Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Pat B]

John Kasich is one of the names that surfaced (to me, at least) this election cycle that I'd like to see stick around for awhile, along with Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, and Bernie Sanders. I voted Johnson/Weld (who I actually really liked, despite some shortcomings -- come at me, bros) and although I disagree with Bernie on the role of the federal government, I think he is a legit good guy.

I like Johnson, but he ran a bad campaign. I think he's done. Weld, at 71 and out of office, is also done. Their 3% showing against the worst (and mutually big-government) major-party choice in decades does not bode well for the future of the Libertarian Party, either.

Kasich is still Governor of Ohio, but it's hard to see him having much sway in the national GOP going forward.

[Herman]

Bloomberg's net worth went up from around $5 billion in 2001 to over $20 billion while still mayor.  He's now worth over $40 billion. 

Looks like a false equivalence to me.

Literally everone who was rich in 2001 has multiplied his or her wealth since then. That's how today's system works.

[zamyrabyrd]

Politics ain't bad business:

http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/
The Hillary Clinton net worth total of $31.3 million comes from analyzing her Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill Clinton has an estimated net worth of $80 million. That gives a combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth of $111 million dollars. U.S. presidential candidates aren't required to reveal their exact net worth, so Hillary Clinton's is only available within a range. Clinton has reported net worth assets of at least $10,830,007 and at most $51.7 million. Mrs. Clinton did not report any real estate or debts. If the Clintons do own property or debts, it's all in Bill Clinton's name. Placing assets and liabilities in Bill's name would mean they wouldn't be reported as part of Hillary Clinton's net worth.

[Jo498]

These are mere peanuts compared to the likes of Bloomberg and Trump. But it clearly shows that we are a plutocracy and Plato or Aristotle would have considered this not much better than a kakistocracy whereas we follow the civil religion that greed is good and the richest man is the most capable and the central virtue is to use smarts to get rich.

[Todd]

Literally everone who was rich in 2001 has multiplied his or her wealth since then. That's how today's system works.

Looks like contrafactual assertion to me. 

[Todd]

These are mere peanuts compared to the likes of Bloomberg and Trump. But it clearly shows that we are a plutocracy and Plato or Aristotle would have considered this not much better than a kakistocracy whereas we follow the civil religion that greed is good and the richest man is the most capable and the central virtue is to use smarts to get rich.

Trump's cabinet looks like it may have one other billionaire in it - Wilbur Ross, potentially at Commerce - and presumably millionaires aplenty.  The Senate was first called a Millionaire's Club back in the 19th Century, when a million dollars was really a lot of money.  Just more than half of Congresspersons today are millionaires, though a net worth of a million, while hardly penury, is not necessarily indicative of notable liquid wealth, at least in the US.  In any event, the fact that elected leaders in their 50s on average are worth more than the average American doesn't really bother me.  One person can utter Plutocracy, another can say Meritocracy.  For instance, Congress as a whole is better educated than during the supposed halcyon days of the 1950s and 1960s, and before.  On the flip side, despite party affiliation, most members of Congress end up having similar educational backgrounds, and draw from a similar set of outlooks and policy ideas.  The US has had a few presidents born into wealth, and a good number not born into wealth.  I don't necessarily see a correlation between wealth and quality of leadership, either good or bad.

[amw]

Probably a dumb question, but I've never been quite sure: if a member of the Senate or House agrees to take on a cabinet position, do they also hold onto their seat (and whatever position within their caucus that they hold), or do they have to be replaced? Same with e.g. a governor or state legislator.

[Turner]

Clinton majority: clearly most urban areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?_r=0

I think threads here mentioned a total nationwide lead of 400,000 votes, but the revised number is now 1 million votes.


Viral Fake Election News Outperformed Real News On Facebook In Final Months Of The US Election:

".......... During these critical months of the campaign, 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook. Within the same time period, the 20 best-performing election stories from 19 major news websites generated a total of 7,367,000 shares."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.huDbYBDRM#.pvRyDOo2N

[Wendell_E]

Probably a dumb question, but I've never been quite sure: if a member of the Senate or House agrees to take on a cabinet position, do they also hold onto their seat (and whatever position within their caucus that they hold), or do they have to be replaced? Same with e.g. a governor or state legislator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineligibility_Clause

So, yeah, they'd need to be replaced. Remember, Hillary was a Senator when Obama chose her for Secretary of State.  David Paterson, New York Governor at the time, chose Kirsten Gillibrand to replace her, and she later won a special election for the seat.

There's already talk of who would replace Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions if he gets a cabinet position. Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (currently facing impeachment, it'd be interesting if he chose himself for the Senate seat  ) would appoint Sessions's interim successor in the Senate, followed by a special election.

[Todd]

Yesterday or the day before, incoming mayor of Portland Ted Wheeler, with his eye obviously on statewide office, proclaimed that Portland will remain a sanctuary city.  (To be clear: I love it when politicians obviously have their sights set on something higher; that means they are motivated to do things.)  He joins a chorus of other mayors in big cities (New York, San Francisco, etc.), as well as some state leaders in various states.  Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet, but other levels of government are already mobilizing to oppose unknown potential acts he may take.  The Feds could, in theory, push back via a variety of measures, the most potent of which is funding, but Trump will obviously run into resistance on a variety of issues.  It's gonna be fun.

[Todd]

Will Trump drain the swamp only so that it can be gilded?  (Eric Cantor's name pops up in the article.  There's an outsider for you.)

[Todd]

In like Flynn.

[SimonNZ]

https://www.youtube.com/v/VOTpuF0TMzk&feature=youtu.be

[amw]

I thought our new Attorney General was ok until learning he smoked marijuana

(also yeah, +1 to the irish guy, but at this point it's kind of like a train wreck, you don't wanna look away)

[Turner]

Overall, looking at Donald Trump´s recent picks of advisors and various media stories, the general European interpretation is that the Trump of the election campaign is quite "for real", that he is to a large degree ignorant about aspects of foreign policy, including the procedures and works of diplomacy. And that his picks seem to counterbalance more compromise-seeking Republican political views, rather than accommodate them - but with Priebus for example serving as a mediator to the established party.

Also, concerning his many talks with foreign politicians, these talks didn´t contain much about actual policy, and he probably hasn´t received detailed intelligence briefings yet. They could maybe influence his decision-making a bit in the future, though he is clearly critical about the intelligence agencies in general, at times even preferring news reports from very dubious sources.

[Todd]

and he probably hasn´t received detailed intelligence briefings yet.

Trump started getting the same daily briefings as Obama the day after the election.  He has not received lengthier briefings on all subjects yet (eg, Japanese security strategy, per the State Department).  I would guess that his recent discussions with foreign leaders have been pro forma, and indeed, they would have to be since Trump is not President yet and cannot take any actions or change any policies.

His big policy making appointments so far have been relatively standard in terms of credentials - former DIA chief to NSC, House Intelligence Committee member to CIA, Senator to AG - though one can certainly object to the views of the men selected.  Flynn and Pompeo are generally more hawkish than Trump, and Pompeo is an ally of Pence.  It is only their hawkishness that gives me any concern, but they are not out of step with a fair number of foreign policy types, even on threatening to roll back the Iran deal.  Priebus is about as good a choice for working with a Republican Congress that can be made right now.  Only Bannon is potentially irksome, but it is worth noting that Mr Bannon's background includes a stint at Goldman before starting his own boutique investment firm, so I'm not convinced he's really anti-establishment. 

Trump's choices for the big three have not been announced yet, and those will help set the tone for overall foreign policy and diplomacy.  (The Treasury is bigger here than is usually mentioned, and it is difficult to think of any choices Trump may make that will be any more active in using OFAC than either Geithner or Lew - it will probably go the other way.)

[Parsifal]

With the Flynn, Sessions and Pompeo appointments Trump's transition is far from in chaos and is in fact focused on getting the people who share his vision and possess solid credentials and experience for the positions.

I don't see any surprises, he seems to be naming the establishment conservatives that supported him in his campaign. I see his status as an "outsider" and champion of the blue collar American not evident. It appears to be heading towards more tax cuts mainly benefiting the very wealthy, deregulation of the financial sector, dismantling of consumer and environmental protections, and perhaps a ramping up of military spending. This is the standard right-wing policy that has led to an America dominated by big global business and where the majority see erosion of their financial and social security. The threat of disrupting trade with protective tariffs to keep jobs in the U.S. seems like a red herring. As I understand it, revision of tariffs would require Congressional action and it is hard to imaging the incoming Congress going along with it.

[Turner]

Concerning the intelligence briefings, this must be one of the best newspaper article sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-elect-donald-trump-is-about-to-learn-the-nations-deep-secrets/2016/11/12/8bf9bc40-a847-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?tid=ss_fb

As a side remark on that subject, Trump asking for Top Secret information access for his own children & son-in-law, most likely in order to give them jobs in the administration, is unprecedented.

[Todd]

The threat of disrupting trade with protective tariffs to keep jobs in the U.S. seems like a red herring. As I understand it, revision of tariffs would require Congressional action and it is hard to imaging the incoming Congress going along with it.

My understanding is that if the federal government determines that a nation is violating trade agreement terms, the US can, in some instances, impose narrow tariffs.  Such actions are generally short-lived, or at least intended to be short-lived.  Such actions may then be able to be heard by the WTO.  Wilbur Ross, the possible incoming Commerce Secretary, parsed Trump's stance on tariffs, saying that Trump never stated he would slap tariffs on all Chinese goods.  I would guess Ross and whoever the USTR ends up being might end up working together on this. 

[Todd]

As a side remark on that subject, Trump asking for Top Secret information access for his own children & son-in-law, most likely in order to give them jobs in the administration, is unprecedented.

Looks like it is dead now.  It may have been a trial balloon.

Of more interest is what role, formal or informal, Jared Kushner, the apparent slayer of Chris Christie's career, may have in the White House.  While it might be technically illegal to have family members in a formal role, both the Clintons and Bushes figured out a way to have family members take on informal roles.