of nuclear-armed warlords springing up throughout Central Asia. As for Yugoslavia, you were dealing with a unitary authoritarian state imposed on a variety of ethno-religious groups that had been warring for centuries, and which had “unfinished business” left over from World War II.

    I find it difficult to reconcile your service during the Cold War with your naiveté with respect to American foreign policy. I am not trying to offend you, but you seem blind to shades of gray.

    • In World War I, the United States allied with four empires, including one that had committed genocide (Belgium)
    • In World War II, the United States allied with an aggressive and genocidal empire (Soviet Union)
    • During the Cold War, the United States supported or cooperated with many non-democratic anti-communist states, including ones that committed genocide (Pakistan, Indonesia) and ones that used WMDs on civilians (Iraq)


    During all three periods above, the United States was avowedly acting in its own national interests, on behalf of liberal democracy and against non-democratic aggression.

    Yet the United States government compromised its liberal and democratic principles in order to achieve its main objectives, and of course, no state policy can be pursued without a degree of corruption and selfishness by those tasked with executing it.

    After all, was Great Britain's World War II legacy the defense of liberal democracy against the worst barbarian to conquer Europe? Or was it heroic self-defense and ruthlessly preserving its Empire at the expense of its allies and those peoples it swore to protect (e.g. the Poles and Czechoslovaks)?

    Germany today is an instance where the American national interest and commitment to promoting liberal democracy have come together. Yet for Western Europe, Japan and to a lesser extent Taiwan and South Korea (initially authoritarian) to be priorities, other seemingly less important countries were sacrificed.

    5. Germany’s balance of trade surplus is not merely a product of its model of industrial relations, culture of consensus and embrace of automation; it is also derived from Germany having adopted the Euro, which is far lower compared to other major curries than the Deutsche Mark would be.

    Adversarial industrial relations in the United States and resistance on the part of workers to accept automation, were headwinds that were thoroughly documented in the 1970s and 1980s during the rise of West Germany and Japan, when the latter seemed poised to occupy a more powerful position in the world than in 1941.

    No American presidential candidate or sitting president can tell the people the truth about industrial or manufacturing jobs in the United States, nor do the term limits allow a lengthy and costly strategy of retraining and education to be implemented.
    Last edited by Azor; 12-13-2016 at 09:15 PM.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azor View Post
    Outlaw,

    1. I completely agree that the Financial Crisis and Great Recession laid bare the increasing inequality of American society as well as the impacts of globalization, as lower-skilled and lower-earning Americans had relied upon real estate speculation to achieve the “American Dream”. As Thomas Friedman observed: “If you were born in Minnesota in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, you needed a plan to fail…today, you need a plan to succeed.”

    2. The Russian Federation became the successor state of the Soviet Union, and it would not make sense to either apportion the UNSC permanent seat among the former SSRs nor to transfer the seat to say Ukraine or Belarus. Without Russia on the UNSC, the UN will resemble the LON and start breaking down.

    3. The UPR has never been used by the GA to override a SC veto, nor can I see it compelling military action. The UN is a forum for diplomatic resolution of conflicts and a coordinator of international aid; it has no ability to coerce the great powers either diplomatically or militarily. I could write over 10,000 characters on its “failures” in the 20th Century…

    4. The fact that the United States deplores the mass murder and other crimes in Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East, does not mean that it is responsible for intervening. Was the United States also responsible for mass murder in China under Mao or in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union or in Chechnya by Russia? If the United States is to be the “world’s policeman” then it should receive compensation for this burden and the Chinese and Russians should disarm, no? Many feared ethnic and sectarian violence would break out as the Eastern Bloc crumbled, although the Soviet republics received more attention because of the reasonable possibility of nuclear-armed warlords springing up throughout Central Asia. As for Yugoslavia, you were dealing with a unitary authoritarian state imposed on a variety of ethno-religious groups that had been warring for centuries, and which had “unfinished business” left over from World War II.

    I find it difficult to reconcile your service during the Cold War with your naiveté with respect to American foreign policy. I am not trying to offend you, but you seem blind to shades of gray.

    • In World War I, the United States allied with four empires, including one that had committed genocide (Belgium)
    • In World War II, the United States allied with an aggressive and genocidal empire (Soviet Union)
    • During the Cold War, the United States supported or cooperated with many non-democratic anti-communist states, including ones that committed genocide (Pakistan, Indonesia) and ones that used WMDs on civilians (Iraq)


    During all three periods above, the United States was avowedly acting in its own national interests, on behalf of liberal democracy and against non-democratic aggression.

    Yet the United States government compromised its liberal and democratic principles in order to achieve its main objectives, and of course, no state policy can be pursued without a degree of corruption and selfishness by those tasked with executing it.

    After all, was Great Britain's World War II legacy the defense of liberal democracy against the worst barbarian to conquer Europe? Or was it heroic self-defense and ruthlessly preserving its Empire at the expense of its allies and those peoples it swore to protect (e.g. the Poles and Czechoslovaks)?

    Germany today is an instance where the American national interest and commitment to promoting liberal democracy have come together. Yet for Western Europe, Japan and to a lesser extent Taiwan and South Korea (initially authoritarian) to be priorities, other seemingly less important countries were sacrificed.

    5. Germany’s balance of trade surplus is not merely a product of its model of industrial relations, culture of consensus and embrace of automation; it is also derived from Germany having adopted the Euro, which is far lower compared to other major curries than the Deutsche Mark would be.

    Adversarial industrial relations in the United States and resistance on the part of workers to accept automation, were headwinds that were thoroughly documented in the 1970s and 1980s during the rise of West Germany and Japan, when the latter seemed poised to occupy a more powerful position in the world than in 1941.

    No American presidential candidate or sitting president can tell the people the truth about industrial or manufacturing jobs in the United States, nor do the term limits allow a lengthy and costly strategy of retraining and education to be implemented.
    BTW....the Russian Federation is by even some Russian legal experts not the "real" inheritor of the SU..as the SU was comprised of 128 different SSRs....and the RF was just one of them.....

    Just as the Electorial College was the Founding Fathers check and balances on the common one man one vote of the masses....if at some point the UNSC becomes largely ineffective which it has shown itself to be in Syria...then the UNGA option is in fact a valid option.

    If you take the time and reread the statements just after Rwanda and Srebrenica which where led by the US who then had it anchored that in the UN by calling it the "protection of the population" agreements.....

    So basically I am sorry the US is on the hook for something they pushed and signed and shouted to the globe 10 years ago...what happened in WW1 and 2 or the Cold war in Africa..does not matter to me...WHAT does matter is what the US is on record to do pushed ten years ago....

    Which actually when you think about it....the US reneged on the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and had they adhered to it...we would not be seeing the Russian fighting in eastern Ukraine.....

    Actually viewing the world should be right now a true matter of black and white because IMHO...the concept of discussing and acting in the grey zones is what the Obama WH has been doing for 8 years as did Bush in his 8 years....I personally find working the black and white fields allows for clearer thinking and actions....BECAUSE grey just becomes another option if a strategy is actually being used...

    The military in their planning calls the grey zone 2nd...3rd...4th order of effects......

    BECAUSE Obama and Rhodes spun us so hard using the grey zone for their Iran Deal no one even knows any longer what is really black and or white....

    In some aspects this is exactly where Trump functions..he determines his own black and white and all others are in the grey zone and he pays no attention to them....

    Reference Germany....Germany works because they have adhered for years to what is called..."a social contract" which is now causing problems because under the former Schroeder SPD government they followed the US model and went for a loosening of this "contract" and it is now causing a negative impact overall.....in 2016.

    Secondly the Euro as it was envisioned was to be exactly equal to the USD...one to one....but surprisingly it jumped immediately to a level of about 20-40% higher than the USD....depending on the markets..right now it is 6% over the USD.....I know as my USD salary when the Euro came in was suddenly 25% less when I had my salary deposited in the French bank...

    The EU wanted the equal value in order to give them more export chances and eventually potentially surpass the USD as a global standard currency instead of the USD.......

    EVEN in the face of a Euro worth far more than a USD....still does not explain the success in their exports.....that means if anything they must produce at a range of 6-40% cheaper in order to compete with US goods using the USD....

    Will now give you a lecture on the Euro and how much it has changed to actually now a determinate to actual EU wide growth......

    When the euro came out in each country it was to be pegged to the then national currency....for Germany...2.5DM per euro...in France 10 Francs to the Euro...and so on...for each Euro member state.....which in the first five years was great....Germans were buying wine and cheese inside France far cheaper than it was in Germany and French were buying their construction materials and meats in Germany as it was cheaper there......

    BUT then globalization took over...actually the older term MNC...multi national corporations took over but I like the term TNC transnational corps....and figured out that they could actually demand a single price for a single product in all of the EU....and suddenly the cost of living rose by over 20%-50% in the last ten years in the countries of say France and Italy and remained stable in Germany...as they were high to begin with....

    AND not a single EU leader say a single thing about this development.....

    That is the true problem inside the Euro zone........
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 12-14-2016 at 11:35 AM.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Azor....so for these Trump voters corruption and the possible enrichment in a political position ie the Presidency is not a single problem for them...BUT those emails and the Clinton Foundation and all those drain the swamp shouts were about exactly WHAT???????

    I would say those 73% are actually in the "grey zone themselves".......

    73% of Republican voters think it's a good thing that Trump will govern in the interest of his own businesses.
    https://morningconsult.com/2016/12/1...ct-governing/#

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Interestingly Chinese MSM which reflects the government's thinking called Trump a small kid and who knows nothing......

    Beijing isn't kidding here. This isn't a game or a reality TV show -- this is playing chicken with a nuclear power.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38313839#

    And we have today a US Admiral stating he is ready to defend US rights in the South China Sea........is he channeling Trump as he knows what Trump has stated about China?????

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    REMEMBER both Trump and his selected natsec advisor shouting...."lock her up....lock her up......WELL maybe the Trump natsec advisor and Trump should not throw stones at a glass house.......

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world....2638cb2c605c#

    A secret U.S. military investigation in 2010 determined that Michael T. Flynn, the retired Army general tapped to serve as national security adviser in the Trump White House, “inappropriately shared” classified information with foreign military officers in Afghanistan, newly released documents show.

    Although Flynn lacked authorization to share the classified material, he was not disciplined or reprimanded after the investigation concluded that he did not act “knowingly” and that “there was no actual or potential damage to national security as a result,” according to Army records obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Flynn has previously acknowledged that he was investigated while serving as the U.S. military intelligence chief in Afghanistan for sharing secrets with British and Australian allies there. But he has dismissed the case as insignificant and has given few details.

    The Army documents provide the first official account of the case, but they are limited in scope because the investigation itself remains classified. Former U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that Flynn was accused of telling allies about the activities of other agencies in Afghanistan, including the CIA.

    The Army files call into question Flynn’s prior assertion that he had permission to share the sensitive information.

    During the presidential race, Flynn campaigned vigorously for Republican nominee Donald Trump and drew attention for his scalding attacks against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified material. Clinton was investigated by the FBI for allowing classified information to be transmitted on her private email server when she ran the State Department.

    No charges were filed against the former secretary of state, but the issue dogged her for more than a year.

    At the Republican National Convention in July, Flynn called on Clinton to drop out of the race for putting “our nation’s security at extremely high risk with her careless use of a private email server.” He egged on the partisan crowd in chants of “lock her up,” adding: “If I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth, a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today.”

    Flynn did not respond to requests for comment.

    The office of the Army’s Judge Advocate General released a four-page summary of the investigation into Flynn in response to The Post’s Freedom of Information Act request for records of any misconduct allegations involving the retired three-star general.

    The U.S. military opened the investigation into Flynn in 2010 after receiving a complaint from an unnamed Navy intelligence specialist, according to the documents. The intelligence officer charged that Flynn violated rules by “inappropriately” sharing secrets with “various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan.”

    The documents do not reveal the nature of the information. But former U.S. officials familiar with the case said it centered on slides and other materials containing classified information about CIA operations in Afghanistan.

    “It was a general intelligence briefing that included stuff that shouldn’t have been on those slides,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject. The disclosures revealed “stuff the intelligence community was doing that had a much higher level of classification.”

    The agency has had an extensive presence in the Afghanistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Beyond gathering intelligence on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the CIA has also assembled its own paramilitary networks in the country, paying warlords for cooperation and funding armed groups known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams.

    A second former U.S. official said Flynn failed to secure permission to reveal those secrets. “This was a question of whether or not information was put through proper channels before it was shared,” the second official said.

    The episode marked the second time in a year that Flynn had drawn official complaints for his handling of classified material.

    Former U.S. officials said that Flynn had disclosed sensitive information to Pakistan in late 2009 or early 2010 about secret U.S. intelligence capabilities being used to monitor the Haqqani network, an insurgent group accused of repeated attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

    Flynn exposed the capabilities during meetings with Pakistani officials in Islamabad. The former U.S. intelligence official said a CIA officer who accompanied Flynn reported the disclosures to CIA headquarters, which then relayed the complaint to the Defense Department. Flynn was verbally reprimanded by the Pentagon’s top intelligence official at the time, James R. Clapper Jr.

    Clapper subsequently became director of national intelligence and endorsed Flynn to become his successor as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 2014, however, Clapper forced Flynn out of that job over concerns with his temperament and management.

    The newly disclosed Army documents state that the 2010 investigation was ordered by the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Although the records do not say exactly when the case was opened, the commander at the time would have been Marine Gen. James Mattis.

    Mattis took charge at Central Command’s headquarters in Tampa, Fla., in August 2010. One month later, Flynn was ordered back to Washington from Afghanistan. He was assigned to a temporary job at the Pentagon as the special assistant to the Army’s chief of intelligence while the investigation unfolded, records show.

    Mattis was nominated this month by Trump to serve as secretary of defense. In that role, Mattis will work closely with Flynn; the retired generals are expected to be the most influential voices on national security in the Trump administration.

    The Army documents that summarize the investigation into Flynn do not specify which countries he was accused of improperly sharing secrets with. In an interview with The Post in August, Flynn said he was scrutinized for giving classified information to British and Australian officials serving in Afghanistan alongside U.S. forces.

    In that interview, Flynn defended his actions and said he did nothing wrong. “That was substantiated because I actually did it. But I did it with the right permissions when you dig into that investigation. I’m proud of that one. Accuse me of sharing intelligence in combat with our closest allies, please.”

    The Army documents, however, state explicitly that the Central Command investigation determined that Flynn did not have permission to share the particular secrets he divulged. The Defense Department’s inspector general, which conducted an independent review of the investigation, came to the same conclusion, the documents show.

    It is routine for the U.S. military to share intelligence in Afghanistan with NATO allies such as Britain, as well as other members of the broader international coalition fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda, including Australia.

    But there are established mechanisms and guidelines that must be followed.
    Flynn was highly regarded within the Army for the key role he played in shaping U.S. counterterrorism strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon officials had intended to promote Flynn in 2010 to the rank of lieutenant general and to make him assistant director of national intelligence, a job that would place him in charge of improving ties with foreign intelligence agencies.

    The Central Command investigation delayed his career advancement for a full year. He received his promotion and new assignment in September 2011.

    After being forced to retire from the military in 2014, Flynn became a vocal opponent of the Obama administration’s policies regarding Iran and al-Qaeda.

    At the same time, he gained a reputation for floating conspiracy theories on Twitter.

    Some Democratic lawmakers have criticized his selection as Trump’s national security adviser. The position is not subject to Senate confirmation.
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 12-14-2016 at 04:08 PM.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    Says Someone Who Should Know | Trump Is Using Our Old Putin TV Propaganda Playbook
    http://thebea.st/2gBulpV
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 12-14-2016 at 04:08 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Germany (catch all, incl. terrorism)
    By DDilegge in forum Europe
    Replies: 355
    Last Post: 06-28-2019, 03:43 PM
  2. LG Hal Mcmaster, National Security Adviser (2017 onwards)
    By SWJ Blog in forum Politics In the Rear
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-05-2018, 01:35 AM
  3. Syria in 2016 (October onwards)
    By OUTLAW 09 in forum Middle East
    Replies: 2624
    Last Post: 12-31-2016, 12:32 PM
  4. The Army: A Profession of Arms
    By Chuck Grenchus, CAPE in forum Miscellaneous Goings On
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: 07-08-2014, 04:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •