US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7281

On April 07 2017 04:46 plasmidghost wrote:
We have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact the Assad regime that conducted the attack and not rebels/ISIS/whatever storing the chemicals in residential areas, as Assad and Russia claims. The US cannot afford to go to war under false pretenses again. While I hate getting involved in other national conflicts, I believe the US has a moral responsibility to depose Assad for crimes against humanity if he or his forces conducted the attack

On April 07 2017 04:46 plasmidghost wrote:
We have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact the Assad regime that conducted the attack and not rebels/ISIS/whatever storing the chemicals in residential areas, as Assad and Russia claims. The US cannot afford to go to war under false pretenses again. While I hate getting involved in other national conflicts, I believe the US has a moral responsibility to depose Assad for crimes against humanity if he or his forces conducted the attack

A civil war between Donald Trump loyalists and establishment-minded Republicans is escalating throughout the federal government — and increasingly the president’s allies are losing.

From the State Department to the Environmental Protection Agency, a sharp dividing line has formed: Cabinet secretaries and their handpicked teams of GOP veterans are rushing to take power as Trump campaign staffers — "originals,” as they call themselves — gripe that they’re being pushed aside.

In over a dozen interviews, the originals, many of whom volunteered to work for candidate Trump when few others were willing to do so, complained that they'd been shut out of meetings and targeted with career-destroying leaks. In recent weeks, a number of longtime Trump supporters have abruptly quit, saying they felt the administration had been overtaken by the same establishment they worked to defeat.

The backbiting is further paralyzing federal agencies, which have been hamstrung by slow hiring, disorganization and an overall lack of direction since Trump’s inauguration. Many of the Trump stalwarts were installed at the agencies during the transition to help them prepare for the presidency, part of so-called beachhead teams.

"You're always watching your back,” said Sid Bowdidge, a Trump campaign staffer who quit his Energy Department job after news reports that he made anti-Muslim slurs on social media, stories that he blamed on leaks by rival co-workers. “It doesn't bode well for a cohesive team to be successful toward a common goal. How can you when people are looking over their shoulder to see if they have a knife in their back?"

“As we get further away from Inauguration Day, it is very obvious that no one cares what happens to the people who worked for the campaign or who have loyalty to the president. The swamp is winning the battle,” said one former Trump campaign aide. “And longtime campaign staffers are proving to be the first casualties."

Others say the Trump acolytes have unrealistic expectations and are simply experiencing the hard realities of Washington. Some Cabinet secretaries have complained privately about having employees foisted upon them with little, if any, relevant policy expertise. The agency heads say they should have discretion over key hires in their departments.

Either way, the strife is real.

One collision is taking place at the State Department, where loyalists at the department have been deeply troubled by the actions of career bureaucrats who were installed during Barack Obama’s tenure and of Republicans perceived as cool to Trump. In recent days, Trump veterans have been abuzz over the exit of Julia Haller, who worked as a Northern Virginia field staffer for the campaign and then went on to become a senior adviser at the department.

Two people with direct knowledge of the situation said her departure followed a clash between Haller and senior-level people at Foggy Bottom. (Haller wouldn’t detail any disputes she had and a State Department spokesperson declined to discuss the reasons for her exit.)

Tensions are also rising at the Department of Agriculture, where some Trump backers said they were shocked to learn recently they were being reassigned to other parts of the government. The decision affects 13 people on the department's beachhead team, who began working at the agency on Jan. 20 as Trump’s presidency got underway. The group was assigned to oversee the department as its new leadership took shape.

While the staffers, like those on beachhead teams at other agencies, were never guaranteed employment past the first 90 or 120 days of the administration, many assumed they would be hired on full time.

At the White House, a frustrated senior aide said the administration was not informed of the Agriculture Department reassignments ahead of time. Among those affected is James Epley, who helped to oversee the campaign in South Carolina, where Trump notched a pivotal primary win. (Epley, who moved to Washington a few weeks ago, said he didn’t yet know where he’d be placed but was not bothered. He was not part of the beachhead team.)

Nowhere, however, is the infighting more intense than at EPA. Over the past month, two Trump appointees, David Schnare and David Kreutzer, departed after colliding with top aides to Administrator Scott Pruitt, according to three people familiar with the matter. Both had complained about being marginalized. (Schnare said he left because of disloyalty to Trump among some officials. Kreutzer, who is expected to take a job at The Heritage Foundation, disputed that his exit had anything to do with discord at the agency.)

Trump loyalists at EPA have griped about being kept out of important planning meetings. Several people also said Don Benton, the agency's White House-assigned senior adviser who oversaw Trump’s campaign in Washington state, had been iced out. (Benton wrote in an email that there is "zero tension" between him and Pruitt).

The turf battles aren't only about allegiance to Trump; there's also an ideological component. Climate skeptics who worked on EPA's transition team are deeply suspicious of Pruitt, despite the administrator's conservative bona fides. Some privately complain he’s moving too slowly to implement Trump’s campaign promises, and that Pruitt might be trying to position himself for an eventual Senate run.

On April 07 2017 05:00 plasmidghost wrote:

Yeah, that's a major drawback that I don't see us being able to get around, plus, if a UN mandate did allow people to get in there, I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more of the parties in the Syrian conflict not respect the mandate and try to pull some shit to prevent it

On April 07 2017 05:03 a_flayer wrote:
Whatever happens, the US doesn't go to war for moral reasons.

On April 07 2017 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:

That's another huge drawback, Obama and Trump have killed so many civilians in Syria that I have no idea what the US can even do to perform a morally just action, maybe take out Assad and ensure a democratic process for electing officials? But then, what about the ISIS and rebel forces? As long as they exist, if there is no US presence, they could easily take over the country and then it's even worse off than under Assad, but if the US stays and keeps bombing, there will inevitably be even more civilian deaths, it's just a very difficult situation as it stands

On April 07 2017 04:56 zlefin wrote:

logo -> that article doesn't seem to cover how many militant casualties there were. it's important to look at the casualty ratios.
I am concerned abohut a loosening of standards that leads to higrhe civilian casualty rates.

civilian deaths are an unfortunate but inherent part of war;

On April 07 2017 05:13 Logo wrote:


I guess I can't say that's not true in some sense, but in general I'd rather hold the US to a higher standard than "it's ok if the ratio is good enough." Yeah it makes dramatically harder, but that's why being the 'good guy' is hard.

Donald Trump’s trips to his luxury Florida resort have already cost the US taxpayer at least $24 million (£19.2 million) - roughly as much as Barack Obama spent on travel in the first two years of his presidency.

Mr Trump has spent seven weekends at Mar-a-Lago since taking office ten weeks ago. It is estimated that each of these trips costs at least $3 million (£2.4 million), covering the President’s extensive security detail.

In total, Mr Obama's travel bill over the eight years of his presidency came to $97 million (£78 million) - an average of $12.1 million (£9.7 million) a year.

President Trump almost matched this figure in his first month - spending $10 million (£8 million) on three golfing holidays.

The cost of travel and security for the entire Trump family is likely to be much higher, as the First Lady Melania and Mr Trump’s youngest son, Barron, are remaining in New York until at least September.

The New York Police Department has confirmed that it costs between $127,000 and $146,000 (£101,000 and £116,000) a day “to protect the First Lady and her son while they reside in Trump Tower".

After he hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, Mr Trump will have averaged $2.4 million (£1.9 million) tax dollars a week on his Florida trips. If he keeps going at this pace, he will have outspent Mr Obama’s $97 million figure in just ten months.

Critics have pointed out that if the President cut back on these visits, he could fund the social security and arts programmes that he is planning to slash.

The Trump administration is looking to make $597 million (£479 million) in cuts to government departments — just less than the $600 million security arrangements for Mr Trump's Mar-a-Lago visits are estimated to cost the taxpayer over the course of his term.

President Trump has, however, pledged to increase military spending by $54 billion (£43 billion), which would be funded by cuts to other agencies.

Before his inauguration, Mr Trump regularly criticised Mr Obama for playing golf while holding office.

“Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the US, President Obama spent the day playing golf. Worse than Carter,” he tweeted in October 2014.

During a campaign rally last year, Mr Trump referred to his golf courses when he criticised Mr Obama.

He said: "You know what – and I love golf – but if I were in the White House, I don’t think I’d ever see Turnberry again, I don’t think I’d ever see Doral again, I own Doral in Miami, I don’t think I’d ever see many of the places that I have.

"I don’t ever think that I’d see anything, I just wanna stay in the White House and work my ass off, make great deals, right? Who's gonna leave? I mean, who's gonna leave?"

On April 07 2017 03:15 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Mattis to brief Trump on options for military action in Syria

Defense Secretary James Mattis will brief President Trump on military options against Syria, CBS News’ David Martin reports, after a chemical attack in northern Syria, believed to have been carried out by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, killed at least 72 people, many of them children.

Mr. Trump is going to be briefed by Mattis in Florida on some options, one of which would be cruise missile strikes from U.S. Navy ships.

At a news conference Wednesday, the president called the chemical attack in Syria was a “horrible, horrible thing” that “crossed a lot of lines for me.” He also acknowledged, “It is now my responsibility,” though he did not indicate what actions he would consider.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley condemned the United Nations and threatened U.S. could retaliate unilaterally against Syria.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mattis-to-brief-trump-on-options-for-military-action-in-syria/