What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

valmy, I don't intend to shut down conversation.

Ok well I gave the feedback. Feel free to ignore me.

but if explaining why tillerson might not be a sleeper agent shuts down conversation, then the conversation prob wasn't worth having in the first place

The only thing I said was that considering the rampant rumors he was a Putin guy it would be nice for him to put them to rest. Instead we get appointments that look bad on that front. Probably not the same thing as claiming anybody is some kind of KGB mole. I do not appreciate the insinuation I did say that or have what I did say distorted like this.

[alfred russel]

He is a despicable human being. Forget what kind of President he might be for the moment. He is the kind of man you would not want anywhere near anyone you cared about.

I don't even understand the *desire* to defend a man who thought he was pretty awesome for being allowed to walk into teenaged girls dressing rooms while they were undressed because it was his pageant.

I agree, but the desire is not to defend him, but rather to have a discussion of the topic of russian hacking beyond hand wringing.

I also think that you are somewhat overselling the Trump encouragement/reward related to Russian hacking. His worldview seems to align somewhat with Putin's--populist authoritarian tendencies. I think that explains his soft pedaling on Russia and Russia's support of him rather than an even informal quid pro quo related to hacking.

[Valmy]

Of course maybe his pro-Putinism is just getting Asia onboard for his upcoming conflict with China

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-drone-idUSKBN14526J

China seizes U.S. underwater drone in South China Sea

A Chinese warship has seized an underwater drone deployed by a U.S. oceanographic vessel in the South China Sea, triggering a formal diplomatic protest and a demand for its return, U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday.

The drone was taken on Dec. 15, the first seizure of its kind in recent memory, about 50 nautical miles northwest of Subic Bay off the Philippines just as the USNS Bowditch was about to retrieve the unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), officials said.

"The UUV was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"It's a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water - that it was U.S. property," the official said.

The Pentagon confirmed the incident at a news briefing and said the drone used commercially available technology and sold for about $150,000.

Still, the Pentagon viewed China's seizure seriously since it had effectively taken U.S. military property.

"It is ours, and it is clearly marked as ours and we would like it back. And we would like this not to happen again," Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said.

Senator Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the seizure "a remarkably brazen violation of international law."

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Maybus cited a "growing China" as one of the reasons that the Navy needed to expand its fleet to 355 ships, including 12 carriers, 104 large surface combatants, 38 amphibious ships and 66 submarines.

The seizure will add to concerns about China's increased military presence and aggressive posture in the disputed South China Sea, including its militarization of maritime outposts.

It coincided with sabre-rattling from Chinese state media and some in its military establishment after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump cast doubt on whether Washington would stick to its nearly four-decades-old policy of recognizing that Taiwan is part of "one China."

A U.S. research group this week said new satellite imagery indicated China has installed weapons, including anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, on all seven artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea.

Mira Rapp-Hooper, a senior fellow in the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said China would have a hard time explaining its actions.

"This move, if accurately reported, is highly escalatory, and it is hard to see how Beijing will justify it legally," Rapp-Hooper said.

SNATCHED AWAY

The drone was part of an unclassified program to collect oceanographic data including salinity, temperature and clarity of the water, the U.S. official added. The data can help inform U.S. military sonar data since such factors affect sound.

The USNS Bowditch, a U.S. Navy ship crewed by civilians that carries out oceanographic work, had already retrieved one of two of its drones, known as ocean gliders, when a Chinese Navy Dalang 3 class vessel took the second one.

Officials said the Bowditch was only 500 meters (yards) from the drone and, observing the Chinese intercede, used bridge-to-bridge communications to demand it be returned.

The Chinese ship acknowledged the communication but did not respond to the Bowditch's demands, the Pentagon's Davis said.

"The only thing they said after they were sailing off into the distance was: "we are returning to normal operations," Davis said.

The United States issued the formal demarche, as such protests are known, through diplomatic channels and included a demand that China immediately return the drone. The Chinese acknowledged it but have not responded, officials said.

The seizure happened a day after China's ambassador to the United States said Beijing would never bargain with Washington over issues involving its national sovereignty or territorial integrity.

"Basic norms of international relations should be observed, not ignored, certainly not be seen as something you can trade off," Ambassador Cui Tiankai, speaking to executives of top U.S. companies, said on Wednesday.

He did not specifically mention Taiwan, or Trump's decision to accept a telephone call from Taiwan's president on Dec. 2.

The call was the first such contact with Taiwan by a U.S. president-elect or president since President Jimmy Carter switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979, acknowledging Taiwan as part of "one China."

Though it was rather cheeky of that Reuters reporter to slip that last part in. Obama is still Hitler until Jan 20th.

[LaCroix]

I wasn't insinuating you said it

[Savonarola]

Personally I think Trump will be an awful president; but I'll admit I was wrong and that he was at least a mediocre president if:

1.)  He isn't impeached.
2.)  No member of his cabinet is charged with a crime.
3.)  The deficit remains under $500,000,000,000 (it's projected level for FY 2017.)
4.)  There isn't a new humanitarian crisis on the scale of Syria anywhere in the world.
5.)  The US doesn't engage in a military intervention that results in a worse crisis than our intervention in Libya did.
6.)  A tariff war does not emerge.

[alfred russel]

The only thing I said was that considering the rampant rumors he was a Putin guy it would be nice for him to put them to rest.

Trump is the sort of guy that just had a summit with Kanye West. He is all about tabloid press and is a real life troll. Until his core supporters start to fret about the Russian connection, he probably won't address the rumors, and probably revels in the undercurrent.

[Zanza]

3.)  The deficit remains under $500,000,000 (it's projected level for FY 2017.)

Pretty sure he will fail on that the evening of inauguration day. 

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe some zeros missing, Snow Bird?

[Savonarola]

Sorry, should have been 500 billion not 500 million. 

[viper37]

how likely is it people on the fence will begin to fear trump before he's had a chance to do anything in office? probably will take until January at least to see what trump does and whether there's anything to be concerned about

Let's see.  So far...

• The Secretery of Energy wants to dismantle this department.
  
• The Secretary of State wants to be buddy-buddy with Russia.
  
• The Secretary of Education hates public schools and her policies, were implemented, have had the distinct effect of lessening the quality of public education.
  
• The Secretary of Defense believes in conspiracy theories.
  
• The Secretary of Treasury is a former Goldman Sachs's banker, a company known for its role in the economic meltdown of 2008.  I know they weren't alone, but they were a key player, and he was part of the team that adopted the policies that weakened the giant.
  
• The Attorney General is known for his racists views, and he was previously blocked to this appointment by Democracts and Republicans during the Reagan era.  It was serious enough them to question his judgement, but today it seems ok?
  
• The Secretary of Labor opposes minimum wage regulations.  Ok, I understand and sympathize with that, that's not a solution to the problem of low paying jobs.  But he is a strong proponent of robotization/automation of the workplace, which is the real cause behind the destruction of the blue collar level jobs, not the supposedly bad trade deals that had their effects long before they were even ratified...
  
• Secretary of Housing and Development is Ben Carson.  Might be a brilliant neuro surgeon, but he has de monstrated a keen talent for... stretching the truth, at the very least.  While on one hand he says he wants rational people who make decisions based on facts to join politics, on the other, he interprets the Bible as the litteral truth (he's a creationist) and he is a vegeterian because it protects him from parasites and protects the environment (which are both untrue).
  
• The Secretary of Transportation previously did not acquitted herself with the standards we should expect from someone in her position (Secretary of Labor), to say the least.
  
• The administrator of the EPA does not believe in man made global warming, despite what the science says.
  
• A month away from the official transition period, not all positions are filled.
  
• His daughter, despite having no official role in the government, no official clearance, has sitted on meetings with foreign dignitaries.  Is it a pure coincidence that she has had business deals requiring government intervention in these countries?
  
• On at least two occasions, Donald Trump officially used his position as President of the United States to promote his own financial interests in foreign countries.
  [/l]
  
  All of this makes me worry a bit about what his presidency will be like.  I add all this to everything I heard during the campaign, and I'm really worried.  As I'm not a lawyer, I usually try to avoid problems before they surface.  And nothing in what Trump has done so far, since his election, indicates that the US his heading toward a smooth ride.  Not to mention that "grab 'em by the pussy" became a rallying cry of the right.  it means you have someone extremely incompetent, naming people who sings his praise rather than the most talented individuals he can find and he has a full cohort of supporters willing to excuse anything he will do.  He even said so himself: "I could shoot them and they would still like me".
  
  I was told here that I was overreacting, in the past.  The checks and balance of your political system would keep in line a person who had no real interests in governing and the damage would be really limited, I was told.
  
  It seems to me there is not many checks and balances now.  A Democrat senator has already announced he might vote for Putin's buddy as Secretary of State.  Democrats have previously announced they would support any silly idea of Trump so long as it put him at odds with the GOP "establishment".
  
  It looks, from here, that Republicans will fall in line behind Trump and Democrats don't even want to oppose him.
  
  The Supreme court will once again be tilted on the Republican side too, so not much hope of legally fighting silly policies.
  
  The stuff about not many women, not many blacks, mostly rich people isn't worrying in itself, but what these people actually believe is sound policy for the development of the United States is baffling, given the previous failures of these policies.

[The Brain]

Popcorn sales in the ROTW are up though.

[viper37]

I'm no fan of Trump, but seeing Hillary lose was a silver lining for me.

That's the thing I don't understand.  We have difference of opinion, but I always figured you were somewhat rational.
yet, with Hillary, it's as if she slept with you and blocked your calls afterward.   

So, clearly, why is it that Hillary was a worst choice than Donald Trump for President of your country?  What are you afraid would have happenned to your country, policies that would have been very detrimental to your personal situation, or to the situation of you country (generally speaking, but concrete points) with Hillary as President as opposed to Trump?

And what makes you think repudiating trade deals that made your economy grow over the years is going to improve the economy?  Where's the math in that?

[viper37]

trump is looking p good from his cabinet appointees given how low expectations were. he cut out christie, giuliani, gingrich, etc. he's not pushing to indict clinton, etc. etc. there's been a number of positive things trump has indicated that get glossed over. I think people created an image of trump in their head during the election, and that image has carried over despite some positive things that suggest trump won't literally be hitler

what you're saying is, people should be satisfied if they get Himmler as President since he's obviously not Hitler?   

That's a little weird, no?

[viper37]

but if explaining why tillerson might not be a sleeper agent shuts down conversation, then the conversation prob wasn't worth having in the first place

Back in the Cold War, would you have supported a cabinet pick that was defending the USSR actions all over the world?
Basically, a guy whom Stalin would have called a useful idiot?

[Jacob]

Personally I think Trump will be an awful president; but I'll admit I was wrong and that he was at least a mediocre president if:

1.)  He isn't impeached.
2.)  No member of his cabinet is charged with a crime.
3.)  The deficit remains under $500,000,000,000 (it's projected level for FY 2017.)
4.)  There isn't a new humanitarian crisis on the scale of Syria anywhere in the world.
5.)  The US doesn't engage in a military intervention that results in a worse crisis than our intervention in Libya did.
6.)  A tariff war does not emerge.

That's a good list. Thanks