Flynn named National Security Advisor

[Strickland33]

I understand that. But he was previously installed as the highest ranking intelligence officer by President Obama. It's not like he was in some minimal position. There are lifelong right wing nominees being put out there and we have democrats bitching about someone who was one of their own just 2 years ago. This is probably as close to a moderate appointment as you'll get with a Republican president like Trump. Not the guy to fight. Save that for people like Sessions. You can't reasonably fight every appointment.

How did he lose his job again?

ETA: I feel like there are some objectively questionable names on the table from a fitness perspective for a lot of important positions, regardless of one's politics. Do you agree?

 

[HuskyDeac]

How did he lose his job again?

From what I read he resigned after getting blasted for speaking publicly about our policy combating terrorism in the middle east. What I could put together said he believed we needed much more intensive on the ground intelligence with tribal elders and local meetings rather than office jobs. Though most recent articles I read now also say he was fired which doesn't seem to be true. Looks like he resigned of his own will, forced or not, I don't know. His recent comments when he was supporting Trump are not what I'd want to hear, but I see nothing about him like that in his history until he was behind Trump which makes me somewhat sceptical. What am I missing?

 

[RJKarl]

Wasn't Flynn appointed by Obama just 4 years ago? And some Democrats are attacking his appointment now because he's a Trump nominee? Has he changed so drastically or did Democrats not care to thoroughly vet him before?

Yes he has changed. I linked a statement made by Colin Powell during the past couple of years. Powell called Flynn "Nutty".

Also over the past eighteen months, he has joined Putin at a state dinner, eaten with Putin at his home and gone on Putin's TV network saying Russia Today is better at the news than CNN.

Whether you like CNN or not Russia Today is 100% propaganda for Putin. Flynn is in the bag for Putin.

It's outrageous Flynn is even allowed to be briefed about anything much become the NSA.

 

[HuskyDeac]

Yes he has changed. I linked a statement made by Colin Powell during the past couple of years. Powell called Flynn "Nutty".

Also over the past eighteen months, he has joined Putin at a state dinner, eaten with Putin at his home and gone on Putin's TV network saying Russia Today is better at the news than CNN.

Whether you like CNN or not Russia Today is 100% propaganda for Putin. Flynn is in the bag for Putin.

It's outrageous Flynn is even allowed to be briefed about anything much become the NSA.

I'm not sure where you've read that without links, but his interview with the Washington Post addressed a. Fair amount of that and I thought his answers were pretty reasonable. Again, not a guy I'd pick myself, but when people are saying Trump is going to be the ruin of the US, I don't think this is something to waste valuable resistance on. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/

 

[RJKarl]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkacz...tary-advisor?utm_term=.nePjj8RblJ#.ws2LLRnGao

RT is the "same" rather than better, my mistake, and Flynn thinks is owned by the government:

"When the Washington Post’s Dana Priest asked Flynn this week about his relationship to RT, this dialogue ensued:

PRIEST: Why would you go on RT, they’re state run?

FLYNN: Well, what’s CNN?

PRIEST: Well, it’s not run by the state. You’re rolling your eyes."

Here's Flynn sitting at Putin's table:

http://russia-insider.com/en/heres-who-sat-putins-table-rt-dinner-photo/ri11855

 

[Wrangor]

no criticism allowed!

more safe spaces!

I think what you fail to realize is that your unrealistic criticism (and other liberal talking heads) of these appointments is actually to the advantage of those you politically oppose. I don't care who you criticize. I just think you are playing right into their hands. By all means carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MysteryMen]

The Republican reversal on Russia is one of the richest things about this election. Could you imagine if eight years ago Obama had tried to appoint advisors and cabinet members with strong ties to Russia? They would have had a conniption

 

[PhDeac]

I think what you fail to realize is that your unrealistic criticism (and other liberal talking heads) of these appointments is actually to the advantage of those you politically oppose. I don't care who you criticize. I just think you are playing right into their hands. By all means carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is true. Criticizing conservatives just emboldens them.

"That's racism."
"I'm not a racist. But whatever I'm doing is fine. Screw you."

 

[Strickland33]

I think what you fail to realize is that your unrealistic criticism (and other liberal talking heads) of these appointments is actually to the advantage of those you politically oppose. I don't care who you criticize. I just think you are playing right into their hands. By all means carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What ever happened to Merrick Garland?

 

[ONW]

I think what you fail to realize is that your unrealistic criticism (and other liberal talking heads) of these appointments is actually to the advantage of those you politically oppose. I don't care who you criticize. I just think you are playing right into their hands. By all means carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How so? Are you thinking of an us against the world mentality? Openly opposing anything that Obama did for eight years has proven effective.

 

[Shooshmoo]

The Republican reversal on Russia is one of the richest things about this election. Could you imagine if eight years ago Obama had tried to appoint advisors and cabinet members with strong ties to Russia? They would have had a conniption

Can you imagine if President-elect Hillary proposed $500 billion for infrastructure -- the Republicans in Congress would be preparing for war. But they have no principles, so what do you expect?

 

[TownieDeac]

I think what you fail to realize is that your unrealistic criticism (and other liberal talking heads) of these appointments is actually to the advantage of those you politically oppose. I don't care who you criticize. I just think you are playing right into their hands. By all means carry on.

Unrealistic criticism?

And yea I'll tamp down the rhetoric on these boards lest I embolden Senate GOP voters.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

Can you imagine if President-elect Hillary proposed $500 billion for infrastructure -- the Republicans in Congress would be preparing for war. But they have no principles, so what do you expect?

Steve Bannon is advocating spending $1 Trillion on infrastructure. National debt is now $19T. Do Trump and Bannon really believe 'Pubs (Ryan and McConnell) will support that level of additional spending/debt?

 

[RJKarl]

The GOP rejected Obama asking for that much multiple times. Our economy would be a lot stronger if GOP didn't hate Obama more than they loved America.

In business the best time to expand is when money is cheap and there is an abundance of willing workers who will take less pay. We had for the years Obama proposed it. Labor will be costing more now due to much less unemployment.

Rube, the $1T is likely over a decade.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Steve Bannon is advocating spending $1 Trillion on infrastructure. National debt is now $19T. Do Trump and Bannon really believe 'Pubs (Ryan and McConnell) will support that level of additional spending/debt?

I think they most certainly will. Let's just watch and see. Congressional pubs were either obstructionist for principle or party, and we are about to find out which one.

 

[Strickland33]

I think they most certainly will. Let's just watch and see. Congressional pubs were either obstructionist for principle or party, and we are about to find out which one.

I think we know the answer to this question.

That being said, we do need massive infrastructure revitalization and construction, and a lot of cities and states have these types of projects already in the pipeline. Furthermore, those types of projects historically are great for employing people and small increases in economic mobility among working and lower middle classes, so who knows... This is the one component of the Trump agenda that I am intrigued to see play out.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I think we know the answer to this question.

That being said, we do need massive infrastructure revitalization and construction, and a lot of cities and states have these types of projects already in the pipeline. Furthermore, those types of projects historically are great for employing people and small increases in economic mobility among working and lower middle classes, so who knows... This is the one component of the Trump agenda that I am intrigued to see play out.

Me too. The obvious benefits are why you won't see much opposition from the deficit folks. It's about who gets to slap their brand on it to the voters, IMO. Deficit spending on infrastructure is almost always a good thing. Can't have the other guys get credit for it though.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

I think we know the answer to this question.

That being said, we do need massive infrastructure revitalization and construction, and a lot of cities and states have these types of projects already in the pipeline. Furthermore, those types of projects historically are great for employing people and small increases in economic mobility among working and lower middle classes, so who knows... This is the one component of the Trump agenda that I am intrigued to see play out.

Until they are all structured as public/private "partnerships" that are just direct giveaways to construction companies at the expense of the public.

 

[ONW]

Until they are all structured as public/private "partnerships" that are just direct giveaways to construction companies at the expense of the public.

This is important.

 

[Strickland33]

Until they are all structured as public/private "partnerships" that are just direct giveaways to construction companies at the expense of the public.

Until then, sure, but it's not fair to criticize it until it happens.

This - your post - is one reason why Trump's conflicts of interest are so concerning, however, even though talking about his faults sends pubs running to their safe places. Trump not only is a pretty sketchy developer, but he also has a habit of not hiring American workers, not compensating workers, and not creating a healthy working environment. But the public knew this and elected him anyway so who knows...