TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:40 pm

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Trump's proposed tariff could cause a major problem for Ivanka's $100 million business
Business Insider
KATE TAYLOR
Dec 5th 2016 1:09PM


If President-elect Donald Trump follows through with his plan to make it "a very expensive mistake" for US companies to manufacture goods overseas, it could put his own daughter's business in a bind.

Ivanka Trump's $100 million apparel line is produced primarily in China and Vietnam through a licensing deal with G-III Apparel Group Inc., Bloomberg reported.

The deal allows Ivanka's company to cut costs by outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas. It's the type of business set-up that President-elect Trump condemned throughout his campaign and continues to rail against.

USGlobalsCurrencies
S&P 500 2,204.24 12.29 0.56%
DJIA 19,216.67 46.25 0.24%
NASDAQ 5,305.53 49.87 0.95%

All index data provided on a 15 minute delay.

"[A]ny business that leaves our country for another country, fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S, without retribution or consequence, is WRONG!" Trump wrote in a series of tweets early Sunday morning.

In his tweets, Trump promised there would soon be a 35% tax on US companies selling products in the US that were manufactured in other countries.

Throughout Trump's campaign, both Ivanka and her father were criticized for the hypocrisy of condemning companies that manufacture products outside the US while their companies reportedly do the same.

RELATED: Ivanka Trump style transformation
Slideshow preview image
142 PHOTOS
Ivanka Trump's style transformation
SEE GALLERY


In March, PBS reported that nearly all Trump and Ivanka Trump-branded merchandise was not made in the US. Not one of the 838 Ivanka's products advertised on Trump.com was made exclusively in the US, with 628 labeled as imported and 354 made specifically in China.

Ivanka Trump's brand relies on various licensing contracts, like her deal with G-III.

A tariff on products manufactured outside the country could increase production costs, making it more difficult for Ivanka to sell dresses at retailers like Nordstrom and Macy's without raising prices. Bloomberg reported that by some estimates, the tariff cold as much as double the cost of some retail items.

Ivanka Trump did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

The president elect has said he would hand over the Trump Organization to his kids, Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric, but he hasn't elaborated on how the new management structure would alleviate concerns about the family's potential conflicts on interest around the world.

Trump said last week he would be "leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country."

But the ties between the Trump family's business and politics run deep.

Shop Ivanka's signature look:
Slideshow preview image
6 PHOTOS
Ivanka Trump sheath dresses
SEE GALLERY


Since Election Day, Ivanka has sat in on her father's meetings with world leaders including Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe. At the same time, Ivanka's company was putting the finishing touches on a new licensing deal with Japanese apparel company Sanei International, which the company has been working on for the past two years, the New York Times reported. Sanei's largest shareholder is the Development Bank of Japan, which is owned solely by the Japanese government.
http://www.aol.com/article/finance/2016 ... /21620956/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:14 pm

Donald Trump’s first big economic blunder: Beneath the noise and bluster, Carrier deal is disastrous

Donald Trump has already made a mockery of the presidency — and bribed a company in which he owns stock

BOB CESCA


There wasn’t a single aspect of Donald Trump’s Cincinnati “victory rally” last Thursday that was normal, including the very fact that he held a “victory rally” in the first place. It’s all breathtakingly abnormal.

It’s worth noting that NBC News’ chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, warned of several autocratic tells to watch for when it comes to Trump’s actions and behavior moving forward. Engel noted that overseas autocrats such as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey routinely engage in rallies not unlike the one Trump held the other day.

Beyond that, the big takeaway from the event was the death of traditions such as “being presidential.” With that, the ideals of presidential “dignity,” “humility,” “decorum,” “benevolence,” “knowledge” and “expertise” also died untimely deaths. To repeat for the sake of emphasis: Trump’s words and deeds aren’t normal in any way. Presidents or presidents-elect shouldn’t act like this, threatening the press or recapping the election returns on cable news in childish fashion. Worse than that, it’s actually dangerous to world stability to suddenly observe the leader of the free world acting like Bill O’Reilly — if Bill O’Reilly appeared to be blasted out of his mind on cocaine.

In addition to many other trespasses, Trump heartlessly mocked Martha Raddatz for being momentarily shaken up while discussing military deployments during ABC News’ election night coverage. Trump said at one point, “They say there’s never been a grassroots movement like this before. Maybe Andrew Jackson.” No, Andrew Jackson was not a “grassroots movement.” Presidents don’t say things like this. They just don’t.

The rally capped off a day in which Trump’s first stab at “making America great again” involved an empty PR stunt in which the president-elect claimed to have rescued jobs from being outsourced to Mexico by Indiana-based Carrier, the manufacturer of heating and air conditioning units.

Despite what you might’ve heard on cable news about the Carrier deal being a triumph for the incoming president, it wasn’t. First, Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the governor of Indiana, cut a $7 million check to the corporation in the form of tax giveaways, courtesy of the very taxpayers whose 1,300 jobs are still being stripped away and sent to Mexico. Sure, Carrier chose not to send about 800 jobs to Mexico, but as we learned later, the company is still sending 1,300 jobs to Mexico anyway. Put another way, Trump’s great triumph in Indiana adds up to a net job loss.

Don’t take it from me, though. The Wall Street Journal reported:

The company will keep about 800 jobs it had planned to move out of the Indianapolis plant, but it still plans to move 600 jobs from that factory to Mexico. United Technologies also will proceed with plans to close a second plant in Huntington, Ind., that makes electronic controls, moving 700 other jobs to Mexico.

Let’s be clear. Indiana taxpayers will be handing Carrier millions of dollars in corporate welfare, in exchange for outsourcing 1,300 jobs to Mexico. In other words, to paraphrase Trump’s zinger, Trump is building Carrier factories in Mexico and making Indiana pay for it. If we follow the money, we discover that Donald Trump himself owns a small financial stake in United Technologies, Carrier’s parent company. (See page 45 on the hyperlinked PDF.) It’s one of many conflicts of interest hanging like an orange albatross around Trump’s neck.

For a leader whose reputation is inextricably linked to his dealmaking skills (with a close second being his Twitter-trolling skills), this is a horrendous first outing as would-be president.

In addition to the reality that Carrier intends to send nearly twice as many jobs to Mexico as will remain in Indiana and the fact that Trump and Pence are granting Carrier $7 million in state tax breaks for doing so, the deal sets a troubling precedent. Now CEOs are further encouraged to announce plans to move factories to foreign nations, simply to extort tax incentives from our autocratic chief executive.

On top of everything else, Trump spent much of the campaign threatening American businesses with harsh penalties for shipping jobs overseas. Indeed, Trump once threatened Carrier itself, declaring, “You’re gonna pay a damn tax when you leave this country and you think you’re going to sell product because we’re all so stupid.”

Decide for yourself whether Trump is really “so stupid.” But unless I’m missing something, I’m not exactly sure how giving Carrier $7 million in tax breaks is “a damn tax” or punishment of any sort, for that matter, especially since company will still fire 1,300 workers and send their jobs to Mexico.

We should be happy, I suppose, for the 800 workers who’ll keep their jobs — but at what ultimate expense to American manufacturing? When CEOs can simply ship jobs off to Mexico and China and get paid handsomely for it by the government, it’s impossible to define this as anything but Trump’s first economic blunder — the first and quite likely least of many, by the way.
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/05/donald- ... rous-deal/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby kelley » Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:19 am

Being admittedly unable to make heads or tails of anything much these last weeks, will post this here even if I think it likely deserves its own thread. The premise Rickards admits isn't surprising-- rather, it seems obvious and banal, immediately so after a first read-- but it's the only evidence I've seen for a Trump Administration, factoring in the omission of a kleptocratic gangsterism emblematic of the moment, that makes any sense whatsoever, given a procession of big pictures in the US and abroad. His claim that 'the IMF has the only clean balance sheet remaining' is unnerving, and his quick overview of scalability as the foundation of neoliberalism is instructive:

. . .


http://www.cityam.com/254834/donald-tru ... crisis-far


Friday 2 December 2016 4:59am

Donald Trump’s Unhappy Fate is to Oversee A Financial Crisis Far Worse Than The Last

An earthquake doesn’t care if you’re progressive or populist. It destroys your house all the same. Likewise a financial crisis is indifferent to a politician’s policy mix. Systemic crises proceed according to their own dynamic based on the array of agents in a system, and systemic scale.

The tempo of recent crises in 1994, 1998, and 2008 says a crisis is likely soon. A new global financial panic will be one legacy of the Trump administration. It won’t be Trump’s fault, merely his misfortune.

The equilibrium and value-at-risk models used by banks will not foresee the new panic. Those models are junk science relying as they do on notions of efficient markets, normally distributed risk, continuous liquidity, and a future that resembles the past. None of those hypotheses match reality.

Advances in behavioural psychology have demolished the idea of efficient markets. Data shows the degree distribution of risk is a power curve not a normal bell curve. Liquidity evaporates when most needed. Prices gap down; they do not move continuously. Each of the 1994, 1998, and 2008 crises was worse than the one before, and required more drastic intervention. The future does not resemble the past; it keeps getting worse. The standard models are in ruins.

Recent model improvements that take into account so-called tail risk still fail to come to grips with systemic scale. The most catastrophic event possible in a complex system is an exponential function of scale. In plain language, if you double system size, you do not double risk; you increase it by a factor of five or more.

Since 2008, the largest banks in the world are larger in terms of gross assets, share of total deposits, and notional value of derivatives. Everything that was too-big-to-fail in 2008 is bigger and exponentially more dangerous today.

The living wills and resolution authority of Dodd-Frank are entrances to gated communities. They seem imposing, but are a façade. They will do nothing to stop an angry mob. Increases in regulatory capital will not suffice. When a leveraged financial institution faces a liquidity panic, no amount of capital is enough. As boxing legend Mike Tyson mused, no plan survives the first punch in the face.

If existing models don’t work, what does? A blend of complexity theory, Bayesian statistics, and behavioural psychology can produce models with robust predictive power. Such models are being developed in a few centres of excellence such as the Santa Fe Institute, the LSE, and ETH Zurich. Yet, they are far from mainstream thinking and will not be adopted in time to mitigate the next crisis.

Financial panics are dynamically and mathematically identical to a variety of natural phenomena such as earthquakes and avalanches. As snow accumulates on a mountainside, seasoned observers can spot avalanche danger. Soon one snowflake alights in such a way as to perturb others that begin to slide, form a chute, create momentum, and rip loose the entire snowpack. Timing is uncertain, yet the avalanche is inevitable.

What snowflake could precipitate the next financial panic? Deutsche Bank is an obvious candidate. Less obvious is a failure to deliver physical gold by a London bullion bank. That would expose the hyper-leveraged “paper gold” market for what it is. A natural disaster on the scale of Fukushima would do as well.

Looming over these catalysts is a global dollar shortage, which has been limned by economists Claudio Borio and Hyun Song Shin at the Bank for International Settlements. The strong dollar could precipitate a wave of defaults on $9 trillion of dollar-denominated emerging markets corporate debt. Those defaults would make the 1994 Tequila Crisis look tame.

The 2008 crisis was truncated with tens of trillions of dollars of currency swaps, money printing, and rate cuts coordinated by central banks around the world. The next crisis will be beyond the scope of central banks to contain because they have failed to normalise either interest rates or their balance sheets since 2008. Central banks will be unable to pull another rabbit out of the hat; they are out of rabbits.

In the next crisis, liquidity will come from the IMF, which has the only clean balance sheet remaining. The IMF will print the equivalent of $10 trillion in world money called special drawing rights. China and Russia will acquiesce in this liquidity injection provided it hastens the demise of the dollar as the benchmark global reserve currency.

Can Trump avoid this fate? Possibly. Ski patrols reduce avalanche danger by using dynamite to descale the snowpack. Likewise the financial system can only be made safer by reducing its scale. Large vessels use watertight holds to achieve the same margin of safety. A hole in the hull floods one hold, but does not sink the ship.

Descaling finance means reinstating the Glass-Steagall and pre-Big Bang separation of deposit taking and securities underwriting. It means breaking up the big banks. JP Morgan, Chase Manhattan, and Chemical Bank should reemerge from the embrace of Jamie Dimon. Derivatives should be banned except for exchange-traded futures tied to specific assets used for commercial hedging. It’s time to close the casino.

Will Trump pursue these policies? It’s unlikely. Such proposals will be lost in a sea of competing priorities. Bank lobbyists rule Washington from the commanding heights; draining the swamp won’t change that.

Sooner than later a new treasury secretary and Fed chair will retrace the 2008 footsteps of Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke to tell President Trump the system is having a heart attack. They will have no remedy except to suggest a call to Madame Lagarde.

. . .

There's a pocast with Richards at this link, which is sort of a companion piece to that above. Rickards also has a book to push, so listen guardedly:

http://www.cityam.com/255151/city-am-un ... en-podcast

Economist Jim Rickards correctly predicted the last financial crisis, the outcome of the Brexit vote and Donald Trump's election. Now he is predicting an economic downturn of massive proportions.
kelley
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:44 pm

thanks for that link

yes people really need to prepare

Look out for financial crisis part II: Donald Trump has just appointed a key architect of the 2008 global meltdown
The man who had to say 'sorry' to Congress in 2010 for multi-billion dollar losses is the same man being appointed to oversee economic policy in Trump's cabinet

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/don ... 66566.html





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsA5OVrN6Po
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:57 pm

Trump is no more than the figurehead of a system that has been laying the foundations towards this culminating point since WW2. Each successive prez has continued the policies of the previous administration, different in name only. What did we expect? - when we question power, it pushes back. Hard. Trump's admin is system - and a natural progression/reaction of that system to quell the burgeoning discontent aimed at it.
Trump's admin will volte-face after inauguration, crushing the alt-right movement that helped put him power. The Left, confused but grateful, will cheer and sleep soundly, justly, under the same-as-ever-was. The power will remain in the same hands, order will have been restored. It's an old trick, but never fails to impress.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby 82_28 » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:46 pm

Well well well. . .

No text stories yet but this was just announced.

NBC News: Trump chooses Tillerson for Secy of State
NBC News can confirm that Donald Trump has chosen Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports.

I am sure something will be posted soon in which we can read. Just heads up. Just heard about it.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:16 pm

McCain aide


Mark Salter ‏@MarkSalter55 21h21 hours ago
Mark Salter Retweeted Rebecca Ballhaus
Tillerson would sell out NATO for Sakhalin oil and his pal, Vlad. Should be a rough confirmation hearing, and a no vote on the Senate floor.Mark Salter added,



Mark Salter Retweeted
Jonathan Martin ‏@jmartNYT 3h3 hours ago
Tillerson at State and Flynn as National Security Adviser would put two people w direct Putin connections at the highest levels of gov't




drain the swamp....fill it with oil

trump's pick for Sec of State


hey Rex we got that 500 billion back on the table now....I helped get him elected and you got the job.....well played Puty well played

Image

Image
Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:36 pm

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:56 pm

The PolitiFact scorecard

Trump's statements were awarded PolitiFact's 2015 Lie of the Year.

True14 (4%)

Mostly True 37 (11%)

Half True 51 (15%)

Mostly False 63 (19%)

False 113 (33%)

Pants on Fire 61 (18%)

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/


Canadian Newspaper Compiles List of Almost 500 Trump Lies During Campaign
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... paign.html

He lied about the loan his father once gave him.

He lied about his company’s bankruptcies.

He lied about his federal financial-disclosure forms.

He lied about his endorsements.

He lied about “stop and frisk.”

He lied about “birtherism.”

He lied about New York.

He lied about Michigan and Ohio.

He lied about Palm Beach, Fla.

He lied about Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve.

He lied about the trade deficit.

He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.

He lied about her child-care plan.

He lied about China devaluing its currency.

He lied about Mexico having the world’s largest factories.

He lied about the United States’s nuclear arsenal.

He lied about NATO’s budget.

He lied about NATO’s terrorism policy.



15 Hours of Donald Trump’s Lies
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -lies.html

This Newspaper Compiled A List Of EVERY SINGLE LIE Trump Has Told And It’s Eye-opening
http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/11/05/t ... e-opening/

Image

Image

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Elvis » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:09 pm

All morning long NPR has been calling Trump "President Trump"; even a guest repeated it.

If I Tweeted, I'd Tweet them a reminder that Trump is not yet president. Perhaps an e-mail.

Just venting. Thank you.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7433
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby divideandconquer » Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:58 pm

from 'Know Your Meme' -

Per etymologist Barry Popik, “drain the swamp” was originally used metaphorically in 1903 by Social Democratic Party organiser Winfield R Gaylord, in a letter discussing how socialists wish to deal with big business: “Socialists are not satisfied with killing a few of the mosquitoes which come from the capitalist swamp; they want to drain the swamp.”

In 1983, 40th President of the United States Ronald Reagan said that "draining the swamp" of big government would be a primary focus of his administration

Immediately after 11 Sep 2001 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pledged to "drain the swamp" where terrorists reside

In 2006, Democratic congresswoman Nancy Pelosi announced she would "drain the swamp" after being elected Speaker of the House of Representatives following 10 years of Republican control of Congress

On 18 Oct 2016 Donald Trump declared - and published in an official press release - "It is time to drain the swamp in Washington DC."
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:08 am

DrEvil » Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:36 pm wrote:
Playtime is over

By Charlie Stross

So I've had a week now for the outcome of last Tuesday's US election to sink in, and I've been doing some thinking and some research, and my conclusion is that either I'm wearing a tinfoil hat or things are much, much worse than most people imagine.

Nearly four years ago I wrote about the Beige Dictatorship, and predicted:

Overall, the nature of the problem seems to be that our representative democratic institutions have been captured by meta-institutions that implement the iron law of oligarchy by systematically reducing the risk of change. They have done so by converging on a common set of policies that do not serve the public interest, but minimize the risk of the parties losing the corporate funding they require in order to achieve re-election. And in so doing, they have broken the "peaceful succession when enough people get pissed off" mechanism that prevents revolutions. If we're lucky, emergent radical parties will break the gridlock (here in the UK that would be the SNP in Scotland, possibly UKIP in England: in the USA it might be the new party that emerges if the rupture between the Republican realists like Karl Rove and the Tea Party radicals finally goes nuclear), but within a political generation (two election terms) it'll be back to oligarchy as usual.

Well, I was optimistic. The tea party radicals have gone nuclear, but I wasn't counting on a neo-Nazi running the White House, or on the Kremlin stepping in ...

Let me explain.

A few years ago, wandering around the net, I stumbled on a page titled "Why Japan lost the Second World War". (Sorry, I can't find the URL.) It held two photographs. The first was a map of the Pacific Theater used by the Japanese General Staff. It extended from Sakhalin in the north to Australia in the south, from what we now call Bangladesh in the west, to Hawaii in the east. The second photograph was the map of the war in the White House. A Mercator projection showing the entire planet. And the juxtaposition explained in one striking visual exactly why the Japanese military adventure against the United States was doomed from the outset: they weren't even aware of the true size of the battleground.

I'd like you to imagine what it must have been like to be a Japanese staff officer. Because that's where we're standing today. We think we're fighting local battles against Brexit or Trumpism. But in actuality, they're local fronts in a global war. And we're losing because we can barely understand how big the conflict is.

(NB: By "we", I mean folks who think that the Age of Enlightenment, the end of monarchism, and the evolution of Liberalism are good things. If you disagree with this, then kindly hold your breath until your head explodes. (And don't bother commenting below: I'll delete and ban you on sight.))

The logjam created by the Beige Dictatorship was global, throughout the western democracies; and now it has broken. But it didn't break by accident, and the consequences could be very bad indeed.

What happened last week is not just about America. It was one move—a very significant one, bishop-takes-queen maybe—in a long-drawn-out geopolitical chess game. It's being fought around the world: Brexit was one move, the election and massacres of Dutarte in the Philippines were another, the post-coup crackdown in Turkey is a third. The possible election of Marine Le Pen (a no-shit out-of-the-closet fascist) as President of France next year is more of this stuff. The eldritch knot of connections between Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Da'esh in the wreckage of Syria is icing on top. It's happening all over and I no longer think this is a coincidence.

Part of it is about the geopolitics of climate change (and mass migration and water wars). Part of it is about the jarring transition from an oil-based economy (opposed by the factions who sell oil and sponsor denial climate change, from Exxon-Mobil to the Kremlin) to a carbon-neutral one.

Part of it is the hellbrew of racism and resentment stirred up by loss of relative advantage, by the stagnation of wages in the west and the perception that other people somewhere else are stealing all the money—Chinese factories, Wall Street bankers, the faceless Other. (17M people in the UK have less than £100 in savings; by a weird coincidence, the number of people who voted for Brexit was around 17M. People who are impoverished become desperate and angry and have little investment in the status quo—a fancy way of saying they've got nothing to lose.)

But another big part of the picture I'm trying to draw is Russia's long-drawn out revenge for the wild ride of misrule the neoconservatives inflicted on the former USSR in the 1990s.

Stripped of communism, the old guard didn't take their asset-stripping by neoliberals during the Clinton years lying down; they no more morphed into whitebread Americans than the Iraqis did during the occupation. They developed a reactionary playbook; a fellow called Alexander Dugin wrote The Foundations of Geopolitics, and it's been a set text in the Russian staff college for the past two decades. A text that proposes a broad geopolitical program for slavic (Russian) dominance over Asia, which is to be won by waging a global ideological war against people like us. "In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution. ... The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union."

I don't want to sound like a warmed-over cold warrior or a swivel-eyed conspiracy theorist. However, the authoritarian faction currently ascendent in Putin's Russia seem to be running their country by this book. Their leaders remember how the KGB (newly reformed last month) handled black propaganda and disinformation, and they have people who know how new media work and who are updating the old time Moscow rules for a new century. Trump's Russian connections aren't an accident—they may be the most important thing about him, and Russia's sponsorship of extreme right neo-fascist movements throughout Europe is an alarming part of the picture. China isn't helping, either: they're backing authoritarian regimes wherever they seem useful, for the same reason the US State Department under Henry Kissinger backed fascists throughout central and south America in the 1970s—it took a generation to fix the damage from Operation Condor, and that was local (at least, confined to a single continent).

Trying to defeat this kind of attack through grass-roots action at local level ... well, it's not useless, it's brave and it's good, but it's also Quixotic. With hindsight, the period from December 26th, 1991 to September 11th, 2001, wasn't the end of history; it was the Weimar Republic repeating itself, and now we're in the dirty thirties. It's going to take more than local action if we're to climb out of the mass grave the fascists have been digging for us these past decades. It's going to take international solidarity and a coherent global movement and policies and structures I can barely envisage if we're going to rebuild the framework of shared progressive values that have been so fatally undermined.

We haven't lost yet.

But if we focus too narrowly on the local context, we will lose, because there is a de facto global fascist international at work, they've got a game plan, they're quite capable of applying the methods of Operation Condor on a global scale, and if we don't work out how to push back globally fast there will be nobody to remember our graves.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-st ... -over.html

About the Foundations of Geopolitics by Alexander Dugin (via wikipedia, my bold):

Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]
France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]
United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]
Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "“Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]
Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet-Xinjiang-Mongolia-Manchuria as a security belt.[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensatation.[1]
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[1]


A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump

Has the bureau investigated this material?
David Corn Oct. 31, 2016 6:52 PM

On Friday, FBI Director James Comey set off a political blast when he informed congressional leaders that the bureau had stumbled across emails that might be pertinent to its completed inquiry into Hillary Clinton's handling of emails when she was secretary of state. The Clinton campaign and others criticized Comey for intervening in a presidential campaign by breaking with Justice Department tradition and revealing information about an investigation—information that was vague and perhaps ultimately irrelevant—so close to Election Day. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information."

Reid's missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and in that letter he indirectly referred to Carter Page, an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News reported that US intelligence officials were probing the links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him "garbage.") On Monday, NBC News reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief. But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not? An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.

In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project's financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) "It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."

This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was "sufficiently serious" to share with the FBI.

Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."

The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.

"This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," the former intelligence officer comments. "I think [Trump's] own party should be aware of this stuff as well."

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding the memos. In the past, Trump has declared, "I have nothing to do with Russia."

The FBI is certainly investigating the hacks attributed to Russia that have hit American political targets, including the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton's presidential campaign. But there have been few public signs of whether that probe extends to examining possible contacts between the Russian government and Trump. (In recent weeks, reporters in Washington have pursued anonymous online reports that a computer server related to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia. On Monday, a Slate investigation detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, "We don't yet know what this [Trump] server was for, but it deserves further explanation." In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, maintains, "The Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.")

According to several national security experts, there is widespread concern in the US intelligence community that Russian intelligence, via hacks, is aiming to undermine the presidential election—to embarrass the United States and delegitimize its democratic elections. And the hacks appear to have been designed to benefit Trump. In August, Democratic members of the House committee on oversight wrote Comey to ask the FBI to investigate "whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests may have contributed to these [cyber] attacks in order to interfere with the US. presidential election." In September, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, the senior Democrats on, respectively, the Senate and House intelligence committees, issued a joint statement accusing Russia of underhanded meddling: "Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election. At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election." The Obama White House has declared Russia the culprit in the hacking capers, expressed outrage, and promised a "proportional" response.

There's no way to tell whether the FBI has confirmed or debunked any of the allegations contained in the former spy's memos. But a Russian intelligence attempt to co-opt or cultivate a presidential candidate would mark an even more serious operation than the hacking.

In the letter Reid sent to Comey on Sunday, he pointed out that months ago he had asked the FBI director to release information on Trump's possible Russia ties. Since then, according to a Reid spokesman, Reid has been briefed several times. The spokesman adds, "He is confident that he knows enough to be extremely alarmed."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... nald-trump



Ukraine Prepares for Trump
Letter From Kiev
By Isaac Webb
Two days after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, Artem Sytnik, the head of Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, announced that his office would end its investigation of Paul Manafort, a former chairman of Trump’s campaign who is still in contact with the president-elect’s team. Ukrainian officials previously alleged that Manafort had been designated to receive undisclosed cash payments totaling $12.7 million from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, a pro-Russian group that came to epitomize the corruption that contributed to Yanukovych’s ouster during the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution. Sytnik said his bureau had abandoned the case because it had “enough of its own officials” to prosecute. But the subtext of his remarks was clear: continuing to investigate Manafort might have threatened Ukraine’s standing with the next U.S. administration.

Kiev hopes to establish a relationship with the incoming Trump administration that will ensure that Ukraine continues to receive the support it has enjoyed during the presidency of Barack Obama. Ukrainian officials have been outwardly hopeful that the Republican Party’s historical backing for their country will persist under Trump. But they are also concerned about how Ukraine will fit into the president-elect’s nascent foreign policy. If Ukraine is to develop close ties with the Trump administration, it will have to look past Trump’s praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his misunderstandings about Russian activity on Ukrainian soil. And it will take a significant diplomatic and political effort to mobilize U.S. support, particularly from Republicans who have aligned with Trump’s neo-isolationist platform. With U.S. sanctions on Russia up for annual review in March, Kiev has little time to try to persuade Trump to modify the foreign-policy agenda he articulated during his campaign and to ensure that his declarations of admiration for Putin do not turn into a policy of appeasement.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ares-trump
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:15 am

The Downside of Donald Trump’s Fight With the Intelligence Community
Massimo Calabresi @calabresim Dec. 11, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump meets with cadets from the Military and Naval academies prior to the Army Navy football game on December 10, 2016 in Baltimore, Maryland.
Crises require credibility

Donald Trump’s war against the U.S. intelligence community might look, at first, like just another convention-breaking move designed to bring a disruptive, reality TV ethos to the world of politics and government. But intelligence officials and members of Congress say Trump’s decision to contest his own government’s “high confidence” conclusion that Russia meddled in the presidential election is a huge gamble that could cause harm to both his own presidency and the security of the country.

Take North Korea where, some U.S. intelligence officials have concluded, dictator Kim Jong Un is on his way to being able mount a nuclear weapon atop a missile that can reach the United States. Trump may need to rally support at home and abroad for action against Pyongyang, and will need to cite the work of the intelligence community to do so. And there are no shortage of other crises facing the U.S. around the globe that require similar credibility.

What Will the World Look Like Under a Trump Presidency?
“There’s going to come a time during a national security crisis where we need to believe the president, and the things that he’s saying and doing right now are going to lead everyone to question whether they can rely on anything he says,” says the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Adam Schiff, who has been critical of Trump’s denials.

Trump may find himself personally vulnerable, too. The same kind of Russian hacking attacks he now dismisses as unprovable, may be turned on him if he breaks with Russian president Vladimir Putin on one of the many areas of potential policy disagreement between the two countries. “If the time comes when the Russians feel they need to use hacked information against President Trump, the President-elect won’t have much credibility on the issue having denied the Russians were even involved,” Schiff says.

On Sunday, Trump stepped up his attacks on the intelligence community for its assessment that Russia had hacked state voter rolls and the email accounts of officials in the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party as part of a large scale effort to get him elected President. “They have no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place,” Trump said on Fox News. His campaign previously released a statement that said, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

Partially in response to Trump’s decision to contest the conclusions about Russian involvement, President Obama has ordered the intelligence community to produce a full review of Russia’s malicious cyber-activity. The purpose of the review, says one source close to it, is not just to assess the effect of the Russian operation, but to establish a record of the intelligence community’s findings before Trump takes over command of the sprawling national security agencies. The administration has said it intends to make a declassified version of the report public before Obama steps down from office.

“This is a major priority for the President of the United States,” deputy White House press secretary Eric Schultz said Friday. “He directed his intelligence community and national security officials to take this on. He expects that report to be issued to him before he leaves office.”

Trump will also face pressure from Congress, where Republicans have long been the most aggressive opponents of the Putin regime. On Sunday, Sen. John McCain, who heads the Armed Services Committee, issued a statement with other Republicans and Democrats saying, “recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American.” McCain intends to hold hearings on Russian cyber-activity next year.

The House intelligence services may also look into the hacking. The Republican Chairman, Devin Nunes, is in a difficult position. He has long been critical of Russia, but is also helping Trump with the transition. On Dec. 8, he told the Washington Post, “[Russia]’s always been a priority for me, and it will remain a priority for me.” Then on Dec. 9, he told the paper, “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now.”

As Nunes’ Democratic counterpart on the House intelligence committee, Schiff says Trump is also vulnerable to coercion over his businesses. “There’s still a lot we don’t know about the President’s economic interests,” he says. “We simply don’t know what economic interests he has in Russia or Russia’s neighbors.”

On Sunday Trump also said he was frequently skipping the daily intelligence briefing and letting Vice President-elect Mike Pence go in his stead because “I’m, like, a smart person, I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day.” But come a national, or political, crisis, Trump may find publicly undermining the credibility of the intelligence community wasn’t such a great long-term play.

http://time.com/4597457/the-downside-of ... community/


Donald Trump faces five fateful foreign policy choices
His current approach attitude smacks more of chaotic improvisation than deep strategic thinking

Trump and China: the year of the chicken Premium

2 HOURS AGO by: Gideon Rachman
Donald Trump seems to have brought the techniques of Twitter to the construction of his government. “Trolling” on Twitter is defined as “making a deliberately offensive online posting with the aim of upsetting someone”. In this spirit, Mr Trump has placed a climate-change denier in charge of environmental protection, an opponent of the minimum wage as labour secretary, a conspiracy theorist in charge of the National Security Council and a protectionist at the commerce department. The pièce de résistance could be the appointment of Rex Tillerson, a recipient of the Kremlin’s Order of Friendship, as secretary of state.

The incredulity and alarm that Mr Trump’s appointments have caused in the Washington establishment are compounded by his disdain for the government’s own experts. Mr Trump took a controversial phone call from the president of Taiwan without consulting the state department. Now he has ridiculed the CIA for suggesting that Russia meddled in the US presidential election.

Mr Trump’s appointments, tweets and phone calls, however, cannot yet do more than hint at future changes in America’s approach to the world. The real shifts can only happen after the new president is actually sworn into office on January 20. For now, it is much easier to identify five big choices that face him, than to predict eventual outcomes.

Russia: Both Mr Trump’s rhetoric and his early appointments indicate a strong desire for a rapprochement with Russia. The Kremlin clearly hopes that the US will lift the economic sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea. Mr Trump could also make common cause with Vladimir Putin in Syria, by dropping America’s insistence on the removal of Bashar al-Assad.

But making these changes will be very controversial. Russia’s intervention on behalf of Mr Trump during the election, combined with the expected appointment of Mr Tillerson, have excited lurid speculation about the real nature of Mr Trump’s relationship with Russia. Even without conspiracy theories, there will be considerable resistance by influential members of congress — including prominent Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham — to a Trump-Putin love-in.

Europe: While Mr Trump has been extravagant in his praise of Mr Putin, he has been open in his contempt for Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, describing her refugee policies as “insane”. There is now fear in the French and German governments that Mr Trump may seek to help the European far-right by supporting Marine Le Pen in the French presidential elections in May, or the Alternative for Germany in the country’s elections in September. In that case, both the Kremlin and the White House would be working towards the defeat of the German chancellor. Such a scenario sounds unthinkable. But Mr Trump has also described the Nato alliance as “obsolete”. Any genuine attempt to weaken Nato, or to undermine the governments of European allies would, however, encounter fierce resistance in Congress and the media, and could undermine his presidency.

Iran: Reversing US policy on Iran would be much easier for Mr Trump. Republicans in Congress share his disdain for Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Some of Mr Trump’s key appointees — including General Michael Flynn, his national security adviser — are particularly noted for their hostility towards Iran. Ripping up the nuclear deal could put the US on the road to a war with Iran. Some of Mr Trump’s advisers may want precisely that outcome. But it is less clear that the president-elect, who claims to have opposed the Iraq war, really has an appetite for another conflict in the Middle East.

The Middle East and terrorism: Beyond Iran, the new president will face a series of conflicts, from Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Trump has consistently advocated a much more ferocious approach to the war on “radical Islamic terrorism”. But his advisers disagree about what that might mean. Some advocate much deeper American military and political involvement in the Middle East. Others argue that such a policy would be counterproductive and are urging a much narrower concentration on counterterrorism.

China: Over the long run, the most important international issue facing the US is how to handle the rise of China. Mr Trump’s early moves have signalled the possibility of a radical change in America’s approach — and a sharp rise in tensions with Beijing. Mr Trump has talked of imposing punitive tariffs on Chinese exports. His phone call with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan reversed decades of US foreign policy — and was a direct affront to Beijing.

Mr Trump has also endorsed significant expansion in the US Navy, which could signal a more aggressive American rejection of Beijing’s ambitions in the South China Sea. If there is a broader strategic thrust to Mr Trump’s thinking, it could be to split the informal alliance between Russia and China and instead form a Washington-Moscow axis.

But Mr Trump’s attitude to foreign policy smacks more of chaotic improvisation than strategic thinking. The biggest questions about his approach may have more to do with process than policy. In a normal US administration, foreign policy shifts are debated between key departments of government and implemented after talks with allies; in the Trump administration, they are as likely to emerge from a 3am tweet.
https://www.ft.com/content/fa9ed50e-c04 ... 7d90f6741a



Former CIA spokesman: Trump's disrespect for intelligence community is 'shameful'
BY REBECCA SAVRANSKY - 12/12/16 08:11 AM EST 198

Former CIA spokesman George Little is blasting Donald Trump for the president-elect's dismissal of the secret CIA assessment that concluded Russia intervened in the U.S. presidential election to help Trump win.
“The CIA, my former employer, has no natural political constituency," Little said in a Facebook post, according to Politico's Playbook.
"What we are seeing today, however, is unprecedented."

Little referenced comments Trump made on Sunday, when the president-elect called it "ridiculous" to think Russia intervened in the election to help him win.

"I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it," Trump said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
"I don't know why and I think it's just — you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week it's another excuse."

Little called the president-elect's disrespect for the CIA and the wider intelligence community "noting short of shameful."

"It also disrupts one of the bedrocks of our strength: the application of foreign intelligence, often collected at great peril by the men and women of the CIA, to the development of policies that keep us safe," he wrote.

"We have never been here before. I hope we make a U-turn.”


Carl Bernstein: Donald Trump’s Disdain For Facts Worse Than Nixon
“Trump lives and thrives in a fact-free environment.”
12/11/2016 10:36 pm ET
Nick Visser
Reporter, The Huffington Post
Carl Bernstein, one half of the legendary duo that broke the Watergate scandal, declared president-elect Donald Trump a bigger liar than Richard Nixon in a blistering attack during an interview on CNN.

“Trump lives and thrives in a fact-free environment. No president, including Richard Nixon, has been so ignorant of fact and disdains fact in the way that this president-elect does,” Bernstein said on CNN’s Reliable Sources. “It has something to do with the growing sense of authoritarianism that he and his presidency are projecting and the danger of it is obvious and he’s trying to make the conduct of the press an issue not his own conduct.”


Trump, often prone to stretching the truth, has made a series of factually incorrect assertions this weekend that have further increased worry about the aim of his presidency. In just one interview with Fox News on Sunday, Trump discounted CIA reports that Russia interfered with the U.S. election, said “nobody really knows” the facts around climate change and said he didn’t need daily intelligence briefings because he’s “smart.”

Bernstein alleges the past months have shown that Trump has a “pathological disdain for the truth,” pointing to his recent attack on the president of the union that represents steelworkers at the Carrier Corporation.

“I would just take his bullying approach to the union leader instead of going into the facts of what the Carrier deal was and what the unions in that institution has done,” Bernstein told CNN. “Everything that he controverts, he doesn’t go to a fact-based argument he goes to an emotional argument.”

“What we have seen throughout the campaign is pathological disdain for the truth, a kind of lie and ease with lying that we have not seen before.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/car ... 9c3dfd4c02


Bipartisan Anger Grows Over Russian Interference Into U.S. Election
Republican and Democratic senators say it must not become a “partisan issue.”
12/11/2016 11:46 am ET | Updated 12 hours ago

Amanda Terkel
Senior Political Reporter, The Huffington Post

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says Republicans and Democrats need to work together to get to the bottom of Russia interference in the U.S. election.
WASHINGTON ― A growing number of senators on both sides of the aisle are calling for investigations into Russian involvement in the U.S. election process.

“I think we need to get to the bottom of it,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in a Sunday morning interview with ABC’s “This Week. “And I think there should be an investigation because in order to defend ourselves against other adversarial countries, we have to protect our information.”

The CIA concluded in a secret assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. election not merely to mess around with the democratic system but to more specifically help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to a recent report in The Washington Post.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official familiar with the findings. “That’s the consensus view.”

On Sunday morning, a bipartisan group of high-ranking senators released a statement underscoring the severity of these revelations and urging Republicans and Democrats to take them seriously.

“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks,” read the statement from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an Armed Services Committee member; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming minority leader for his caucus; and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee.

“This cannot become a partisan issue,” they added. “The stakes are too high for our country. We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security.”

During the election, emails from the Democratic National Committee and the private account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, were hacked and released on WikiLeaks. The DNC emails, in particular, caused turmoil within the party as supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) accused party officials of tipping the scales for Clinton during the primary based on exchanges in the released emails.

On NBC’S “Meet the Press” Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said there was “no doubt that the Russians hacked our institutions.”

“Plainly they were after discord and in this they were spectacularly successful. But it wasn’t alone to try and sow discord,” Schiff said. “They had a candidate with pro-Putin, pro-Russian views who belittled NATO, who was willing to potentially remove sanctions on Russia ― and by contrast they had in Secretary Clinton a candidate very tough on Russia and who they blamed ... for the protest, the mass demonstrations against the corruption in the Russian elections in 2011.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, also said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday that she supports investigations into Russia.

“This should be not only about protecting us going forward but this is a form of warfare for Vladimir Putin, who is a thug and a bully and has the friends around the globe that we don’t want to be friends with,” she said, adding, “I’ve had briefings just this last week that indicate that this is a very serious issue for the American people to understand. And for Donald Trump to dismiss out of hand the intelligence community’s fact gathering is, frankly ― doesn’t bode well for him protecting our country.”

Trump has repeatedly denied Russia interference and told “Fox News Sunday” that it was “ridiculous” and an “excuse” to undermine his win.

“No, I don’t believe that at all,” he said.

“Nobody really knows, and hacking is very interesting,” he added. “Once they hack if you don’t catch them in the act you’re not going to catch them. They have no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace. I mean, they have no idea.”

During the campaign season, Trump consistently praised Russia, even saying during a debate that the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, “has been a leader far more than our president has been.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rus ... 8e2bb04591
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:03 pm

The infowars AJ "interview" (more like a ramble) with Roger Stone posted by slad upthread should be seen. It begins 2 min. in. (to spare you AJ's ranting) Stone is an awful speaker - I listened to his disjointed blather nearly to the end and I tell you, it was tortuous and all I could take before closing it out.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: TRUMP is seriously dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:34 pm

Trump is finally getting his Trump TV – financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.


Trump to inherit state-run TV network with expanded reach
A provision tucked into the defense bill guts the Voice of America board, stoking fears that Trump could wield a powerful propaganda arm.
By TARA PALMERI 12/12/16 05:02 AM EST Updated 12/12/16 09:50 AM EST

“Congress unwittingly just gave President-elect Trump unchecked control of all U.S. media outlets,” said Michael Kempner, a Democratic member of the board

President-elect Donald Trump is about to inherit a newly empowered Voice of America that some officials fear could serve as an unfettered propaganda arm for the former reality TV star who has flirted for years with launching his own network.

Buried on page 1,404 of the National Defense Authorization Act that passed last week is a provision that would disband the bipartisan board of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the independent U.S. agency that includes Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcast Networks.

The move – pushed by House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce as a way to streamline the agency – concentrates control into a powerful CEO that is appointed by the president.

That change, combined with a 2013 legislative revision that allows the network to legally reach a U.S. audience, which was once banned, could pave the way for Trump-approved content created by the U.S. diplomacy arm, if he chooses to exploit the opportunity.

Essentially, Trump is finally getting his Trump TV – financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year. And some of the few people in the know aren’t happy about it.

“Congress unwittingly just gave President-elect Trump unchecked control of all U.S. media outlets,” said Michael Kempner, a Democratic member of the board who was appointed by President Barack Obama and was a Hillary Clinton donor. "No president, either Democrat or Republican, should have that kind of control. It's a public jewel. It's independence is what makes it so credible."

It’s unclear whether Trump is even aware about what he’s about to inherit. Trump as recently as September said he has “no interest in a media company,” but reports have emerged over the years of the billionaire exploring television opportunities beyond Trump Productions LLC, his TV-production business that includes “The Apprentice” and the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants. Vanity Fair reported in June that he was considering launching a “mini media conglomerate” if he lost the election.

Trump transition spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.

Now that Trump is getting for free a major media apparatus with loosened restrictions, both Democratic and Republican members of the current board are alarmed.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is the largest public diplomacy program by the U.S. government, reaching an audience of 278 million by broadcasting in 100 countries and 61 languages. The agency was created in 1942 during World War II to send pro-Democratic news across Europe, as it aimed to counter Nazi and Japanese propaganda. The agency has since evolved into a more traditional news operation, while still pushing out the virtues of democracy worldwide.

To date, the nine-member board – which consists of four Republicans and four Democrats appointed by the president, as well as the secretary of state – has been a part-time operation, but it served as a firewall with the mission of preserving the integrity of the agency’s broadcasts. The organization's charter calls for "accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness, and objectivity."

A Republican government official familiar with the agency’s work warned that abolishing the board will make it susceptible to the influence of Trump’s allies, including his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who ran Breitbart News before joining Trump’s campaign.

"There’s some fear among the folks here, that the firewall will get diminished and attacked and this could fall victim to propaganda," the Republican official said. "They will hire the person they want, the current CEO does not stand a chance. This will pop up on Steve Bannon’s radar quickly. They are going to put a friendly person in that job.”

Officials in particular fear that Trump and his allies could change the agency’s posture toward Russia, considering how Trump has betrayed a sympathetic nature toward President Vladimir Putin.

Multiple media outlets in the BBG family aim to counter Russia propaganda, including CurrentTime, which was introduced two years ago and broadcasts in Russia in the NPR model, and Radio Free Europe. With Radio for Asia, the U.S. also pushes back against China’s state messages, and Trump and his allies could potentially use the network to antagonize the country, which the president-elect already alarmed with his call with the Taiwanese president.

Because of the modification of the Smith-Mundt Act in 2013, the BBG can now broadcast in the U.S., too. But the influence on the domestic market could be even more subtle, the Republican official warned.

A BBG CEO influenced by the administration could penetrate established media outlets with packages, series or other news products produced by the BBG’s networks but picked up and aired by traditional media like Fox News or Breitbart. Many U.S. outlets currently use content from VOA.

“No money would even change hands, you’ve had no effect on the budget,” the official said. “But it will denigrate the product.”

The official added, “It’s extremely troubling. It’s going to be bad for U.S. international broadcasters and their credibility.”

In a sign of how significant the changes are, Hillary Clinton's transition team set up a meeting to visit the studios at 330 Independence Avenue the Wednesday following the election, according to two sources. The meeting was canceled after her loss, however, and the Trump transition team has not visited the studios.

But some top BBG officials are more measured in their reaction to Trump’s ability to influence the agency.

Jeff Shell, the chairman of the BBG’s board and an Obama appointee, said the changes to the agency’s structure were long overdue. "To have part-time board members to manage something like this is completely unrealistic, so I very much support the empowered CEO than a board,” he said, adding, “There’s always a risk with any federal agency, whether this administration or another that they’re going to use the organization in a partisan."

Rep. Ed Royce: "Our agencies that helped take down the Iron Curtain with accurate and timely broadcasting have lost their edge."

Royce, who pushed the provision, has long blasted the board as “defunct” and has called the agency “badly broken.” For years he has pushed broad reforms, insisting dramatic steps were necessary to make its international broadcasts more effective. He also floated the idea of rebranding the BBG as the “Freedom News Network.”

"Our agencies that helped take down the Iron Curtain with accurate and timely broadcasting have lost their edge," Royce said in a statement after the bill was passed in the House earlier this month.

"They must be revitalized to effectively carry out their mission in this age of viral terrorism and digital propaganda … My provision takes an important first step in this process by replacing the BBG’s part-time board with a permanent CEO to help better deliver real news to people in countries where free press does not exist."

The legislation also gives the president the power to appoint an advisory board -- which will consist of five members, including the secretary of state – but it has no statutory power.

The provision does, however, squeeze in a provision for an Inspector General from the State Department who would "respect the journalistic integrity of all the broadcasters covered by this Act."

Royce’s office did not comment when asked about the idea that Trump now has vast power to control the BBG.

Cory Fritz, a spokesman for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the reforms were not made with Trump in mind. “This isn’t about the president-elect. This is just the latest attempt to fight reforms that install basic standards of accountability at the BBG,” Fritz said.

The complaints about the agency have not been purely partisan. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in in the past complained about the agency, also calling the board ineffectual and “defunct” in January 2013. Later that year, the BBG faced more controversy when it was revealed that less than 1 percent of Cubans listened to its expensive TV Marti service.

But in recent years, the agency took significant steps to clean up its act. Following the criticism, the operational board reorganized and appointed a CEO, John F. Lansing, to oversee day-to-day strategy and operations in late 2013. The result was a 23 percent increase in TV viewership to 174 million and a 27 percent increase in radio audience to 130 million in 2016. Digital audiences also increased from 32 million in 2015 to 45 million. The overall audience went up from 226 million in 2015 to 278 million in 2016.

After the bill passed through the House, Lansing sent a memo to BBG staffers promising that "the legislation makes NO change to the firewall between the federal government and the journalists of our five networks."

"As I stated at the Town Hall on Tuesday, maintaining our journalistic independence, and our credibility worldwide, remains of the utmost importance,” he wrote.

Karen Kornbluh, a Democratic member of the board appointed by Obama, reinforced the idea that the organization would not automatically bend to any president’s will.

"Although I preferred having the board because it’s always good to have checks and balance, I am sure that the staff will continue to report journalism with 'muscular objectivity,'" Kornbluh said at the BBG's last board meeting.

But some say this firewall is still not enough to protect the organization from the pressure of some of Trump's most media savvy advisers like Bannon.

"On Jan. 21 we’ll have welcoming ceremony for our next CEO, who could be Steve Bannon, or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter,” said a senior Voice of America staffer.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/d ... ica-232442
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 13 guests