I listened (again) to what Napolitano said about the hacking blamed on the Russians. Back in August he commented on the situation explaining that there are two aspects of this issue. One is "hacking", where a foreign operator breaks into someone's communications system and makes changes that the owners cannot detect, and "leaking", where someone on the inside of the system, or someone from the outside breaks into the system and leaks information that they find. Bolton, many months ago, suggested that it might be someone inside the NSA that is definitely not a Hillary fan, could be responsible. There is a fine line distinguishing the two but there is a difference legally. Napolitano has not said that it was the Russians.
Not only that, the CIA has zero proof of it being the Russians. They think it is but that's all the proof they have.
With all the business people with no government experience being placed in the cabinet, anyone else see similarities to this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Orders
With the election of Trump what we see coming out of the woodwork are the termites that are afraid of their own shadow. As Trump makes selections for his cabinet all we hear are the fearsome cries of the status quo lovers claiming "that guy he nominated is wrong for the job," or, that guy will drive us into war or, that guy is a Russian puppet or all the other completely baseless claims coming from those died in the wool Trump haters that hate him for no other reason than simple fear that he might prove them wrong and end up a good President. Not very many of the naysayers have a clue about these appointments or what kind of job they'll do. I guess all these yo yos have a secret crystal ball that they're working with that tells them what the future holds. Personally, I'm getting really tired of all the useless bitching and moaning.
I don't get the issue with Rex Tillerson. There aren't many options when it comes to dealing with the Ruskies. I'm afraid our (and others) inaction when Crimea took place has sealed the fate for that portion of Ukraine. Now the best we can do is make sure that Ukraine, itself, remains intact. That will take either dealing with the Russians or entering into some form of war (either proxy or otherwise). I myself prefer to deal, of course Ukraine has a great deal to say about this. Other hot-spots are likely to be next, like the Baltic states. We had better get ahead on this or the same thing may happen there. Putin is a regrettable fact of life, he has effectively cemented his position in Russia and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Going at him head-on only makes matters worse. I'm not saying we should cave like Chamberlain did 75 years ago, we know where that leads. Dealing from a position of strength is the only other option to containing Russia's expansion agenda.
I dont get the Rex pick at all... so he has some connections in Russia? What else is there? This is the first pick where I'm really scratching my head wondering wtf. Russia isnt the only country in the world. Seems a bit myopic, but I'll reserve complete judgement until we hear their argument.
Considering the fact that Putin is doing what he thinks is right for himself and his country, why not have someone in place (Tillerson) who feels the same about his country, and is on a more friendly basis with Putin, do the dealing with him? Having a friendly face to look at over the table makes it easier to come to agreements than having a scowling face that obviously doesn't think much of him. It seems that a lot of people think that Tillerson is going to give away the farm simply because he's friendly with Putin. I have faith that Tillerson will do right by his own country.
If we're gonna go that route, then I submit this: http://designated-survivor.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Kirkman Ben "The Anti-Pythagoras" Carson could actually end up President.
I'm going with "ability to negotiate trade" as his strong point. And, like I said in the other thread, he's probably as good as any in that regard. I'm just shaky on other matters of state. For example, negotiating with our allies to relocate equipment or troops for NATO or providing adequate security/logistics for our diplomats who are caught in hotspots because we sent them there. In my head (and maybe this is wrong), it seems like a completely different discipline to me... That said, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State... so... maybe Tillerson's not so bad... On a different note, who'd want to be Secretary of State right after the whole email server/lost email thing? Talk about living under a microscope.
To understand it, you have to realize that the world makes it's biggest power decisions based on oil. Follow the money. This Rex guy is a powerful move since he has been a power player on a global level for a long time. Crying about his relationship with Russia is just more screaming and crying from the losers and is a distraction. The deal is, trump just picked a powerful and experienced mofo to do our negotiating and it's fucking brilliant. The loser left is freaking out because they know that seriously good shit is going to happen for us and they are going to look even worse. Just start researching Tillerson, you will see that he is a big player on a global level and Trump is a winning machine.
Tillerson has been all over the world for Exxon, not just Russia....It's just that Russia is a better scare story for the MSM than say Nigeria or Saudi Arabia.....
Russia is white and Christian. Whining about the other two would be racist or Islamaphobic, and no Dem / lefty could EVER do that!
The Japanese dude putting a plane into the Capitol Building (making Ryan President which led to the book you linked). 7 or so years later we have 9/11. Clancy is good at figuring out what crazy people can do.