What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[jimmy olsen]

Lol, Trump's cabinet is already jumping ship and he hasn't even been inaugurated.

Trump labor pick Andrew Puzder has voiced second thoughts about nomination

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/andrew-andy-puzder-labor-trump/index.html

[jimmy olsen]

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/flame-throwing-mutant-guitarist-from-mad-max-turns-down-trump-inauguration-20170116120253

Flame-throwing mutant guitarist from Mad Max turns down Trump inauguration
16-01-17

The mutant guitarist from Mad Max: Fury Road has become the latest musician to reject an offer to perform at Donald Trump's inauguration.

The Doof Warrior has said that despite a huge cash offer from the Republican Party he just didn't see how he could morally do it.

He said: "Being part of Immortan Joe's road militia could be seen as quite a right-wing thing to do for any musician, but I've got to draw the line somewhere.

"I'd rather continue to prowl the desert wasteland, looking for vulnerable travellers to run off the road with our weaponised vehicles as part of a desperate struggle to survive.

"Which is what you will be doing in a few years' time."

A Trump insider said: "We are thinking about putting up a sign that says 'X Factor auditions this way..' and when the hopeful singers walk out on stage they'll be singing at the inauguration. That could be seen as underhanded, which it is and you'd better get used to it.

"Either that or we'll just get Metallica."

[jimmy olsen]

Yay for the navy

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/john-mccain-defense-budget-233645

Sen. John McCain is set to propose a military buildup that would add nearly half a trillion dollars to the defense budget over the next five years and blow past current limits on Pentagon spending, according to a copy of the blueprint drafted by the chairman of the Armed Services and obtained by POLITICO.

The proposal, which is set to be unveiled early this week, is the opening salvo of Republican hawks as they seek to leverage GOP majorities in the House and Senate and seize upon the surprise victory of President-elect Donald Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to rebuild the armed forces.

The 21-page plan advocates boosting the Pentagon budget as well as nuclear weapons spending in the Department of Energy by approximately $430 billion over budget projections between fiscal 2018 and 2022 — including to finance a bigger Army and significantly more new warships and fighter jets.

It would also bust through the spending caps now mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, which are not set to expire until after 2021 and would have to be overturned.

Both McCain and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), who has also called for more defense spending, have long contended that President Barack Obama has not proposed defense budgets sufficient to meet global threats.

"For too long, we have allowed budget constraints to drive strategy," the Arizona Republican's proposal argues. "It is time to turn this around and return to the first order question: What do we need our military to do for the nation?"

"It is not cheap," the paper concedes of the price tag, but adds: "The cost of further inaction, however, is worse: We will irreparably damage our military's ability to deter aggression and conflict."

The plan calls for $640 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 2018, $54 billion above current projections. Combined with $60 billion in projected spending for overseas operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that would bring total defense spending next year to just over $700 billion.

That compares with $611 billion authorized for this year — including for the Pentagon, Department of Energy, and separate war funds.

Including war funding, defense spending would top out at just over $800 billion in fiscal 2022, according to the McCain plan.

The broad contours of the plan were first reported last week by POLITICO.

The blueprint advocates increasing the size of the Army to over 500,000 active-duty soldiers. While it calls for the Army to study it's optimal size and shape, it says a "realistic objective" would be to add 8,000 troops per year through 2022.

The plan also calls for the Marine Corps to grow to 200,000 by fiscal 2022, or at about 3,000 additional Marines per year.

The Navy, meanwhile, should "ramp up shipbuilding as much and as quickly as possible."

But it acknowledges that the Navy can't reach its goal of 355 ships — 81 over the current size — in just five years. Instead, the plan calls for buying 59 ships in five years. That is 18 more than the current plan, including five more attack submarines, three destroyers, two amphibious ships and five fleet oilers.

The plan for the Navy also recommends a "high/low mix" in Navy aircraft carriers, relying on smaller, conventionally powered carriers — not simply nuclear-powered ones now in the fleet — to take on "day-to-day missions."

The Air Force may require upwards of 60 combat squadrons of about 1,500 combat aircraft, according to the blueprint. It proposes purchasing 73 additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force and 20 extra F-35s for the Marine Corps through 2022.

But McCain's plan also casts doubt on the goal of purchasing a total of 1,763 F-35s for the Air Force as is now planned. "This goal is unrealistic and requires reevaluation, and likely a reduction, of the ultimate size of the F-35 buy," the paper states.

To further beef up the fighter force, it calls for the Navy to purchase an extra 58 F/A-18 Super Hornets and 16 EA-18G Growlers over the next five years.

Other notable items from McCain's proposal:

— Truncating purchases of the embattled Littoral Combat Ship at 28 total ships and speeding up procurement of the Navy's next small surface combatant. "We must get beyond it as soon as possible," the paper argues.

— Increasing research and development funding to field new capabilities. "Priority areas," according to the paper, include cyber and space capabilities, unmanned systems, directed energy, electronic warfare and nanotechnology.

— Maintaining and modernizing each leg of the nuclear triad -- missiles, bombers, and submarines -- and overhauling the Energy Department's nuclear weapons facilities. "The costs, while significant, are manageable," the proposal argues of nuclear forces.

— Accelerating development of new missile defense systems. The plan calls for investing in "the next generation" of missile defense capabilities. "Important development areas should include boost phase defense programs, directed energy, hypervelocity projectiles, high-power microwaves, battle management using learning machines, and space-based capabilities," it says.

The plan also assumes $60 billion will be needed each year over the next five years to pay for military operations in the Middle East and elsewhere — costs that are covered by the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations budget, which is not counted against the spending caps.

But the paper says that "the moment the [Budget Control Act] is finally repealed," those war costs should be shifted into the Pentagon's regular budget for good.

[Eddie Teach]

Watch all the Republican budget hawks sign on to this. 

[Habbaku]

Can't cut the military.
Can't cut Medicare.
Can't cut Social Security.
Can't cut Medicaid.

Might as well cut taxes.

[11B4V]

Yay for the navy

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/john-mccain-defense-budget-233645

Sen. John McCain is set to propose a military buildup that would add nearly half a trillion dollars to the defense budget over the next five years and blow past current limits on Pentagon spending, according to a copy of the blueprint drafted by the chairman of the Armed Services and obtained by POLITICO.

The proposal, which is set to be unveiled early this week, is the opening salvo of Republican hawks as they seek to leverage GOP majorities in the House and Senate and seize upon the surprise victory of President-elect Donald Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to rebuild the armed forces.

The 21-page plan advocates boosting the Pentagon budget as well as nuclear weapons spending in the Department of Energy by approximately $430 billion over budget projections between fiscal 2018 and 2022 — including to finance a bigger Army and significantly more new warships and fighter jets.

It would also bust through the spending caps now mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, which are not set to expire until after 2021 and would have to be overturned.

Both McCain and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), who has also called for more defense spending, have long contended that President Barack Obama has not proposed defense budgets sufficient to meet global threats.

"For too long, we have allowed budget constraints to drive strategy," the Arizona Republican's proposal argues. "It is time to turn this around and return to the first order question: What do we need our military to do for the nation?"

"It is not cheap," the paper concedes of the price tag, but adds: "The cost of further inaction, however, is worse: We will irreparably damage our military's ability to deter aggression and conflict."

The plan calls for $640 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 2018, $54 billion above current projections. Combined with $60 billion in projected spending for overseas operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that would bring total defense spending next year to just over $700 billion.

That compares with $611 billion authorized for this year — including for the Pentagon, Department of Energy, and separate war funds.

Including war funding, defense spending would top out at just over $800 billion in fiscal 2022, according to the McCain plan.

The broad contours of the plan were first reported last week by POLITICO.

The blueprint advocates increasing the size of the Army to over 500,000 active-duty soldiers. While it calls for the Army to study it's optimal size and shape, it says a "realistic objective" would be to add 8,000 troops per year through 2022.

The plan also calls for the Marine Corps to grow to 200,000 by fiscal 2022, or at about 3,000 additional Marines per year.

The Navy, meanwhile, should "ramp up shipbuilding as much and as quickly as possible."

But it acknowledges that the Navy can't reach its goal of 355 ships — 81 over the current size — in just five years. Instead, the plan calls for buying 59 ships in five years. That is 18 more than the current plan, including five more attack submarines, three destroyers, two amphibious ships and five fleet oilers.

The plan for the Navy also recommends a "high/low mix" in Navy aircraft carriers, relying on smaller, conventionally powered carriers — not simply nuclear-powered ones now in the fleet — to take on "day-to-day missions."

The Air Force may require upwards of 60 combat squadrons of about 1,500 combat aircraft, according to the blueprint. It proposes purchasing 73 additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force and 20 extra F-35s for the Marine Corps through 2022.

But McCain's plan also casts doubt on the goal of purchasing a total of 1,763 F-35s for the Air Force as is now planned. "This goal is unrealistic and requires reevaluation, and likely a reduction, of the ultimate size of the F-35 buy," the paper states.

To further beef up the fighter force, it calls for the Navy to purchase an extra 58 F/A-18 Super Hornets and 16 EA-18G Growlers over the next five years.

Other notable items from McCain's proposal:

— Truncating purchases of the embattled Littoral Combat Ship at 28 total ships and speeding up procurement of the Navy's next small surface combatant. "We must get beyond it as soon as possible," the paper argues.

— Increasing research and development funding to field new capabilities. "Priority areas," according to the paper, include cyber and space capabilities, unmanned systems, directed energy, electronic warfare and nanotechnology.

— Maintaining and modernizing each leg of the nuclear triad -- missiles, bombers, and submarines -- and overhauling the Energy Department's nuclear weapons facilities. "The costs, while significant, are manageable," the proposal argues of nuclear forces.

— Accelerating development of new missile defense systems. The plan calls for investing in "the next generation" of missile defense capabilities. "Important development areas should include boost phase defense programs, directed energy, hypervelocity projectiles, high-power microwaves, battle management using learning machines, and space-based capabilities," it says.

The plan also assumes $60 billion will be needed each year over the next five years to pay for military operations in the Middle East and elsewhere — costs that are covered by the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations budget, which is not counted against the spending caps.

But the paper says that "the moment the [Budget Control Act] is finally repealed," those war costs should be shifted into the Pentagon's regular budget for good.

[Syt]

Can't cut the military.
Can't cut Medicare.
Can't cut Social Security.
Can't cut Medicaid.

Want to overhaul the country's infrastructure.

Might as well cut taxes.

FYP

[The Larch]

Before even starting to screw over the US they're already telling that they want to screw over the EU as well? IMO if that guy is going to be put forward as US representative towards the EU it's grounds to reject his ambassadorship, out of being plainly hostile to it. And no wonder the US prefers billateral deals, it's so much bigger than any other European country that it'd have all the strength in the negotiation, that's exactly the point of the EU, strength in numbers. Any prospective countries that take up that billateral offer are undoubtly chumps waiting to be fleeced.

US may lure more countries out of EU, says likely Trump envoy

Theodore Malloch argues that offering bilateral trade deals behind the EU's back would be 'ingenious.'


The U.S. could seek bilateral trade deals with European countries behind the back of "a certain bureaucratic organization called the European Union," according to the man tipped to be Donald Trump's ambassador in Brussels.

Any EU member country that struck such a deal would have to leave the bloc but Theodore Malloch, a university professor, implied that Trump would not be concerned about the diplomatic consequences. Asked on BBC Radio 4 about the political fallout, he chuckled: "You're dealing with President Trump and clearly when it comes to foreign policy ... He's willing to turn the table over and do something quite different."

"Mr. Trump has clearly said that any deals, with anyone frankly, in future will be done on a bilateral basis," Malloch said, reinforcing the view that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal between the EU and U.S. is dead in the water.
(...)
Malloch is an advocate of such bilateral deals. "I think the idea of offering such a deal, again negotiated on a bilateral basis, to other European countries is an ingenious one and it also circumvents a certain bureaucratic organization called the European Union," he said.

Asked if the president-elect was actively keen for other countries to follow the Brexit example, Malloch said: "You read the interview, I think it's between the lines but on their own accord there are at least three or four, maybe more, European countries who would like to have a referendum and we'll see what their populations say."

[celedhring]

Wait, the incoming US administration already deems us geopolitical adversaries? WTF. 

[Zanza]

Would fit with his appointment of secretaries to agencies that have opposing goals to the secretaries' views.

[Zanza]

Wait, the incoming US administration already deems us geopolitical adversaries? WTF. 

The EU is just Germany's Fourth Reich according to Trump's interview yesterday.

[Liep]

So when is the new administration sending out replacement ambassadors? I'm curious to see who we'll get, the last ambassador was so popular that the state broadcaster had a several hours live broadcast from his last day in office.

[Syt]

The ambassadors to Austria are usually pretty low key. Various campaign contributors/donors of the respective party in power.

[Syt]

An FPÖ delegation, led by Strache has been invited to Washington this week. He says they will meet various politicians and representatives, but says that they won't meet The Donald.

[Berkut]

He is really doubling down on the "I DONT KNOW PUTIN IT IS JUST TOTAL CHANCE THAT I DO EVERYTHING THAT PUTIN WANTS" thing, isn't he?

Since when is the US opposed to the EU in principle????

WHAT THE FUCK????