The US Election, Part XI

[Gromnir]

 

 

There is some truth in the overall frivolous message, for example  in some of  the various radio talk show debates I engage in I tend  to say things like " tertiary education is important and gives you advantage in corporate...but of course just because someone doesnt have a degree that doesnt make them  less than someone who does " (  this is a just an example )

 

the one and only time you will ever see Gromnir quote frasier.

 

Daphne: I don't see what's so hard about telling Roz you were wrong.

Frasier: You don't understand. It's not the same as Dad being wrong, or your being wrong. I have a degree from Harvard. Whenever I'm wrong, the world makes a little less sense.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

We saw a lot of funny t-shirts during this election but I think we missed the funniest of them all:

 

Well you can hope he's just trying to be funny.

[Meshugger]

the one and only time you will ever see Gromnir quote frasier.

 

Updated my Gromnir.txt

[BruceVC]

 

There is some truth in the overall frivolous message, for example in some of the various radio talk show debates I engage in I tend to say things like " tertiary education is important and gives you advantage in corporate...but of course just because someone doesnt have a degree that doesnt make them less than someone who does " ( this is a just an example )

What? Of course it does. Don't encourage people to not achieve education.

 

 

Well to be fair there are many people who dont have university degrees but become very successful

 

But for me and where I work you cannot get into the majority of banks or financial institutions without some degree in finance. That applies to many other sectors in SA

 

But I would never  say that on a radio station because we have such  a high failure rate of black South Africans who attend university. There will be different reasons for this but  the Apartheid system intentionally did not want to educate any black South Africans and for decades many people had very little education and never went to varsity 

 

The contradiction thought is Apartheid ended in 1990 and from 1994 the ANC came to power...the current  black students were born outside Apartheid so why are they doing so badly in the current reality of tertiary education in SA?

Btw Bruce, how are things going around ur parts? The last I heard didn't sound to good and on the verge of being dangerous. Any changes?

Oh no, Im fine. Thanks for asking 

 

White South Africans like myself are use to that type of rhetoric from some people , we just ignore it

 

But sometimes I think I make too many justifications for some behavior in SA ...anyway its hard to be critical of certain things in SA because of our past. Like when I wanted you guys to comment on that link where those populist  politicians were saying " we want to slaughter whites for land  " ....I am not sure sometimes when I should get offended 

[Guard Dog]

 

We saw a lot of funny t-shirts during this election but I think we missed the funniest of them all:

 

Well you can hope he's just trying to be funny.

 

I'm quite sure he was. And it was funny

[Keyrock]

Make T-Shirt Humor Great Again

[licketysplit]

This fake news crap from the media is going off the rails. It's completely reckless. A decent take on it here

 

http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/

 

And yes, I recognize the irony of my post.

Edited November 25, 2016 by licketysplit

[imaenoon]

Some people will be calling for a recount the day after the inauguration.

 

They'll get their recount. In four years, there will be a recount and everyone who wants a recount can overturn this election.

[BruceVC]

This fake news crap from the media is going off the rails. It's completely reckless. A decent take on it here

 

http://fortune.com/2016/11/25/russian-fake-news/

 

And yes, I recognize the irony of my post.

You raise a good point, I have always maintained that the Russians interfered in the US election but of course they not solely responsible for every " fake news " story that was circulated during the election

 

Trumps intrinsic strategy created certain stories or rather just repeated past issues  himself and these stories then grew and became relevant for many of his supporters

 

The Russians  played a part but I would say maybe 15 % of the overall hyperbole was because of them

 

But as GD said to me once when I raised how Wikileaks\Russia was undermining Hilary was if she had less controversy because of her past then there would be less to criticize her about. So in other words in some examples Hilary was an easy target because of perceived and valid  negative sentiment about her 

[BruceVC]

Some people will be calling for a recount the day after the inauguration.

 

They'll get their recount. In four years, there will be a recount and everyone who wants a recount can overturn this election.

I was thinking about this whole recount debate, initially I thought its a waste of time and in  a way hypocritical because many Democrats were horrified that Trump said "  I wont accept the election result " 

 

I believe the election was fair and represented a better message from Trump ..thats why he won. But end of the day lets say Stein arranges this recount  for some states it may be better for overall cohesion in the USA  because then we can put to rest  the accusation about rigging ?

[imaenoon]

The problem is, it won't, BruceVC. It doesn't matter what they do, someone somewhere will still want a recount... on only those exact states Clinton needs. This election will never be acceptable to fringe (and even not so fringe) leftists. They'll always claim that it is illegitimate.

 

As far as I'm concerned, both candidates authored this problem. Trump for being cutesy and establishing his human magic 8-ball approach to answering questions by saying he wouldn't commit to accepting the results. Clinton for ragging on him beforehand for saying he wouldn't accept them.

 

Now Stein, who wouldn't need a recount if her votes had counted for Clinton to begin with, has completely undermined her own moral authority by essentially shilling for Clinton.

 

I don't think anything will come of this, but I do believe this is a poisonous trap that won't help the Democrats at all. ...And Trump is a populist, not a Republican, so some people hating on him now will, and mark my words, be praising things he does during his presidency. I, however, won't be surprised by his crazy assed comportment. If he comes to the podium and starts bleating like a farm animal, the five minutes of astonished silence on the part of most people will meet with five seconds of shock on my part and four and a half minutes of gut rending guffaws.

 

Democrat or Republican, you should not be calling for overturning the presidential election this late in the game. It will be disastrous if it happens and it's simply reckless even to play games with it now. Stein should be ashamed of herself. She, at the least, ran an honorable campaign and held a certain moral position based on her conviction.

[BruceVC]

The problem is, it won't, BruceVC. It doesn't matter what they do, someone somewhere will still want a recount... on only those exact states Clinton needs. This election will never be acceptable to fringe (and even not so fringe) leftists. They'll always claim that it is illegitimate.

 

As far as I'm concerned, both candidates authored this problem. Trump for being cutesy and establishing his human magic 8-ball approach to answering questions by saying he wouldn't commit to accepting the results. Clinton for ragging on him beforehand for saying he wouldn't accept them.

 

Now Stein, who wouldn't need a recount if her votes had counted for Clinton to begin with, has completely undermined her own moral authority by essentially shilling for Clinton.

 

I don't think anything will come of this, but I do believe this is a poisonous trap that won't help the Democrats at all. ...And Trump is a populist, not a Republican, so some people hating on him now will, and mark my words, be praising things he does during his presidency. I, however, won't be surprised by his crazy assed comportment. If he comes to the podium and starts bleating like a farm animal, the five minutes of astonished silence on the part of most people will meet with five seconds of shock on my part and four and a half minutes of gut rending guffaws.

 

Democrat or Republican, you should not be calling for overturning the presidential election this late in the game. It will be disastrous if it happens and it's simply reckless even to play games with it now. Stein should be ashamed of herself. She, at the least, ran an honorable campaign and held a certain moral position based on her conviction.

You know I support the Democrats but I do think this recount is unnecessary, the only real opinion I heard about why this recount may be necessary is not from a politician but this professor....what do you think about his reasoning ?

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/probably-not-professor-at-center-of-election-hacking-report-says-cyberattack-not-likely/

[imaenoon]

I'd read it before and I don't discount the idea of taking more care for security although, if it comes to that, use paper ballots if the potential for mayhem is *that* grave.

 

From my perspective, the problem is that the concerns over the security of the voting machines were already brought up before the election and brushed aside. If I recall correctly, both Democrat and Republican officials in various districts rejected the idea that there was a serious risk. Now, after the election, it's a call to arms to take action, and I think that will forever cloud the results of the recount. There is no serious allegation of misdeeds, only the supposition.

 

I've also heard some suggest random recounts regularly done. I'm not averse to that, but that's not what this would be. It's a recount in only three states and only those states where Clinton, should *all three* results be overturned, could win the election. New Hampshire hasn't been called into question although it was just as close or closer than the three states in question. What's the difference? New Hampshire went to Clinton. If we're to institute random recounts or the like, it needs to be established as procedure before the election so as to remove all doubt that it's not entirely motivated by immediate political gain.

 

I can imagine a scenario, and it's not all that far fetched aside from the extreme unlikelihood of an actual recount in all three states, that the result would render neither candidate the winner. Then it would be up to the House, which would undoubtedly give the election to Trump. Now, some Democrats would relish the idea of attacking the Republican party over giving the election to Trump under these circumstances, but somewhere along the line I'd hope that at least a few of them would be more interested in actually helping the country heal than shallow political ploys that probably won't even help them much in the long term.

 

EDIT: Actually looking over it, the Clinton would either win all three recounts or still lose the election. She'd have to overturn all three states, and that's crazy difficult to do *unless* something hinky's going on.

Edited November 25, 2016 by imaenoon

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

There is some truth in the overall frivolous message, for example  in some of  the various radio talk show debates I engage in I tend  to say things like " tertiary education is important and gives you advantage in corporate...but of course just because someone doesnt have a degree that doesnt make them  less than someone who does " (  this is a just an example )

 

the one and only time you will ever see Gromnir quote frasier.

 

Daphne: I don't see what's so hard about telling Roz you were wrong.

Frasier: You don't understand. It's not the same as Dad being wrong, or your being wrong. I have a degree from Harvard. Whenever I'm wrong, the world makes a little less sense.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

C'mon you gotta love Frasier. Cheers was the greatest  sit-com ever.

[imaenoon]

Frasier was better than cheers. Recently Game of Thrones beat out Frasier as most awarded series of all time. Never took to GoT, but more power to 'em.

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8MXKdXl6Wk

[Volourn]

Oh, by the way, all this 'Russia stole the elction', 'it was rigged by racist Texans', 'Trump stole election', 'Trump didn't win the popular vote', etc., etc., etc. whining is likely exactly why Trump and his diehards were likely so adamant of not  accepting the election results before the election took play b/c they felt the  mainstream  big wigs were against them and were gonna try to steal the election... heck, they are still trying to take the election win up to including assassination threats against both Trump AND the official electors.

 

I mean pre election all we were from Hilalry supporters was that Trump was evil, delusional, and anti democratic because he DARED to 'hedge his bets' when he clearly stated he wasn't gonna  to state whether he would accept the results until he knew they wer elegit. LMAO , Now, theya re the ones butt hurt.

[imaenoon]

I've revisited my thoughts on this. I thought Stein was somehow trying to tighten her connection to the Democratic party. Seeing the amount of money she's raised and the fact that she says that the extra will go to Green party training and activities, I now think she's trying to gin up money for the Green party. It's terribly cynical and undoubtedly bad for the country, but at least now she's acting like a proper politician. Makes it easier when there isn't someone clouding the issue with proper principles. Now we won't have to worry about that from her.

 

To Elerond and the people calling for this, the deal was a recount that showed Trump winning would put to rest the issue. I'll have to make sure I'm around long enough to see if that happens. 60 thousand votes in a state is in practical terms an insurmountable lead for a recount. If that's overturned, I firmly believe that it will lead to real and protracted strife that will dwarf what we've seen so far. There's no way for that amount to switch in a modern American election without there literally being a tremendous amount of malfeasance either in the initial vote or the recount.

 

EDIT: But then again, left's motto has increasingly been, "recount until we win!"

Edited November 26, 2016 by imaenoon

[HoonDing]

Steins;Gate

Edited November 26, 2016 by HoonDing

[Agiel]

Another good piece on Mattis potentially being SecDef (operative word "potentially," given that word on the grapevine is that Romney is no longer quite the shoe-in for SecState as was previously thought). Emphases mine:

 

 

I Love Mattis, But I Don’t Love Him as SecDef

by Erin Simpson

 

Among those in the Marine Corps I taught and deployed with, Gen. (ret.) Jim Mattis is a legend. The quotes, the foxholes, the knife hands. Everyone has their favorite story. I once handed Mattis a Diet Coke out of a cooler at Quantico. A mundane act? Yes. But I’ve remembered it fondly for 12 years.

 

He is Chaos, Mad Dog, and the warrior monk. But we should not add secretary of defense to that list.

 

I have long thought of Mattis as a “break glass in case of emergency” type of leader. He was uniquely suited to his roles in the early years of the War on Terror. He is a warrior and a leader of men in the application of violence. He is not, however, a man for all seasons. Many in defense circles have been so overjoyed as the prospect of a qualified secretary, that they seemed to have forgotten to stop and ask if Mattis would, in fact, be right for the job. He is not a politician, or a wonk, or a bureaucrat. To ask him to be any of those things would be like trying to keep a wave upon the sand.

 

As with all nominees, there are tradeoffs to Mattis running the Defense Department. He is a strategic thinker with a strong sense of history — his library is one of those aforementioned legends. He is a well-regarded leader who inspires fierce loyalty. But I fear Mattis may be wasted atop the vast expanse of the Pentagon. There are ultimately three primary reasons why we shouldn’t hope Chaos becomes secretary of defense.

 

1. Mattis a recently retired general and is therefore statutorily prohibited from serving as secretary of defense. And while a legislative solution is possible, this law exists for good reasons and overriding it bodes poorly for long-term civil-military relations.

 

2. Warfighters rarely make good bureaucrats. The Pentagon is one of the world’s largest bureaucracies, and Mattis has shown little patience for management and administration.

 

3. His boss won’t listen.

 

We should not dismiss these tradeoffs. They require serious thought, and I don’t expect everyone will conclude as I do. An ideal secretary of defense would have many qualities: strategic thinking, effective leadership, knowledge of the personnel and procurement systems, experience with the interagency, commitment to the warfighters, and steely loyalty to civilian control. It is unlikely we will find all those features in one nominee. But we should be clear-eyed about what Mattis would and would not bring to the office.

 

Given President-elect Donald Trump’s comments regarding general officers during the campaign, some turbulence in civil-military relations is to be expected in the coming administration. And while the president is the commander-in-chief, the chain of command passes through the secretary of defense. Civilian control of the military remains one of the hallmarks of the American political system, alongside the rule of law and separation of church and state. I have no doubt that Mattis, who recently co-edited a book on civil-military relations, believes that more strongly than most. The secretary of defense is the embodiment of civilian control. But having only recently retired, he cannot shoulder that burden on his own.

 

Nor should he share in this burden with the half-dozen or so former generals Trump is considering for other posts. The president-elect’s newfound love of general officers — without knowing much about the culture and traditions that animate them — should raise concerns. (His apparent courting of officers fired or driven out by President Obama is also troubling.) Indeed, if Mattis were the only general under consideration, the tradeoffs might appear different. But in this context, civilian control of the military must stand on firmer ground.

 

Some may feel more comfortable than I with a former general as secretary of defense. Indeed, much of #NatSec twitter was warm to the idea. Mattis is, after all a deeply thoughtful and capable person committed to his fellow warfighters and to our nation’s interests. But this brings us to my second point: Warriors make for bad bureaucrats. Rather few officers have shown success on the battlefield and in the hallways of official Washington. Gen. Al Gray comes to mind, as does Gen. David Petraeus (though his combat command came late in his career). And the last general to serve as defense secretary, Gen. George Marshall, was a staff officer. It was his experience as Army Chief of Staff during World War II that qualified him to be secretary of defense, after serving as secretary of state. Mattis’ record as a combat commander is unsurpassed, but he has never shown much interest in the staff assignments. He did serve a tour in Washington in the late 1990s (as military assistant to the deputy secretary of defense), but unlike other four-stars, Mattis never seemed particularly interested in coming back. And while his tours at Central Command and the now-defunct Joint Forces Command are to his credit, they also reveal the limits of his skills at bureaucratic infighting, given he was driven out from the former post after a falling out with the Obama administration on its Iran policy.

 

The point is not that Mattis is unqualified. Rather, the point is that he hates this ****. Budgets, white papers, and service rivalries, not to mention the interagency meetings and White House meddling — these tasks are not what you go to Jim Mattis for. Not only does the role of secretary of defense not play to Mattis’ strengths, but success in that role would compromise much that we admire most in him: his bluntness, clarity, and single-minded focus on warfighting. The secretary’s job is by necessity much more political than all that. You can’t run the Pentagon like the First Marine Division.

 

And yet, there are many who would argue that this is a time in which those traits are most needed at the Pentagon. In a discussion on Twitter earlier this week, former marine Paul Szoldra noted that “the best thing about him, and what would be desperately needed in Trump admin, is that he isn’t a yes man.” I don’t disagree, but would Trump even listen? His Mattis-inspired about-face on waterboarding notwithstanding, I’m not convinced the president-elect will be able to manage a coterie of competing advisors, much less listen to them. Indeed, Lt. Gen. (ret.) Flynn, soon be national security advisor, has apparently indicated he doesn’t want anyone who outranked him serving in the administration. What will Trump’s position on any number of crucial national security issues be tomorrow or next year? Can he be persuaded to change his view of Russia or better reassure allies in Europe and Asia? Would he accept Mattis’ view of Iran?

 

If Mattis were indeed asked to be secretary of defense, his decision would in some way mirror those of many more junior officials. Must all good people serve? Ben Wittes has written usefully on the distinction between those civil servants already in government, and those appointees contemplating joining. The full-throated support required of political appointees in an administration should provide more than a moment’s pause. By serving, can you better protect American values and interests? Would you or Mattis be able to shape policy and effectively advise the president? Or would you be complicit in the debasing of our alliances and institutions? How would you decide when enough was enough? And if you were Mattis, would your resignation trigger its own civil-military crisis?

 

These thoughts have tumbled around my head many times since the election was decided. There is no doubt this administration, like all administrations, needs good people in office. But to serve this president will be a frustrating and degrading affair. For my peers and those slightly older, I have few good answers. The arguments for joining the administration — even under immiserating conditions — are profound, but so are those against. But for Gen. Jim Mattis, my conscience is clear. We need a capable civilian as secretary of defense now more than ever. Despite the tradeoffs, he should say no.

 

Erin Simpson, Ph.D., is the newest War on the Rocks senior editor. She was the CEO Caerus Associates.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Agiel

[imaenoon]

That's an excellent article. I think, of her bullet points, the first is most compelling. I agree that it's a toughie for me. I think someone mentioned a waiver, but it would have to be legislative, which could be a Pandora's box. I think the second point, and the author spent quite a bit of time fleshing out that point, is not necessarily the case. I see the point, but she's forced to cite exceptions to her own rule in order to argue why they're exceptions. Taking her whole point, Mattis could very well succeed. I don't know. On the third point, she's spot on about the worry, but it's an irrelevant point. We can't wish for someone who will be a yes man, and Trump might very well ignore any candidate who would serve to argue against him. If point three turns out to be a hard fast rule for anyone who will be able to temper Trump, we're probably screwed. It was a great read, though.

 

I really wish Keane had taken the job. I think he has the perfect temperament combined with an excellent poker face.

[redneckdevil]

If we wasn't in Syria and had that close brush with Russia, I'd tend to agree on a civilian one. But we got a war going on and still something could happen to Russia, also with all this unease in the world, I think right now is a good time to have a militant sec def.

also with the scandal of what's been going on with our defense in the name of "PC", again another reason why I think he be great right now.

If something is to happen, we would rather have him than a civilian imho.

[Longknife]

Our mainstream media is beyond worthless now (and even the channel I'm linking to is bad, just that particular reporter is good):

 

 

[Azdeus]

Our mainstream media is beyond worthless now (and even the channel I'm linking to is bad, just that particular reporter is good):

 

 

 

"Money, money, money. Always sunny. In the rich man's world."

 

Interesting to see what you can get away with with enough money.

 

I wonder when they will start The Great Ghost Dance?

Edited November 26, 2016 by Azdeus

[Elerond]

I would point out that ability to ask recount of vote is part of same system that made it possible to Trump to win in first place. Recount should be waste of time and money as it should give same result as original count. Speculations that it would not are reason why recount system exist in first place. It is there to ensure people that their will has been listened.