Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
Dude. It's only been a month -- less if you don't count weekends because, really, who among us counts weekends?
He's got 3 years, 11 months to do it.
Let the man play golf a little.
6 times. He's played golf 6 times. In a month. After screaming about Obama golfing once.
If the rest of his administration wasn't a rolling dumpster fire, this would be infuriting.
So? At least he's doing it at his own place so it's not like the American public has to foot the bill.
The dude owns the place. You think he's gonna charge himself?
Also, think about someone else for once in your life -- like the WH staff. All the time he spends away from the WH means less clean-up work for them.
But no. You're concerned with how it affects you.
You do realize that the US government is indeed footing the bill for he and his entourage to travel out there, right?
Here's a Cosmo report (that cites WaPo) that says the last 3 visits have cost an estimated $10 million US.
As I said earlier (perhaps it was in another thread), the Obama admin allegedly ran up around $100 million in travel expenses in eight years.
And Trump has pulled 10% of that off in one month.
And as I also noted, yes, it's still a rounding error in the overall budget. But for people who used to lose their minds over a little golf and an average of $1 million per month, this rather stands out in contrast.
Far as I recall, he's also charging the Secret Service rent at his NY tower where they're protecting Melania and Barron, so "do you think he's charging himself?" becomes a resounding 'yes'. It may be the usual market price or some such, but I would be shocked if he isn't recouping cash where he can.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
Yeah, he seems to represent the broken clock nature of this admin's appointments. Him and Mattis seem to be the 2 "right" choices thus far.
And the combination of them I think offers a great dichotomy of thought and approach to security issues. While Mattis is decidedly more hawkish, he's also a pragmatist and is not instinctively opposed to using diplomatic action in lieu of the truncheon as a tool of foreign policy and McMasters also knows that sometimes direct action can be necessary, but that such actions should be well planned, well executed, and the nearly last resort we reach for.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Official titles don't seem to mean much in the Trump admin
Trump will just ignore sane voices.
Yup. Bannon's Strategic Initiatives Group that is competing somewhat with the NSC is still around so Trump can just listen to them instead. Given Trump's predilections, Bannon will probably be able to appeal to Trump better than most people at the NSC.
It's worrisome that Trump's correct choices are all generals. It's very important that we've set things up so that retiring generals have plenty of career opportunities, but they don't take over the executive branch of the government en masse. It's really, really important that a stable democracy separate the military and the civilian executive branch.
What is this I don't even.
+21
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
It's worrisome that Trump's correct choices are all generals. It's very important that we've set things up so that retiring generals have plenty of career opportunities, but they don't take over the executive branch of the government en masse. It's really, really important that a stable democracy separate the military and the civilian executive branch.
I totally agree, but I don't think one recent retiree and one active duty staff officer with fairly differing views are the makings of a junta.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
+5
Options
ShimshaiFlush with Success!Isle of EmeraldRegistered Userregular
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
Can I ask, why is this the case? I know literally nothing about what is required of serving personnel.
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
Can I ask, why is this the case? I know literally nothing about what is required of serving personnel.
At a guess, I would say he gets an order from his commander in chief - and refusing the post would mean he'd refuse a direct order. Which opens a whole can of worms.
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
Can I ask, why is this the case? I know literally nothing about what is required of serving personnel.
It's my impression that, as a serviceman, when your Commander in Chief gives you an order you obey it (with exceptions for massive moral or ethical issues). Since Trump outranks him, he can basically order him into the cabinet. I think he needs a congressional waiver, though.
It's worrisome that Trump's correct choices are all generals. It's very important that we've set things up so that retiring generals have plenty of career opportunities, but they don't take over the executive branch of the government en masse. It's really, really important that a stable democracy separate the military and the civilian executive branch.
I totally agree, but I don't think one recent retiree and one active duty staff officer with fairly differing views are the makings of a junta.
Nothing about Trump is, singularly, a complete change. His decision are several pebbles that can change the course of history in how we do things, though. His cabinet appointments and Congress being completely unable to really make any impact on it is significant. And tossing out all the basic rules that go with it is part of that.
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
Can I ask, why is this the case? I know literally nothing about what is required of serving personnel.
It's my impression that, as a serviceman, when your Commander in Chief gives you an order you obey it (with exceptions for massive moral or ethical issues). Since Trump outranks him, he can basically order him into the cabinet. I think he needs a congressional waiver, though.
No. The Congressional waiver is required of the secretary of defense. SecDef has to be "appointed from civilian life" and can't have served as a active duty commissioned officer within the last seven years. That's why Mattis needed a waiver.
National Security Advisor is not a cabinet position, it's an appointed executive position. McMaster doesn't need any kind of senate approval, and is in fact already in office.
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
Can I ask, why is this the case? I know literally nothing about what is required of serving personnel.
It's my impression that, as a serviceman, when your Commander in Chief gives you an order you obey it (with exceptions for massive moral or ethical issues). Since Trump outranks him, he can basically order him into the cabinet. I think he needs a congressional waiver, though.
Resignation's always an option, and there was clearly some kind of negotiation if McMaster was granted commonsense staffing concessions that the previous candidates weren't. If Trump could just command him into the role he wouldn't have bothered with something like that.
I seriously can't even imagine the person who has people print out the internet for them to read
That's not just Trump, that's a lot of older wealthy people who never had to learn how to run a computer because they always had a guy for that. It's a peculiar segment though. Older sub-wealthy and you had to learn because you didn't have a guy, while the young superrich are as computer literate as the rest of us youngs.
He also seems to have vision problems, which is a factor.
Looks like Trump did some extreme vetting of McMaster before making his decision.
Trump is absurdly easy to manipulate. Just edit a wikipedia page around when he's having an aide print something out and you've got him.
But that doesn't look like his wikipedia page?
Could just be an internal fact sheet in case he wanted to reference something. (Which he didn't because the font is too small. Also because it had "facts".)
Yeah, that's almost definitely not wikipedia, unless they did some weird layout fuckery.
They probably made a briefing document and grabbed the photo from wikipedia or from an internal picture (it's the pic used for his bio at the army agency he runs).
Trump trying to deregulate the FDA is getting pushback from the drug companies.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/trump-fda-deregulation-biopharma/
You'd think that the sector would champ at the bit for a stripped down FDA. But a first-to-market advantage doesn't mean much if there's not enough of a market to capitalize on. And that's exactly what's raising concerns among a number of prominent drug company executives who fear that insurance companies would be loathe to cover an unproven treatment.
However Trump's most prominent pick currently for the FDA, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, wants to push forward a plan that will allow companies to sell the drugs before they can prove they're effective.
The consternation is understandable considering some of the names Trump is reportedly considering for the critical FDA commissioner job. One potential candidate, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, has advocated a system where drugs can be approved the minute they're shown to be safe, rather than the dual safety and effectiveness standards which the agency must now consider.
But that radical approach has already shown poor results in the marketplace. Sarepta Therapeutics, which won a controversial but pioneering approval to treat the rare disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy, has been shunned by a number of insurance companies because (as the FDA admitted in its own approval) the treatment doesn't have proven efficacy.
Less sensational potential picks seem to be Dr (MD) Scott Gottlieb, who worked in the FDA from 2003-'04 as senior advisor to the head of the FDA, and like several Trump nominees is a partner at a venture capital fund.
"He leans right, he's got experience in the agency, he’s got the M.D. credential, and he’s outspoken," Gaba said.
However, being less sensational also means we know little about his stances or positions on anything.
Better known, but still less sensational than O'Neill is Dr. Joseph Gulfo who is also a potential pick. He's worked for both conservative and left leaning think tanks, founded multiple medical companies, holds and MD and MBA, and has laid out his positions for what the FDA head should be.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-considering-joseph-gulfo-for-fda-commissioner-2017-1
To begin with, he wrote, Congress must stop humiliating the FDA at hearings. That just makes regulators defensive and more inclined to protect the status quo. “We need to show the FDA love, and support FDA staff in doing their jobs and in the decisions they make,” he wrote.
He also wrote that FDA should adopt four categories of drug approval, which he says would better follow the intent of the law than the current system. For instance, he believes the FDA should grant approval of some medicines even if they haven’t shown that they change patients’ health outcomes in the long term. Instead, he writes, the FDA should consider whether the drugs lead to positive trends in biological parameters associated with the disease, such as glucose levels.
He wants to lower the efficacy standards, but not to the level that they're completely abandoned like O'Neill suggests.
Just so we remember what's at stake in this, an FOIA request recently uncovered the statistics and costs in human life of the babies who were killed by unregulated homeopathic "treatments".
We need someone in the chair who will expand the regulations into unregulated sectors, not make more unregulated sectors.
Trump trying to deregulate the FDA is getting pushback from the drug companies.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/trump-fda-deregulation-biopharma/
You'd think that the sector would champ at the bit for a stripped down FDA. But a first-to-market advantage doesn't mean much if there's not enough of a market to capitalize on. And that's exactly what's raising concerns among a number of prominent drug company executives who fear that insurance companies would be loathe to cover an unproven treatment.
However Trump's most prominent pick currently for the FDA, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, wants to push forward a plan that will allow companies to sell the drugs before they can prove they're effective.
The consternation is understandable considering some of the names Trump is reportedly considering for the critical FDA commissioner job. One potential candidate, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, has advocated a system where drugs can be approved the minute they're shown to be safe, rather than the dual safety and effectiveness standards which the agency must now consider.
But that radical approach has already shown poor results in the marketplace. Sarepta Therapeutics, which won a controversial but pioneering approval to treat the rare disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy, has been shunned by a number of insurance companies because (as the FDA admitted in its own approval) the treatment doesn't have proven efficacy.
Less sensational potential picks seem to be Dr (MD) Scott Gottlieb, who worked in the FDA from 2003-'04 as senior advisor to the head of the FDA, and like several Trump nominees is a partner at a venture capital fund.
"He leans right, he's got experience in the agency, he’s got the M.D. credential, and he’s outspoken," Gaba said.
However, being less sensational also means we know little about his stances or positions on anything.
Better known, but still less sensational than O'Neill is Dr. Joseph Gulfo who is also a potential pick. He's worked for both conservative and left leaning think tanks, founded multiple medical companies, holds and MD and MBA, and has laid out his positions for what the FDA head should be.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-considering-joseph-gulfo-for-fda-commissioner-2017-1
To begin with, he wrote, Congress must stop humiliating the FDA at hearings. That just makes regulators defensive and more inclined to protect the status quo. “We need to show the FDA love, and support FDA staff in doing their jobs and in the decisions they make,” he wrote.
He also wrote that FDA should adopt four categories of drug approval, which he says would better follow the intent of the law than the current system. For instance, he believes the FDA should grant approval of some medicines even if they haven’t shown that they change patients’ health outcomes in the long term. Instead, he writes, the FDA should consider whether the drugs lead to positive trends in biological parameters associated with the disease, such as glucose levels.
He wants to lower the efficacy standards, but not to the level that they're completely abandoned like O'Neill suggests.
Just so we remember what's at stake in this, an FOIA request recently uncovered the statistics and costs in human life of the babies who were killed by unregulated homeopathic "treatments".
We need someone in the chair who will expand the regulations into unregulated sectors, not make more unregulated sectors.
Also, was trump to change U.S.law to only demand safety rather than effacacy and safety, then all other countries (which sensibly have nationalized health care) would immediately stop recognizing FDA approval or investigations for their own districts. China especially would be thrilled to let its own regulatory agency rise to prominence as it would encourage companies to base their lobbying and regulatory arms in China.
U.S. companies gain a market advantage from the prominence of the fda and the many reciprocity agreements it enjoys. Once approval is found in the U.S., international approval is often a matter of providing appropriate forms and showing cost benefit ratios. If the fda because toothless then no-one would conduct drug research at U.S.hospitals.
Trump trying to deregulate the FDA is getting pushback from the drug companies.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/trump-fda-deregulation-biopharma/
You'd think that the sector would champ at the bit for a stripped down FDA. But a first-to-market advantage doesn't mean much if there's not enough of a market to capitalize on. And that's exactly what's raising concerns among a number of prominent drug company executives who fear that insurance companies would be loathe to cover an unproven treatment.
However Trump's most prominent pick currently for the FDA, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, wants to push forward a plan that will allow companies to sell the drugs before they can prove they're effective.
The consternation is understandable considering some of the names Trump is reportedly considering for the critical FDA commissioner job. One potential candidate, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, has advocated a system where drugs can be approved the minute they're shown to be safe, rather than the dual safety and effectiveness standards which the agency must now consider.
But that radical approach has already shown poor results in the marketplace. Sarepta Therapeutics, which won a controversial but pioneering approval to treat the rare disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy, has been shunned by a number of insurance companies because (as the FDA admitted in its own approval) the treatment doesn't have proven efficacy.
Less sensational potential picks seem to be Dr (MD) Scott Gottlieb, who worked in the FDA from 2003-'04 as senior advisor to the head of the FDA, and like several Trump nominees is a partner at a venture capital fund.
"He leans right, he's got experience in the agency, he’s got the M.D. credential, and he’s outspoken," Gaba said.
However, being less sensational also means we know little about his stances or positions on anything.
Better known, but still less sensational than O'Neill is Dr. Joseph Gulfo who is also a potential pick. He's worked for both conservative and left leaning think tanks, founded multiple medical companies, holds and MD and MBA, and has laid out his positions for what the FDA head should be.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-considering-joseph-gulfo-for-fda-commissioner-2017-1
To begin with, he wrote, Congress must stop humiliating the FDA at hearings. That just makes regulators defensive and more inclined to protect the status quo. “We need to show the FDA love, and support FDA staff in doing their jobs and in the decisions they make,” he wrote.
He also wrote that FDA should adopt four categories of drug approval, which he says would better follow the intent of the law than the current system. For instance, he believes the FDA should grant approval of some medicines even if they haven’t shown that they change patients’ health outcomes in the long term. Instead, he writes, the FDA should consider whether the drugs lead to positive trends in biological parameters associated with the disease, such as glucose levels.
He wants to lower the efficacy standards, but not to the level that they're completely abandoned like O'Neill suggests.
Just so we remember what's at stake in this, an FOIA request recently uncovered the statistics and costs in human life of the babies who were killed by unregulated homeopathic "treatments".
We need someone in the chair who will expand the regulations into unregulated sectors, not make more unregulated sectors.
Also, was trump to change U.S.law to only demand safety rather than effacacy and safety, then all other countries (which sensibly have nationalized health care) would immediately stop recognizing FDA approval or investigations for their own districts. China especially would be thrilled to let its own regulatory agency rise to prominence as it would encourage companies to base their lobbying and regulatory arms in China.
U.S. companies gain a market advantage from the prominence of the fda and the many reciprocity agreements it enjoys. Once approval is found in the U.S., international approval is often a matter of providing appropriate forms and showing cost benefit ratios. If the fda because toothless then no-one would conduct drug research at U.S.hospitals.
These people really are the sort to ask "What have you done for me today?" aren't they?
There's no thought about the knock-on effects of what they're doing, no thought for more than five minutes into the future, and certainly no consideration of what their long term plan is aside from getting people into places where they can make decisions that Trump or someone else can tell them to make.
I always wondered what it would take to destroy society and here we are staring it in the eye.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Trump trying to deregulate the FDA is getting pushback from the drug companies.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/trump-fda-deregulation-biopharma/
You'd think that the sector would champ at the bit for a stripped down FDA. But a first-to-market advantage doesn't mean much if there's not enough of a market to capitalize on. And that's exactly what's raising concerns among a number of prominent drug company executives who fear that insurance companies would be loathe to cover an unproven treatment.
However Trump's most prominent pick currently for the FDA, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, wants to push forward a plan that will allow companies to sell the drugs before they can prove they're effective.
The consternation is understandable considering some of the names Trump is reportedly considering for the critical FDA commissioner job. One potential candidate, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, has advocated a system where drugs can be approved the minute they're shown to be safe, rather than the dual safety and effectiveness standards which the agency must now consider.
But that radical approach has already shown poor results in the marketplace. Sarepta Therapeutics, which won a controversial but pioneering approval to treat the rare disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy, has been shunned by a number of insurance companies because (as the FDA admitted in its own approval) the treatment doesn't have proven efficacy.
Less sensational potential picks seem to be Dr (MD) Scott Gottlieb, who worked in the FDA from 2003-'04 as senior advisor to the head of the FDA, and like several Trump nominees is a partner at a venture capital fund.
"He leans right, he's got experience in the agency, he’s got the M.D. credential, and he’s outspoken," Gaba said.
However, being less sensational also means we know little about his stances or positions on anything.
Better known, but still less sensational than O'Neill is Dr. Joseph Gulfo who is also a potential pick. He's worked for both conservative and left leaning think tanks, founded multiple medical companies, holds and MD and MBA, and has laid out his positions for what the FDA head should be.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-considering-joseph-gulfo-for-fda-commissioner-2017-1
To begin with, he wrote, Congress must stop humiliating the FDA at hearings. That just makes regulators defensive and more inclined to protect the status quo. “We need to show the FDA love, and support FDA staff in doing their jobs and in the decisions they make,” he wrote.
He also wrote that FDA should adopt four categories of drug approval, which he says would better follow the intent of the law than the current system. For instance, he believes the FDA should grant approval of some medicines even if they haven’t shown that they change patients’ health outcomes in the long term. Instead, he writes, the FDA should consider whether the drugs lead to positive trends in biological parameters associated with the disease, such as glucose levels.
He wants to lower the efficacy standards, but not to the level that they're completely abandoned like O'Neill suggests.
Just so we remember what's at stake in this, an FOIA request recently uncovered the statistics and costs in human life of the babies who were killed by unregulated homeopathic "treatments".
We need someone in the chair who will expand the regulations into unregulated sectors, not make more unregulated sectors.
Also, was trump to change U.S.law to only demand safety rather than effacacy and safety, then all other countries (which sensibly have nationalized health care) would immediately stop recognizing FDA approval or investigations for their own districts. China especially would be thrilled to let its own regulatory agency rise to prominence as it would encourage companies to base their lobbying and regulatory arms in China.
U.S. companies gain a market advantage from the prominence of the fda and the many reciprocity agreements it enjoys. Once approval is found in the U.S., international approval is often a matter of providing appropriate forms and showing cost benefit ratios. If the fda because toothless then no-one would conduct drug research at U.S.hospitals.
These people really are the sort to ask "What have you done for me today?" aren't they?
There's no thought about the knock-on effects of what they're doing, no thought for more than five minutes into the future, and certainly no consideration of what their long term plan is aside from getting people into places where they can make decisions that Trump or someone else can tell them to make.
I always wondered what it would take to destroy society and here we are staring it in the eye.
I mean, drug companies are 100% aware that the fda is literally as on their side as it can possibly be while still being a well respected agency internationally. I expect if this starts to become a real thing that trump will get some calls from very serious folks saying that they don't actually want that, and if you pass it they will be moving to Canada etc. What they want is longer discovery patents and international protection against generics.
Official titles don't seem to mean much in the Trump admin
Trump will just ignore sane voices.
Yup. Bannon's Strategic Initiatives Group that is competing somewhat with the NSC is still around so Trump can just listen to them instead. Given Trump's predilections, Bannon will probably be able to appeal to Trump better than most people at the NSC.
No no no no no no no. We cannot have a committee abbreviation that is SIG. Next thing you know we'll have the Homeland Emancipation and Innovation League.
The more I learn about McMaster the more I'm baffled Trump would pick him. The guy seems to be an intellectual who's all about butting heads with politicians if it benefits the country/security.
I chalk this up to, 'Trump = Stupid'.
Someone like McMaster has probably had to deal with machismo idiots on a regular basis & learned how to manipulate them.
McMaster is a very good man to lead that office. His books on Vietnam were among the first I read on that subject, and he was not kind to the executive bodies involved.
Short of the members of the cabinet whose views are both really obvious and not the least bit nuanced, I'm kind of interested in what anyone at that level's been writing beforehand. Anything in particular you'd recommend?
@Zibblsnrt His book is, 'Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam'.
It still feels pretty resonant & relevant today, with most other works about Vietnam focusing on the debauchery of Nixon & the Cambodia bombings. McMaster doesn't just go for the low hanging fruit, and speaks at length about the structural failures that led to the war, its escalations and the seemingly inescapable quagmire it became.
McMaster is a very good man to lead that office. His books on Vietnam were among the first I read on that subject, and he was not kind to the executive bodies involved.
Short of the members of the cabinet whose views are both really obvious and not the least bit nuanced, I'm kind of interested in what anyone at that level's been writing beforehand. Anything in particular you'd recommend?
@Zibblsnrt His book is, 'Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam'.
It still feels pretty resonant & relevant today, with most other works about Vietnam focusing on the debauchery of Nixon & the Cambodia bombings. McMaster doesn't just go for the low hanging fruit, and speaks at length about the structural failures that led to the war, its escalations and the seemingly inescapable quagmire it became.
He has a PhD from one of the best military history programs in the country. UNC is up there with Harvard and Stanford in my view when it comes to this stuff.
McMaster is a very good man to lead that office. His books on Vietnam were among the first I read on that subject, and he was not kind to the executive bodies involved.
Short of the members of the cabinet whose views are both really obvious and not the least bit nuanced, I'm kind of interested in what anyone at that level's been writing beforehand. Anything in particular you'd recommend?
@Zibblsnrt His book is, 'Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam'.
It still feels pretty resonant & relevant today, with most other works about Vietnam focusing on the debauchery of Nixon & the Cambodia bombings. McMaster doesn't just go for the low hanging fruit, and speaks at length about the structural failures that led to the war, its escalations and the seemingly inescapable quagmire it became.
Dude is a pretty amazing pick from all accounts.
Dude also seems like he is going to eventually tell Trump to jump off a cliff. He does not seem like someone to go along with crazy harebrained plans that will get people killed. He literally wrote the book on the subject.
Via Politico, this one's a little water cooler gossipy, but also entertaining
Candidates for top jobs in President Donald Trump’s administration are getting spooked after Andrew Puzder’s nomination was scuttled, and they fear the White House isn't doing enough to protect them from grueling confirmations, according to several sources involved in the process.
The concerns are affecting not only some of the highest-profile nominations, including agriculture secretary pick Sonny Perdue, but also candidates for ambassadorships, judicial positions and other posts. The chill that’s settled in even has some people considering bowing out of contention, meaning Trump’s attempt to quickly fill his government could drag out even more.
[...]
Puzder’s decision Wednesday to withdraw as nominee for labor secretary after a series of damaging revelations came to light in recent weeks has further rattled some people considering taking Senate-confirmed jobs.
They worry that Democrats’ efforts to delay votes on nominees give opponents more time to shine a light on embarrassing opposition research and put pressure on moderate Republicans to vote “no.”
“We knew Puzder was going to be tough; there should have been a strategy to move ahead on the other ones,” said a former Trump transition official. “If you hang out on the ridge line, you’re going to get shot."
One person working for a Cabinet nominee complained that the nominee struggled to get White House officials on the phone and saw little public support from Trump even as the nominee was coming under constant fire from Senate Democrats.
An executive at a group that worked closely with one of Trump's nominees said the White House made little effort to coordinate its message with outside organizations.
“It’s their nominee. They have to run point. And they just weren’t,” the person said. “Usually you’ve got a White House political and communications operation that is reaching out to their allies as the ebb and flow transpires and asking groups to amplify or downplay or recharacterize certain things that are happening to their nominees. And that just wasn’t happening.”
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
They worry that Democrats’ efforts to delay votes on nominees give opponents more time to shine a light on embarrassing opposition research and put pressure on moderate Republicans to vote “no.”
"Something must be done! They might find out that we're actually completely unqualified!"
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
+61
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Those quotes and worries sound like a ringing endorsement for Democrats to continue using whatever procedural methods they can in slowing down Cabinet nominees, if they're that worried about people actually having enough time to uncover shit about the people they're picking for these positions.
Those quotes and worries sound like a ringing endorsement for Democrats to continue using whatever procedural methods they can in slowing down Cabinet nominees, if they're that worried about people actually having enough time to uncover shit about the people they're picking for these positions.
It's also an ongoing issue with Trump and his white house: They need to work with the larger Republican party to forward their agenda, but they are just not very good at their jobs, and they are not team players. Lots of Republicans are afraid of getting called out by Trump and getting challenged in the primaries... But it's all stick, Trump has no carrots to offer. That's only going to go so far if his popularity continues to decrease.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+14
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Those quotes and worries sound like a ringing endorsement for Democrats to continue using whatever procedural methods they can in slowing down Cabinet nominees, if they're that worried about people actually having enough time to uncover shit about the people they're picking for these positions.
10 minutes from someone that knows how to game Google's parsing can dig up enough crap to disqualify most of these chucklefucks, let alone a full on professional oppo team.
I want the Dems to show no mercy, go full Cobra Kai on them to the point where the Pubs will be begging to confirm Merrick Garland for, ostensibly, what is for now Gorsuch's seat to lose.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Those quotes and worries sound like a ringing endorsement for Democrats to continue using whatever procedural methods they can in slowing down Cabinet nominees, if they're that worried about people actually having enough time to uncover shit about the people they're picking for these positions.
It's also an ongoing issue with Trump and his white house: They need to work with the larger Republican party to forward their agenda, but they are just not very good at their jobs, and they are not team players. Lots of Republicans are afraid of getting called out by Trump and getting challenged in the primaries... But it's all stick, Trump has no carrots to offer. That's only going to go so far if his popularity continues to decrease.
Part of the problem is that the GOP hates him and has said so openly for a long time. They've recently tried to pretend they don't but for a long time they were out there calling him the worst names. And aside from the various other things this causes, the biggest impact is that Trump is surrounded by people who flocked to him early who are, because of the above point, by definition not popular or well connected within the GOP. He brought Preibus in to try and bridge this gap but as far as we know it hasn't worked in the slightest and Trump's people and Preibus' are completely at odds within the White House.
But the people who supported Trump first and the people he is surrounding himself with are largely not people with well connected ties to his party or who are well liked by it.
Posts
Reading up on McMaster and I don't get how he got the job. He seems like he'd be a good fit, which typically goes against everything we've seen so far.
You do realize that the US government is indeed footing the bill for he and his entourage to travel out there, right?
Here's a Cosmo report (that cites WaPo) that says the last 3 visits have cost an estimated $10 million US.
As I said earlier (perhaps it was in another thread), the Obama admin allegedly ran up around $100 million in travel expenses in eight years.
And Trump has pulled 10% of that off in one month.
And as I also noted, yes, it's still a rounding error in the overall budget. But for people who used to lose their minds over a little golf and an average of $1 million per month, this rather stands out in contrast.
Far as I recall, he's also charging the Secret Service rent at his NY tower where they're protecting Melania and Barron, so "do you think he's charging himself?" becomes a resounding 'yes'. It may be the usual market price or some such, but I would be shocked if he isn't recouping cash where he can.
He's a 3 Star general who was probably going to retire pretty soon due to a lack of advancement opportunities. But he wasn't really in a position to say no, since he was still active duty.
Plus, if anyone in the administration is actually rubbing two brain cells together, they knew they needed someone who looked completely above board because of the incoming Flynn shitstorm. He's their human shield.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Thanks for clarifying.
Trump will just ignore sane voices.
Yeah, he seems to represent the broken clock nature of this admin's appointments. Him and Mattis seem to be the 2 "right" choices thus far.
And the combination of them I think offers a great dichotomy of thought and approach to security issues. While Mattis is decidedly more hawkish, he's also a pragmatist and is not instinctively opposed to using diplomatic action in lieu of the truncheon as a tool of foreign policy and McMasters also knows that sometimes direct action can be necessary, but that such actions should be well planned, well executed, and the nearly last resort we reach for.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Yup. Bannon's Strategic Initiatives Group that is competing somewhat with the NSC is still around so Trump can just listen to them instead. Given Trump's predilections, Bannon will probably be able to appeal to Trump better than most people at the NSC.
I totally agree, but I don't think one recent retiree and one active duty staff officer with fairly differing views are the makings of a junta.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Can I ask, why is this the case? I know literally nothing about what is required of serving personnel.
At a guess, I would say he gets an order from his commander in chief - and refusing the post would mean he'd refuse a direct order. Which opens a whole can of worms.
It's my impression that, as a serviceman, when your Commander in Chief gives you an order you obey it (with exceptions for massive moral or ethical issues). Since Trump outranks him, he can basically order him into the cabinet. I think he needs a congressional waiver, though.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Nothing about Trump is, singularly, a complete change. His decision are several pebbles that can change the course of history in how we do things, though. His cabinet appointments and Congress being completely unable to really make any impact on it is significant. And tossing out all the basic rules that go with it is part of that.
No. The Congressional waiver is required of the secretary of defense. SecDef has to be "appointed from civilian life" and can't have served as a active duty commissioned officer within the last seven years. That's why Mattis needed a waiver.
National Security Advisor is not a cabinet position, it's an appointed executive position. McMaster doesn't need any kind of senate approval, and is in fact already in office.
I've had to explain poe's law to so many people in the last few months.
Resignation's always an option, and there was clearly some kind of negotiation if McMaster was granted commonsense staffing concessions that the previous candidates weren't. If Trump could just command him into the role he wouldn't have bothered with something like that.
Looks like Trump did some extreme vetting of McMaster before making his decision.
Trump is absurdly easy to manipulate. Just edit a wikipedia page around when he's having an aide print something out and you've got him.
Because it's a more impressive prop than waving your unsecured smartphone around.
That's not just Trump, that's a lot of older wealthy people who never had to learn how to run a computer because they always had a guy for that. It's a peculiar segment though. Older sub-wealthy and you had to learn because you didn't have a guy, while the young superrich are as computer literate as the rest of us youngs.
He also seems to have vision problems, which is a factor.
But that doesn't look like his wikipedia page?
Could just be an internal fact sheet in case he wanted to reference something. (Which he didn't because the font is too small. Also because it had "facts".)
This happened during the campaign as well, didn't it? He was caught reading the wikipedia page of an expected debate topic or something.
Quick, someone go edit the wikipedia pages on all of Trump's remaining nomination prospects.
They probably made a briefing document and grabbed the photo from wikipedia or from an internal picture (it's the pic used for his bio at the army agency he runs).
Here's an article detailing how the FDA approval works right now
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-fda-drug-approval-works-2017-2/
However Trump's most prominent pick currently for the FDA, Peter Thiel associate Jim O'Neill, wants to push forward a plan that will allow companies to sell the drugs before they can prove they're effective.
Less sensational potential picks seem to be Dr (MD) Scott Gottlieb, who worked in the FDA from 2003-'04 as senior advisor to the head of the FDA, and like several Trump nominees is a partner at a venture capital fund.
However, being less sensational also means we know little about his stances or positions on anything.
Better known, but still less sensational than O'Neill is Dr. Joseph Gulfo who is also a potential pick. He's worked for both conservative and left leaning think tanks, founded multiple medical companies, holds and MD and MBA, and has laid out his positions for what the FDA head should be. He wants to lower the efficacy standards, but not to the level that they're completely abandoned like O'Neill suggests.
Just so we remember what's at stake in this, an FOIA request recently uncovered the statistics and costs in human life of the babies who were killed by unregulated homeopathic "treatments".
We need someone in the chair who will expand the regulations into unregulated sectors, not make more unregulated sectors.
Also, was trump to change U.S.law to only demand safety rather than effacacy and safety, then all other countries (which sensibly have nationalized health care) would immediately stop recognizing FDA approval or investigations for their own districts. China especially would be thrilled to let its own regulatory agency rise to prominence as it would encourage companies to base their lobbying and regulatory arms in China.
U.S. companies gain a market advantage from the prominence of the fda and the many reciprocity agreements it enjoys. Once approval is found in the U.S., international approval is often a matter of providing appropriate forms and showing cost benefit ratios. If the fda because toothless then no-one would conduct drug research at U.S.hospitals.
These people really are the sort to ask "What have you done for me today?" aren't they?
There's no thought about the knock-on effects of what they're doing, no thought for more than five minutes into the future, and certainly no consideration of what their long term plan is aside from getting people into places where they can make decisions that Trump or someone else can tell them to make.
I always wondered what it would take to destroy society and here we are staring it in the eye.
I mean, drug companies are 100% aware that the fda is literally as on their side as it can possibly be while still being a well respected agency internationally. I expect if this starts to become a real thing that trump will get some calls from very serious folks saying that they don't actually want that, and if you pass it they will be moving to Canada etc. What they want is longer discovery patents and international protection against generics.
No no no no no no no. We cannot have a committee abbreviation that is SIG. Next thing you know we'll have the Homeland Emancipation and Innovation League.
I chalk this up to, 'Trump = Stupid'.
Someone like McMaster has probably had to deal with machismo idiots on a regular basis & learned how to manipulate them.
@Zibblsnrt His book is, 'Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam'.
It still feels pretty resonant & relevant today, with most other works about Vietnam focusing on the debauchery of Nixon & the Cambodia bombings. McMaster doesn't just go for the low hanging fruit, and speaks at length about the structural failures that led to the war, its escalations and the seemingly inescapable quagmire it became.
He has a PhD from one of the best military history programs in the country. UNC is up there with Harvard and Stanford in my view when it comes to this stuff.
Dude is a pretty amazing pick from all accounts.
Dude also seems like he is going to eventually tell Trump to jump off a cliff. He does not seem like someone to go along with crazy harebrained plans that will get people killed. He literally wrote the book on the subject.
"Something must be done! They might find out that we're actually completely unqualified!"
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It's also an ongoing issue with Trump and his white house: They need to work with the larger Republican party to forward their agenda, but they are just not very good at their jobs, and they are not team players. Lots of Republicans are afraid of getting called out by Trump and getting challenged in the primaries... But it's all stick, Trump has no carrots to offer. That's only going to go so far if his popularity continues to decrease.
10 minutes from someone that knows how to game Google's parsing can dig up enough crap to disqualify most of these chucklefucks, let alone a full on professional oppo team.
I want the Dems to show no mercy, go full Cobra Kai on them to the point where the Pubs will be begging to confirm Merrick Garland for, ostensibly, what is for now Gorsuch's seat to lose.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Part of the problem is that the GOP hates him and has said so openly for a long time. They've recently tried to pretend they don't but for a long time they were out there calling him the worst names. And aside from the various other things this causes, the biggest impact is that Trump is surrounded by people who flocked to him early who are, because of the above point, by definition not popular or well connected within the GOP. He brought Preibus in to try and bridge this gap but as far as we know it hasn't worked in the slightest and Trump's people and Preibus' are completely at odds within the White House.
But the people who supported Trump first and the people he is surrounding himself with are largely not people with well connected ties to his party or who are well liked by it.