Said AprilApple in the comments to the previous post, which sets the scene for tonight's debate.
I answered:
He can. The question is whether he decides that tonight is the night for him to play Adult in the Room (a role John Kasich chose for himself in the last debate). Trump still must squelch Rubio and Cruz and he hasn't yet seen whether either of them or both will decide on the Adult in the Room gambit. I think perhaps all 4 men will go for an elevated presidential demeanor. If so, it will be funny to see how it looks on each of them.
Posts
285 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 285 of 285Blogger AprilApple said...
ARM -
How much money did the Clintons make in the financial industry that you so vilify? (the same industry that pays for your retirement)
When I retire, I will have paid between 9 and 12.5% of my income to SS for half a century, and 16% of my income into a 401K for thirty years.
Yes, thank you, financial industry for 'paying for my retirement'.
I find it funny that the so-called policy oriented types feel so strongly about the empty rhetoric of Trump. From my point of view the policy guys are just as empty, though probably more self-deluded, which may be worse than plain ignorance.
A piece of news today -
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/271614-chief-justice-rejects-plea-to-block-air-pollution-rule
I.e., Roberts says that the EPA can, effectively, force the shutdown of every coal-fired electric power plant. This is effectively a takeback of Scalias "save" earlier. Back of the envelope calc based on cents/Kwh tells me that this means over three-five years electric rates across 1/2 of all US electric markets will increase 20-30%. This is huge, impactful to the general business climate, hurts consumers, etc. etc. Not a peep, not a care. This is as hard, specific, concrete a matter of public policy and much larger and more relevant than the irrelevant fiction of "strategic triad" which doesn't exist anymore.
The "policy wonks" are just as impractical, rhetorical, fairy-tale oriented as any other politicians. Why you guys are on such a high horse I cant figure out.
There are some outstanding meltdowns underway. Public ones. I see a number of "foreign policy experts" are betting their careers on virtue signaling their opposition to DT. Strong letters. Sad faces. This is entertaining in so many ways. Romney gives a lecture! Fuck off, loser, who wants your opinion? You had your chance and you completely, absolutely, famously blew it. Hillary, even Hillary!, can clean your clock.
Wow! This no holds barred Romney guy should have run against Obama.
@Bobby: "That logically follows?" Yes, Bobby. Don't you get it? He's a winner. And don't you start sniffily invoking logic 101. America has had it with elite logicians. Next you are going to tell us that any political proposition could follow from the contradictory views Trump has expressed. Just stop it.
Buwaya, this is why a lot of people are so interested in Trump.
Whereas Romney would say, we need to get control of the EPA. We need to do this and that about the EPA. When he got into office, the EPA, like most other bureaucracy, would grow larger.
The hope (and yes, no one knows for sure yet what Trump will do) is that Trump will actually do something like shit the EPA down. Something radical like that.
Hence, his appeal.
I've had some harsh words for Trump supporters, so after tangling with cuban bob, and after he writes something like this:
It is an awful choice, thats why I'm voting not Trump in my state's primary on the 15th. However unless there is some major turnaround one has to accept the real possibility of Trump being the Republican nominee and if he is then in November which will come soon enough it will be Trump versus the criminal traitor or a communist or the nation's village idiot if he is selected by the Democrat party elders. This past weekend I had the opportunity to briefly speak to one of my areas Republican congressperson who urged me to vote not Trump. I said I agreed but if he does become the nominee and gets elected I told the congressperson it's your job to make sure Trump doesn't go off the rails.
Well, then, I have to say I don't really see what our differences are.
I am aware of a tiny number of conservative pundits who will not vote for Trump, even as the Republican nominee. There may be some who would vote for a Democrat in opposition to Trump. I'm not one of that group; but I understand how they feel. Their self-respect and personal integrity cannot stand any association with Trump, and on that score I feel much the same.
Brian E,
So, for example, take Cruz's position on Syria: he's stated that we can "destroy- not degrade" ISIS (even demanded it be done in 90 days) using air strikes alone. (Note that there's a military definition for the word "destroy" and it varies greatly from the word degrade). That on its face is already absurd and not supported by any military or intelligence professionals. However, he then chases that with his opposition to supporting the Free Syrian Army, so (1) I'm not sure who would be calling in the air strikes and conducting the precision targeting, and (2) assuming you did "bomb them back to the Stone Age" (as he once quoted Curtis Le May) there wouldn't be anything on the ground to prevent ISIS from immediately reconstituting in the vacuum (as they've done, for example, in places like Somalia and Afghanistan).
On Syria, and most other foreign policy issues, I suspect Cruz crafts his foreign policy positions based on what appeals to his core right-wing conservative base, and not on what would best accomplish our strategic objectives -- incidentally, that's what the current President often tends to do, it's just that his base are left-wing liberals. We don't need more of that, and we don't need to chase stupid with "the other kind of stupid" either.
I should note that my opposition to Cruz is based less on his foreign policy idiocy and more on his domestic policies -- I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican, and don't like the majority of his domestic policy agenda.
Terry
You put all that money 401K under a mattress? Or did you have it in mutual funds (financial, evil financial, industry), or did you direct investments in stocks (who placed those trades?) Or did you keep it safely in a bank?
Trust me, Terry, the financial industry very much was a help to you.
"Hence, his appeal."
Among a certain group of people, you should add.
" that he can't tell you what the nuclear triad is "
The "nuclear triad" has been GONE for a quarter century now. There is no triad.
It is history. It is leftover words from policy papers and budget arguments that are long since obsolete. The person bringing up the "nuclear triad" is more ignorant than the ignorant, because he is fooled into thinking he knows something he doesn't.
AReasonableMan said...
Bob Ellison said...
China's economic rise is a triumph for the world. You think not?
From the perspective of the US obviously not. In the never ending struggle of nations it is obviously better to have weak enemies. Of course, a lot of bankers now have much stronger bank accounts, so I guess we should just shut up and celebrate the triumph of the quislings.
3/3/16, 10:53 AM"
I do business in China. Trust me China has very serious problems, just their bureaucracy alone makes ours look like a paragon of efficiency. There is a lot of money leaving China and their saber rattling is a disguise for that weakness. We have to tread carefully as the Chinese government is brittle and can't lose face and thus its Mandate From Heaven from which there is no recovery. If Trump is elected this is one area he better stop the bombast and buffoonery and talk softly but carry a big stick and let the Chinese quietly walk it back. And no, Hillary is also too incompetent to deal with China. Houston, we have a problem.
"Trust me, Terry, the financial industry very much was a help to you."
The capital belongs to me, Michael. I can pick and choose who I want to manage my property. Any financial firm is disposable and can be replaced by another firm eager to manage my capital. My capital is my wealth, it is not their wealth.
Chuck
"Their self-respect and personal integrity cannot stand any association with Trump, and on that score I feel much the same."
You personal fucking integrity? Your personal fucking self-respect?
Dude, get a grip. He just wants your vote. He doesn't want to be your pen pal. Your vote is private. We get it that you are super dooper pure.
Michael, the value the financial industry adds to the economy is to manage risk.
Aren't they great at that? How did they do in 2008?
Yeah, they fucked up, didn't they? Screwed millions of people out of the wealth they were trusted with.
Trump is the cult of personality. At present, it doesn't matter what he says, more how he says it and whether it is perceived as offending elite sensibilities. Examining what he says through by evaluating its rationalism will not pay dividends for the time being. The fever will have to break at some point, but who knows when.
The nuclear triad? Who cares. Are we going nuclear war, toe to toe, with Ruskies anytime soon?
Besides what about? Is someone thinking we should get rid of the SAC bombers? If so, that's a question for experts, not for a pol giving a 30 second answer.
buwaya,
Nope. In normal everyday parlance in the military and intelligence community, we use "nuclear triad" and "strategic triad" interchangeably. Nice try, though.
Terry
Agreed. But your wealth was built using the financial industry which you paid as you went along.
Nearly every poll I've seen show Clinton defeating Trump. It's close but they have her winning out. Rubio and Cruz always defeat her.
Not that polls at this point matter much. The voters who will decide the election - that 5-7% or so - probably have no idea that there's a presidential election this year.
But these attempts by the Trump supporters to say he's got the best chance of defeating Clinton are just blowing smoke.
RH just proves that women can dish it out, but they can't take it.
but then we all learned that by the age of 5.
I was trying to divine if winning Minnesota -- where they've elected such luminaries as Jesse Ventura and Al Franken -- was a bellwether for GOPe fluffer Rubio. It is! They picked Ron Paul in the 2012 primary! It's Marcomentum!
"Michael, the value the financial industry adds to the economy is to manage risk."
I don't know that it does such a good job with risk, but it sure makes it easy to borrow money or otherwise obtain financing. Its easier to borrow in the US than nearly anywhere, if you have some sort of asset or a decent looking business plan. The big problem is that there are very few of the latter under present circumstances.
Examining what he says through by evaluating its rationalism will not pay dividends for the time being. The fever will have to break at some point, but who knows when.
Yes, but I thought it would have broken by now.
I have to believe that the American voter, when he or she enters that booth, will realize that they simply cannot have this disgraceful man as president.
Yeah, yeah, then there's Hillary Clinton.
(C) None of the above?
Barry Dauphin said...
Trump is the cult of personality.
I don't think that it's personality. If any of the other GOP candidates said that, if elected, he would strictly enforce immigration law (and could be trusted to do so), that candidate would get the Trump vote.
If the bomber fleet can immediately sortie 6-8 planes max its not a "leg".
rcocean,
"The nuclear triad? Who cares. Are we going nuclear war, toe to toe, with Ruskies anytime soon?"
Hopefully, not- but then, one of the main reasons that we've avoided nuclear (and indeed overt) war with the Russians has been the deterrence of mututally assured destruction, as enshrined in US foreign policy since the Eisenhower Administration's New Look. Part of that deterrence is made credible, of course, by the presence of second-strike capabilities, which are very expensive to maintain, aging and badly in need of investment. That's why it matters. But if you don't even know what the nuclear triad is, I don't imagine you're going to think any one of its legs need any attention.
Terry
If any of the other GOP candidates said that, if elected, he would strictly enforce immigration law (and could be trusted to do so), that candidate would get the Trump vote.
I think it is more than immigration. Such voters can find no kindred spirit in Cruz? As long as Trump is outrageous, he gets a steady level of support. Currently, he can say anything and lose no support. At some point words matter. We're just not at the point yet.
"Agreed. But your wealth was built using the financial industry which you paid as you went along."
I could have bought savings bonds and gotten a better return, Michael.
Chuck isn't interested in principles -- he's interested in power. He and the rest of the GOPe don't give a fuck about the American people who voted "his" party into the majority in both houses. If they did care, they would have actually enacted some sort of conservative legislation. Other than those two hearings that he brags about which brought "bad news" for the democrats.
Ignore Chuck. He's a pathetic shill.
p.s., continuing resolution.
"Such voters can find no kindred spirit in Cruz?"
The new immigrant-suspicious Cruz, or the old immigrant-friendly Cruz?
With the exception of Trump, the US Chamber of Commerce owns all of the GOP candidates. The US Chamber of Commerce is pro open borders, and in favor of shifting the costs of low skilled imported workers onto local communities. The US CC wants to lower the wages of American workers.
buwaya,
It's metaphorical, as in the legs of a three-legged stool, with strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles each representing a "leg" of the nuclear triad "stool."
But now that you've got me thinking about it, a three-legged stool -- which collapses when any one leg is removed -- was never the best metaphor for something that was intended to be a system of redundancy... Funny! I guess I could write that to whomever picked out the bad metaphor in the first place, but it's the common parlance. Might as well get excited about people parking in driveways or driving on parkways.
"see who the media establishment likes."
Precisely. There's reasons why the media is mostly focused on Trump's statement now, so as to get media attention within the primary. In the general, should he be the candidate, they're going to pull out a significant amount of stories about Trump's background, meanwhile continuing to ignore the greater evils of the Clintons.
Terry
you chose poorly
Blogger Henry said...
@cubanbob. I'm talking about odds, not process. The point is, don't build your election strategy on a deus-ex-machina. Even if there were a strong chance of Ms. Clinton or one of her aids being indicted before November, the Republicans still have to run a campaign, and knowing the Clintons, I wouldn't depend on that indictment being part of it.
3/3/16, 11:01 AM"
Henry it doesn't require an intervention by the gods. Once the Republican fratricide is over the guns turn on Hillary. Indictment or no indictment there is no justification whatsoever for what she did. Now how is Hillary going to be able to reply when challenged? Example: "Mrs. Clinton which cabinet department or agency would you as president feel comfortable being run on the secretary's or director's personal email server?" It only gets worse from there.
"-- was never the best metaphor for something that was intended to be a system of redundancy"
Its not the metaphor which is obsolete, but the system. It worked perfectly well as a metaphor and as a system in its day, but that day is past. It was all contingent on the technological circumstances which have changed so as to make it irrelevant.
Manned bombers as a survivable backup during a crisis are at the moment, for the foreseeable future, and looking forward due to technology, nothing more than a token if the scenario is a general nuclear exchange. Which was the point of having a triad, which was MAD.
Michael said...
Terry
you chose poorly
3/3/16, 12:03 PM
I did not choose to put my money in SS, Michael. My 401k has a limited number of options. It's true that I would have done better if I had moved my 401k wealth into bonds or the money market in 1999 and in 2007, but of course the geniuses in the financial industry advised against that.
What valuable service does the financial industry perform, again? Why am I paying them?
buwaya,
"Manned bombers as a survivable backup during a crisis are at the moment, for the foreseeable future, and looking forward due to technology, nothing more than a token if the scenario is a general nuclear exchange. Which was the point of having a triad, which was MAD."
Dude, I'd be fine with that as an answer! I mean, not "fine," because I don't agree with that as policy, but at least I would know that you know what the triad is and have thought through whether or not it would be more effective as a "biad" or a "unad" (I honestly don't know what you call a two- or one-legged system).
But that's not what Trump did. He didn't even know what it was to say it was obsolete or could be rendered more efficient by doing whatever.
There's a huge difference there, sir.
Terry
Nothing beats a good strong mattress and a pistol in the bedside drawer.
I am not sure the "geniuses in the financial industry" were advising against bonds in 99 or 07. Most financial advisors suggest a balance between bonds, dividending stocks, growth stocks etc. with weighting depending on the age of the investor. The greed of the investor generally overcomes such advice.
I personally don't ask for or follow their advice. There are days I thank myself for this and days when I kick myself.
"But that's not what Trump did. He didn't even know what it was to say it was obsolete or could be rendered more efficient by doing whatever. "
My point is that NONE of these guys could answer on that level, because it hasn't come up in public policy since forever. The only reason the questioner came up with it is he remembers it as an important-sounding McGuffin from ages past. Which is why I think all the pseudo-policy oriented guys are just as much flimflam artists as any demagogue. They are much better at pretending to know than knowing.
Michael, I owe the financial system no more gratitude than I owe the mechanic who fixes my car. Our relationship is entirely financial. I pay him to do something, he does it because I am paying him, not because he's a nice guy. This is exactly the right attitude a consumer should have towards anything that they purchase.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to be treated as a human being with intrinsic value, look to your family or your church.
You owe the vultures who manage your wealth or debt what is written on paper and what can be judged by a civil court, nothing more, nothing less.
Terry
The only gratitude you should owe to either the financial system or to your mechanic is that they exist and can do things that need to be done that you yourself do not know how to do. Nothing to get mad about, You cannot, for example, blame your mechanic because you bought a Yugo.
The only reason I remember it (the "triad" arguments) is because I spent too much time paying attention to this stuff as a hobby in the 1970's-80s, even having a subscription to the USNI "Proceedings" for a decade or so. But for a billionaire real-estate businessman that is not a good use of his time, and, probably, that goes some way to explaining why I'm not richer than I am.
I'm not going to pretend it makes me a better prospect for high political office for knowing this, because unless you are seriously considering defense budgets knowing this stuff is good at best for a game of trivial pursuit.
WAY more important is experience in selecting and managing subordinates.
You seem to be saying, Michael, that the financial industry is responsible for any increase in the wealth I own, but I am responsible for any reduction in the wealth I own.
You wrote:"Trust me, Terry, the financial industry very much was a help to you."
What service do they provide that I am supposed to be grateful for?
Terry said...
Michael said...
Terry
you chose poorly
3/3/16, 12:03 PM
I did not choose to put my money in SS, Michael. My 401k has a limited number of options. It's true that I would have done better if I had moved my 401k wealth into bonds or the money market in 1999 and in 2007, but of course the geniuses in the financial industry advised against that.
What valuable service does the financial industry perform, again? Why am I paying them?
3/3/16, 12:12 PM"
Terry look up the Nestor decision. Now I can't be your financial advisor but I lost a lot of money on paper in the downturn of 2008, but only on paper. I recovered quite nicely. The market goes up and the market goes down but the assets are mine and not dependent on paygo by someone else. When you hit a certain age cashflow is what you are looking for, not necessarily asset appreciation although that is always good.
"On the other hand, a President Clinton (for whom I would personally likely never vote, but some Libertarians will) might constrain and be constrained by a Republican Congress."
That feckless bunch of retards? Yes, I used the R word. McConnell and crew talk bullshit tough, then pass omnibus spending bills. How Republican of them. The entirety of the Capitol District is too well-fed and insulated to really understand what the rest of us go through for a living. The cocktail party circuit calls ...
"Nearly every poll I've seen show Clinton defeating Trump. It's close but they have her winning out. Rubio and Cruz always defeat her."
Registered vs. likely might change the calculus. All of the polls I have seen so far are of registered voters.
buwaya: I find it funny that the so-called policy oriented types feel so strongly about the empty rhetoric of Trump. From my point of view the policy guys are just as empty, though probably more self-deluded, which may be worse than plain ignorance.
[...]
The "policy wonks" are just as impractical, rhetorical, fairy-tale oriented as any other politicians. Why you guys are on such a high horse I cant figure out.
Wonkery provides a pleasant illusion of understanding and control. Illusion of understanding, because anybody with any maturity or humility knows that he, too, is a "low-information voter", his views necessarily shaped and limited by his temperament and personal interests, by his herd instinct operating in his particular social niche, by déformation professionelle, and by pure chance. Illusion of control, because, hey, who wouldn't want to believe that knowing the Jeopardy answer "what is the nuclear triad?" means the people in charge know what they're doing?
A piece of news today -
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/271614-chief-justice-rejects-plea-to-block-air-pollution-rule
I.e., Roberts says that the EPA can, effectively, force the shutdown of every coal-fired electric power plant. This is effectively a takeback of Scalias "save" earlier. Back of the envelope calc based on cents/Kwh tells me that this means over three-five years electric rates across 1/2 of all US electric markets will increase 20-30%. This is huge, impactful to the general business climate, hurts consumers, etc. etc. Not a peep, not a care.
Eh, what's a 30% rise in rates? We're been tolerating as bad or worse in medical and educational costs. Where's the KKK angle, that's what I want to know.
buwaya,
"But for a billionaire real-estate businessman that is not a good use of his time, and, probably, that goes some way to explaining why I'm not richer than I am."
Only he's not running to be a billionaire real-estate businessman- he already has that. He's running to be President of the United States, the position of which has a unique authority over US national security and foreign policy -- more power relative to Congress and the Supreme Court in those areas than in most areas of domestic policy. Given that, I believe that Presidential candidates have a responsibility to be at least minimally informed on national security and foreign policy issues - perhaps you disagree with me. From what I've heard and read from Trump so far, he does not (yet) meet that minimal standard - perhaps you disagree with me.
The point is, you're not going to get me to believe that it doesn't matter. I can respect that many of you may believe that Trump's foreign policy ignorance is not as important as, say, his perceived competence on other matters. But then, say that- I work in national security, so I don't expect you all to care about it as much as I do (no more than I think you should expect me to care as much as you do about whatever field that you work in). But don't try to tell me that it doesn't matter at all that he hasn't even bothered to try and gain some knowledge on national security. Or if you think, fine, he's ignorant, but he's going to appoint strong advisors and listen to them, okay, but then at least understand why I think we should know who those advisors are going to be before expecting me to vote for him and why I'm concerned that he hasn't told us anything about who these lads or lasses are going to be.
Anglelyne:
For years, even decades, the KKK kept their sheets white through "green" shifting of environmental hazards, including energy production from hydrocarbon sources, and "renewable" technologies, to someone else's backyard.
Terry
You cannot buy a stock, sell a stock, price a stock, price a bond, buy a bond, open an IRA, close an IRA, buy an option, sell an option, price an option, place a mortgage on your home, reinvest a dividend, or receive a dividend without the aid of the financial services industry.
You need that industry. You can be mad because you made stupid financial decisions but that industry only executed on your behalf. They did not choose for you.
Bobby
Thanks for the response.
I think the statement Cruz made about using airpower to take out ISIS may be related to this:
"U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.
“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” Royce said. “I don’t understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit.”
When asked to address Royce’s statement, a Pentagon official defended the Obama administration’s policy and said that the military is furiously working to prevent civilian casualties.
“The bottom line is that we will not stoop to the level of our enemy and put civilians more in harm’s way than absolutely necessary,” the official told the Washington Free Beacon, explaining that the military often conducts flights “and don’t strike anything.”
“The fact that aircraft go on missions and don’t strike anything is not out of the norm,” the official said. “Despite U.S. strikes being the most precise in the history of warfare, conducting strike operations in the heavily populated areas where ISIL hides certainly presents challenges. We are fighting an enemy who goes out of their way to put civilians at risk. However, our pilots understand the need for the tactical patience in this environment. This fight against ISIL is not the kind of fight from previous decades.”
Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces."
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/us-pilots-confirm-obama-admin-blocks-75-percent-of-isis-strikes/
cubanbob wrote:
Terry look up the Nestor decision. Now I can't be your financial advisor but I lost a lot of money on paper in the downturn of 2008, but only on paper. I recovered quite nicely. The market goes up and the market goes down but the assets are mine and not dependent on paygo by someone else. When you hit a certain age cashflow is what you are looking for, not necessarily asset appreciation although that is always good.
3/3/16, 12:48 PM
I was in a bad mood earlier and was probably too hard on Michael. Financial services don't increase wealth solely by managing risks, they also reduce transaction costs.
It is important to note that, all things being equal, wealth (or wages) can only increase as the size of the economy increases overall. Otherwise you are just transferring money from one person to another. I have known a few individuals who regularly picked "winning" stocks when the stock market was going up leaps and bounds. They thought they were financial geniuses, until the market went bearish and they had to face margin calls.
Increasing GDP growth is not rocket science. You can increase the size of the workforce relative to the general population, you can use technology to make existing labor efficient, and you can exploit natural resources. Taxes are an important part of increasing the capital available for investment, but if there is nothing to invest in -- if ROI is 0% -- who cares?
Bobby,
As to his statement about "bombing them back into the stone age", that may have been a rhetorical flourish-- since ISIS philosophy is straight from the 7th century Muslim playbook. (see the rhetorical flourish there?)
Yes he does not support propping up any of the opposition to Assad, since it's unlikely they have the ability to pacify the country even is they could assume power. (think about the aftermath in Libya after Gadaffi was toppled)
He does think Assad is the least bad actor in the region and wouldn't advocate his overthrow.
“We will not win by replacing dictators, as unpleasant as they may be, with terrorists who want to destroy America,” Cruz said...
Here's a story about his foreign policy advisor. I know, I know an art historian?--but,... well read it.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruzs-foreign-policy-adviser-talks-syria-democracy-and-art
Bobby: I can respect that many of you may believe that Trump's foreign policy ignorance is not as important as, say, his perceived competence on other matters.
His perceived competence in other matters has nothing to do with it. The point being disputed here is whether not knowing what the "nuclear triad" is constitutes a meaningful level of "foreign policy ignorance" in a potential chief executive. That is, does it indicate in itself a lack of knowledge or understanding of what's going on in the world, or a dangerously false view? No, and if it did, his perceived competence in other areas would be completely irrelevant.
I doubt very seriously that Trump doesn't know what ICBMs and SLBMs are, and it would take all of 30 seconds to get any moderately intelligent person up to the TV-debate level of knowledge that you are insisting is somehow a sine qua non of foreign policy acumen and judgment. There are any number of military/political facts at exactly this level that any candidate isn't going to know.
"Presidential candidates have a responsibility to be at least minimally informed on national security and foreign policy issues - perhaps you disagree with me."
I don't disagree, but extremely few candidates for high office have more than passing knowledge of this. I sincerely doubt that a person who knows just enough to be dangerous is better and safer than someone coming in a blank slate.
Romney had zero military background and as far as I could see not an ounce of knowledge. None of the governors who were running can be said to know anything of military matters. The senators might, if they have been serving long enough to be briefed a lot over the years, but even long serving ones are generally idiots, there are darn few Scoop Jacksons.
The old Roman system of the cursus honorum where anyone qualified for consul would have served in at least one campaign would be an excellent improvement, but that isn't the US system.
Trump is no worse on this than any of the other fellows, and Hilary, looking at it all realistically.
Brian E,
No, the Royce concerns are quite different - and (in my opinion) 100% legitimate, though still (in my opinion) somewhat incomplete. One of the reasons that a no-boots-on-the-ground air-only campaign is limited in its ability to prosecute targets is that, without a ground force, the enemy does not have the need to mass its troops and present a target- they remain dispersed and (relatively more) hidden from aerial surveillance and reconnaissance assets. When you have a ground force present, however, the enemy has to mass its troops or get defeated piecemeal by the ground troops. Additionally, without controllers (who need to be secured by ground forces), airpower's targeting is greatly limited in its ability to accurately identify and prosecute a target. (There's some air controlling capability, especially, with the UAVs but it's not as efficient)
All of this was controversial and revolutionary (to Americans) during DOD's battle over AirLand doctrine many decades ago (though the Israelis had figured it out well before that), but it's well-established today. Still, politicians from Bill Clinton to Barrack Obama and Ted Cruz are frequently seduced by the allure of airpower. Part of that is USAF propaganda; a lot of it is insufficient military experience on the part of the politicians and their advisors (again, one reason I'm skeptical of the claim that a President will listen to his advisors until I know who they are).
I'm familiar with Victoria Coates. I did not know she was a foreign policy advisor to Cruz's campaign. If you can believe it, his standing just dropped in my book.
Anglelyne,
"His perceived competence in other matters has nothing to do with it. The point being disputed here is whether not knowing what the "nuclear triad" is constitutes a meaningful level of "foreign policy ignorance" in a potential chief executive. That is, does it indicate in itself a lack of knowledge or understanding of what's going on in the world, or a dangerously false view?"
If it were just the nuclear triad, I'd probably agree with you. Unfortunately, Trump's ignorance on national security and foreign policy matters extends well beyond just not knowing the nuclear triad.
buwaya,
"I don't disagree, but extremely few candidates for high office have more than passing knowledge of this. I sincerely doubt that a person who knows just enough to be dangerous is better and safer than someone coming in a blank slate."
This could very well be true. But again this is where one can build confidence by simply naming whom a President Trump intends to bring onto his national security team- who will be SecState? SECDEF? National Security Advisor? DCI? Etc. etc. I think you can understand why I'm going to reserve my opinion until I know President Trump is going to do better than John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Susan Rice and John Brennan -- that was the worst national security team in my lifetime (maybe ever!), and swapping out Hagel for Ashton Carter (while an improvement) probably isn't enough to climb many places! Until then, I don't know which appointments are going to reflect good choices and which are going to be to pay back political endorsements- and that matters significantly!
"Romney had zero military background and as far as I could see not an ounce of knowledge. None of the governors who were running can be said to know anything of military matters. The senators might, if they have been serving long enough to be briefed a lot over the years, but even long serving ones are generally idiots, there are darn few Scoop Jacksons."
I didn't vote for Romney (I'm not a Republican). Agreed that there are far fewer Scoop Jacksons today in Congress than we need.
Bobby: This could very well be true. But again this is where one can build confidence by simply naming whom a President Trump intends to bring onto his national security team- who will be SecState? SECDEF? National Security Advisor? DCI? Etc. etc. I think you can understand why I'm going to reserve my opinion until I know President Trump is going to do better than John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Susan Rice and John Brennan -- that was the worst national security team in my lifetime (maybe ever!), and swapping out Hagel for Ashton Carter (while an improvement) probably isn't enough to climb many places! Until then, I don't know which appointments are going to reflect good choices and which are going to be to pay back political endorsements- and that matters significantly!
Don't disagree with anything you're saying here. If he doesn't come up with any improvement on your list of Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooos, I'll be sorely tempted to stay home.
Terry investing is simply allocating your capital. It can be misallocated or otherwise badly allocated but either you do it yourself or have someone do it for you it doesn't allocate itself. Me I miss all the really high flyers and also miss the huge drops. I'm not smart enough to get involved in either direction. What I do is simply invest in things I understand and would buy outright if I had the money to do so with the dividend yield commensurate with the risk. At the end of the day there aren't more than one thousand investment grade companies so ultimately all the gurus over time tend to have similar returns.
Bobby,
thanks again for the response.
As to 'boots on the ground', think the Afghanistan. We relied on special forces to do the targeting and it was effective. I do think an effective air campaign could degrade ISIS sufficiently to topple it. But yes, what then?
Look at the effectiveness of the Russian involvement with a fraction of the resources.
At this point, we've ceded Syria to the Russians and Assad. It could have been Assad and kept the Russian's at a distance. We're talking strategy here, way beyond my knowledge.
I do recognize that Obama's 'good war' in Afghanistan was wrong-headed as was his capitulation to Iranian interests in Iraq.
So today, we have what we have. I do think Cruz recognizes the limits of American power more than some of the other candidates-- especially Hillary. Libya should be a red flag to everyone.
cubanbob
When my kids were small I would take them to toy stores and to the grocery store and watch what they were attracted to, what they couldn't ignore. I made some money doing that and lost some, less but some. On the whole I have done best by buying names that do things I understand and putting them away. I do not look at the market for weeks on end. I once bought a stock recommended by a friend, American Tower. I paid around 6 for it. about two years later I looked and saw it was 6.25 but that in the intervening years it had been as low as 1. It is now in the 90s. I think. Buy names. Hold. Don't look too often.
If you really want to make a pile you have to do what I have done in several down markets. Buy when it makes you puke with fear by buying. I have done it a lot but never with enough nerve to make a career ending hit. In other words I was right but a chicken. Never had the nerve to plunge.
Michael:
If I ever did vote for Trump -- I hope I never have to -- it would be with the understanding that I'd also be working hard for Republican congressional majorities that would hold Trump in check from his worst excesses. As if is with Obama.
Rcocean wrote:
The nuclear triad? Who cares. Are we going nuclear war, toe to toe, with Ruskies anytime soon?
Besides what about? Is someone thinking we should get rid of the SAC bombers? If so, that's a question for experts, not for a pol giving a 30 second answer.
who are you, Barack Obama? Did the 80's call and want their foreign policy back again?
romney was right on the Ruskies, and Obama was wrong. Trump loves the Ruskies. So he's wrong too.But it's kind of funny that a Trumpbots would use his ignorance of the nuclear triad as if it was a virtue.
People like Romney or even Rubio could answer the question about sac bombers, because they actually study the issue.
Trump? He doesn't even have a clue. He just likes nuclear. Nuclear is HUUUGE.
And it's people who don't study the issue who would say the 80's called they want their foreign policy back. That was artery high school answer for a sitting president. And you know what? It's still smarter than Trumps answer.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151
"In interviews with POLITICO, leading GOP foreign-policy hands — many of whom promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable — said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders — many of whom are not considered neocons — that was published Wednesday night by War on the Rocks, a defense and foreign policy website . “[W]e are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head,” the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump’s "admiration for foreign dictators” to his “inexcusable” support for “the expansive use of torture."
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official."
Remember when Rick perry couldn't name the third agency at the republican debate? That was disqualifying.
Yet that's basically the answer for every Trump question when they delve into specifics. Isn't that kind of embarrassing to the Trumpbots?
cubanbob said...
We have to tread carefully ...
Because the quislings created a Leviathan.
AprilApple said...
(the same industry that pays for your retirement)
You are truly the most ignorant person on the planet. Only a remarkable lack of self-knowledge gives you the gall to complain about Trump's lack of expertise.
Brian E,
So there's a couple major reasons the Russian air campaign is more "effective" than ours- the first is that, in some places, it has a proxy ground force (Assad's army) creating all the effects I described above; until very recently, we haven't had such a force and even now what we have is severely limited.
The second is that, in other places, Russia is indiscriminately targeting any area that does not have widespread support for Assad's regime, while we are trying to target ISIS and (to a lesser extent) the Al Qaeda affiliates. They don't really care if they kill innocent civilians, aid workers or non-Alawite people- Sunnis, Armenian Christians, Druze, etc. The whole point is merely to massacre non-supporters of the regime so that they're not around later to oppose Assad's regime.
Cruz, if his public statements are to be believed and not merely to throw red meat to right-wingers, claims that he would "destroy" ISIS by massively expanding the bombing campaign. Not only is that unlikely to "destroy" ISIS, it's quite likely to kill a lot of the very innocent Christians whom he claims to be trying to assist. But I guess when you have an Italian art history professor as your foreign policy advisor, yeah, sure that's about what you would get.
Amanda,
I saw that letter a few hours ago. Some of those 60 are brilliant, some are dipsh*ts. Regardless, I don't think it will have an impact- Americans don't know much about foreign policy or national security, so I don't think they care much about the issues beyond very broad, general concepts.
However, for me personally (if they stick to the pledge, of course), I'm even more interested in knowing whom Trump is going to select for his national security team when many of his best options have just taken themselves off the table. (This should not be construed to mean I think all 60 of them would be "best options" or even "good options").
Bobby,
You said you aren't a Republican
Are you supporting either Democrat?
Amanda
That will be a useful list for Trump, people who will not be employed in the new government, whose advice will not be sought. They are not the only experts in foreign policy, of course. There are many who sit on the Democrat side of the fence who Trump is likely to choose from.
Brian E,
That would be a first for me (for President; over the years, I've voted for a couple of Democrats for state or local offices) so I'd have to say it's highly unlikely.
Michael,
Then that only makes it more important for Trump to tell us who are those picks he's considering (on the Democratic side of the fence or otherwise). Now let's see if he does it or if he's so enamored with the fact that his supporters would back him even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue that he believes (likely accurately) that he can get away with not saying. I'm betting the latter. And I'm betting, electorally-speaking, it won't make much of a difference.
Bobby
Our nation is grateful for your concern, but I have a feeling that Trump will tell us who his picks are for important positions in plenty of time for the general election. He will also tell us who his VP choice is, maybe even before he rolls out his pick for Treasury.
Meanwhile on the other side, when the Feds are dealing and the perps are dealing, there's something brewing. Clintkn spokeswoman Clintonsplaining we don't understand the process.
Michael,
Well, that might be too late for Trump to get my vote in the June primary, but who knows, he might still get my vote in November.
jr565 said...And it's people who don't study the issue who would say the 80's called they want their foreign policy back. That was artery high school answer for a sitting president. And you know what? It's still smarter than Trumps answer
The guy who said that won that election jr565. By a pretty healthy margin, too. Just, you know, something to keep in mind.
If we're talking about who would make a better President, I mean, I think we agree. If you're saying that someone who gives such ignorant, pathetic answers can't be elected...history shows you're wrong.
HoodlumDoodlum,
Agreed, and I've said that numerous times on this thread. I don't think a candidate's national security and foreign policy matter much at all to the vast majority of American voters (it just happens to matter a lot to me, which only adds to my Sisyphean psyche). But honestly, how can we expect them to care a whole lot about something that they themselves do not really know much about?
Low-information voters, baby! Gotta love the poorly educated! We're reaping the results of the electorate that we've sown.
Two Weeks Notice (Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock), in response to Lucy complaining about George bothering her with decisions
George: Before you came into my life I could make all kinds of decisions, now I can't, I'm addicted, I have to know what you think.
Guys are the same way with feminists. It's not exactly going along with it.
"Low-information voters, baby! Gotta love the poorly educated! We're reaping the results of the electorate that we've sown."
I have seen the way the Democratic party-owned public education system works.
This quite famous report from 1983(!) captures most of whats wrong -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nation_at_Risk
especially famous for the line -
"If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
NOTHING has improved since.
buwaya,
Yeah, Bill Bennett had a way with words, didn't he?
I haven't had anything to do with public education since I graduated high school from one over 20 years so I'm certainly not in the loop anymore, but I can tell you if public school is currently anything like it was for me back then, I'd have to agree with you completely.
I predicted some of Mitt's speech.
3/3/16, 8:39 AM
Blogger David Begley said...
Trump Vodka. Trump Steaks. Trump Airlines. Trump Mortgage. Trump Water. Etc.
Expect Trump to be blasted tonight on Vietnam.
" if public school is currently anything like it was for me back then"
For a greater proportion of kids now than then, its probably worse, with a few bright spots in a darker field.
Our kids went through the system (well, part public schools, part private) and are recently done with it.
"Because the quislings created a Leviathan."
Perhaps the Leviathan will become a millstone around the quisling's necks?
Watch it with the metaphors, ARM.
Just watch them.
cubanbob said...
Terry investing is simply allocating your capital. It can be misallocated or otherwise badly allocated but either you do it yourself or have someone do it for you it doesn't allocate itself.
Yeah, I know, and I'm not doing badly on the 401k. Not because of any particular skill on my part, I am simply prudent. If you are an investor, and you consistently get returns higher than the market, there is something wrong, or you are lucky.
People are incredibly motivated to make money. I sometimes think the best evidence for human free will is that there is no magic formula for making money. if you can make 1/10,000 of a percent on each transaction, and your transaction cost is zero, you will eventually own everything in the world. And no one can do that.
Post a Comment