Why do you think Gabbard will get axed? Personally, I could see her foreign-policy views pissing off the more neo-con factions of the GOP. But that's assuming anyone's really paying attention to that sorta thing.
I think if I was writing a dystopian screenplay about a literal fascist takeover of America based on current real-life politics, Tulsi Gabbard is who I would cast in the fuhrer role.
And another sex scandal by a Trump nominee. Apparently, The New Yorker Magazine in 2020, reported Kimberly Guilfoyle, Trump's nominee as Ambassador to Greece, was forced out of Fox News after one of her assistants accused her of sexual harassment. Guilfoyle would have the assistant work at Guilfoyle's home. Guilfoyle would often expose herself and show pictures of gentiles of the men she had intercourse with. Fox News paid this staffer $4 mil to keep it from going to court and fired Guilfoyle. Guilfoile denies everything and said she left Fox voluntarily. The report has now been picked up by the Daily Beast. The New Yorker report is behind a paywall.
Ms Guilfoyle has been the main squeeze of Donald J Trump Jr., but they have apparently broken up.
But, I do wonder if Don Jr.'s balls were part of the pictures Guilfoyle showed the assistant.
Ms Guilfoyle has been the main squeeze of Donald J Trump Jr., but they have apparently broken up.
Ambassadorships have long been a way to reward powerful campaign supporters. This is the first time I've heard of the U.S. diplomatic corps being used as a dumping ground to get the president's kid's inconvenient exes out of the country.
The idea of using the American military in a holy war would be unnerving. I really hope H3gseth is not voted in.
The problem for Republican Senators is Trump has threatened to post challengers in their next primaries if they vote against his nominees. But I really think his power is beginning to ebb. I know I have said this before, but the Senate has already stood up to him over Gaetz; he is going to find he cannot automatically change the constitution over birthright citizenship, the education department cannot be eliminated with the stroke of a pen, in two years a new Congress will be seated, etc.
The idea of using the American military in a holy war would be unnerving. I really hope H3gseth is not voted in.
The problem for Republican Senators is Trump has threatened to post challengers in their next primaries if they vote against his nominees. But I really think his power is beginning to ebb. I know I have said this before, but the Senate has already stood up to him over Gaetz; he is going to find he cannot automatically change the constitution over birthright citizenship, the education department cannot be eliminated with the stroke of a pen, in two years a new Congress will be seated, etc.
Gaetz was a special case. Even though he's from the House, he's thoroughly disliked in the Senate as well. Stupid stunts in one house tend to bleed over into the other. I'm not sure we can count on that level of antipathy towards other nominees.
I am reminded about something Seymour Hersh said about the Nixon Administration.
“The abiding characteristic of this Administration is that it lies”.
It’s a confident expectation that such will be the abiding characteristic of the incoming Trump administration. Which makes Kari Lake a perfect fit for the role so far as that administration is concerned. As well as a perfectly disastrous choice for anyone who wishes the VOA (and its reputation) well.
In the first Trump administration there were a few “adults in the room”. Are there any this time?
As far as I'm concerned, during Trump's first term, "adults in the room" just meant something like "Administration officials who still supported GW Bush's foreign policy".
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
Compared to Trump, I’d say Bolton was an adult in the room.
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
Compared to Trump, I’d say Bolton was an adult in the room.
Well, for example, did you support the termination of the Iran nuclear deal? Because, in my view, that was one of the absolute worst decisions made by that administration, and Bolton was AT LEAST as enthusiastic about it as Trump was.
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
Compared to Trump, I’d say Bolton was an adult in the room.
Well, for example, did you support the termination of the Iran nuclear deal? Because, in my view, that was one of the absolute worst decisions made by that administration, and Bolton was AT LEAST as enthusiastic about it as Trump was.
“Adults in the room” hardly means “perfect adults.” It just means “more sense and experience compared to the others in the room,” and it is specifically a comment on the others in the room not acting like adults rather than an affirmation of the wisdom of those considered adults by comparison. You seem to be taking it way too literally.
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
Compared to Trump, I’d say Bolton was an adult in the room.
Well, for example, did you support the termination of the Iran nuclear deal? Because, in my view, that was one of the absolute worst decisions made by that administration, and Bolton was AT LEAST as enthusiastic about it as Trump was.
“Adults in the room” hardly means “perfect adults.” It just means “more sense and experience compared to the others in the room,” and it is specifically a comment on the others in the room not acting like adults rather than an affirmation of the wisdom of those considered adults by comparison. You seem to be taking it way too literally.
My understanding of the term is that it was used to mean people who could act as a restraining force on Trump's most reckless impulses, specifically because of the relative degree of "sense and experience" you reference. Because otherwise there's not much point in commending them for having that "sense and experience".
Long and the short, I personally don't know of many, if any, instances of Bolton pushing the administration in a better direction, but a few of him doing the opposite.
I really think you’re giving the phrase a lot more import than it’s intended to convey. And I stand by my take that the most important part of the phrase, as used of the administration prior to the current administration, is the unspoken “compared to Trump.”
I really think you’re giving the phrase a lot more import than it’s intended to convey. And I stand by my take that the most important part of the phrase, as used of the administration prior to the current administration, is the unspoken “compared to Trump.”
Okay, but what specific examples would you cite to show that Bolton was better compared to Trump?
@stetson: The first Trump administration did not begin and end with John Bolton. If you haven't seen it, I recommend a New Yorker piece from a few years ago, Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals -- behind a paywall, but the magazine gives you a few free clicks.
But go ahead and spend time now moaning about how bad those years were, get it out of your system, because things are going to get a whole lot worse starting on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
I really think you’re giving the phrase a lot more import than it’s intended to convey. And I stand by my take that the most important part of the phrase, as used of the administration prior to the current administration, is the unspoken “compared to Trump.”
Okay, but what specific examples would you cite to show that Bolton was better compared to Trump?
That unlike Trump, Bolton’s emotional maturity progressed beyond 5 years old?
It still seems to me that you’re overthinking this. This is shorthand, not an actual academic or journalistic take on pros and cons.
Look, I think Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all made some stupid and terrible decisions that I disagreed with and continue to disagree with strongly. I’d still say that compared to Trump, they’d be “adults in the room,” because while their decisions may have been deeply flawed and misguided, they were, for the most part, at least prompted by what they thought was in the best interests of the country, compared to Trump’s arrested-development approach that he’s all that matters.
I really think you’re giving the phrase a lot more import than it’s intended to convey. And I stand by my take that the most important part of the phrase, as used of the administration prior to the current administration, is the unspoken “compared to Trump.”
Okay, but what specific examples would you cite to show that Bolton was better compared to Trump?
That unlike Trump, Bolton’s emotional maturity progressed beyond 5 years old?
It still seems to me that you’re overthinking this. This is shorthand, not an actual academic or journalistic take on pros and cons.
Well, you're the one who decided to defend the proposition that Bolton was "one of the adults in the room", so I assumed you must think it makes some actual, tangible difference in policy, beyond just an abstract personality descriptor.
Otherwise, what's the point of the personality comparison? It's like saying you think Jones is a better driver than Smith, because Jones is calm and collected whereas Smith is a screaming ninny, without actually citing anything about their respective driving records.
But here. Lemme help ya out...
STETSON: Bolton was no better than Trump. Look at the trashing of the Iran nuclear deal. And moving the embassy to Jerusalem. He went along with all that stuff.
SOMEBODY ELSE: True, but he also tried to dissuade Trump from meeting with Kim Jeong Un, a meeting which only served to validate a totalitarian dictatorship, with no benefit for either the USA, the ROK, or the suffering people of North Korea.
Now, as it happens, I disagree six ways to Sunday with the opinion I have Somebody Else expressing there, but it's the kind of substantive example I was looking for.
Yes, I know John Bolton wasn't the sum totality of the Trump administration. But, in contrast to the implications of "adult in the room", in my view he went along with and encouraged some of the worst things the administration did, and I'm hard pressed to think of any positive contributions to balance that off.
If it makes you feel better. But it seems like a lot of words in response to “you’re overthinking this.”
(And yes, I know it’s the kind of substantive answer you were looking for. I could have cited it as an example, and even thought about doing so. Your citation of it does suggest my citation of it was unnecessary, because you already knew answers. My point wasn’t so much that the phrase is an abstract personality descriptor as that it’s not something you arrive at by making pros-and-cons lists. In the case of a president, it’s about judgment and an understanding of limits of the office.)
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
Compared to Trump, I’d say Bolton was an adult in the room.
Heck, Dick Cheney was against Trump winning a second term. When Dick Cheney and (for instance) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agree on something...
I really think you’re giving the phrase a lot more import than it’s intended to convey. And I stand by my take that the most important part of the phrase, as used of the administration prior to the current administration, is the unspoken “compared to Trump.”
Okay, but what specific examples would you cite to show that Bolton was better compared to Trump?
That unlike Trump, Bolton’s emotional maturity progressed beyond 5 years old?
It still seems to me that you’re overthinking this. This is shorthand, not an actual academic or journalistic take on pros and cons.
Look, I think Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all made some stupid and terrible decisions that I disagreed with and continue to disagree with strongly. I’d still say that compared to Trump, they’d be “adults in the room,” because while their decisions may have been deeply flawed and misguided, they were, for the most part, at least prompted by what they thought was in the best interests of the country, compared to Trump’s arrested-development approach that he’s all that matters.
Exactly. I don't remember who said it, but I recall someone saying, "I never thought I'd long for the quiet statesmanship of George W. Bush."
They were more than that as far as I'm concerned. They were the folks who told him he shouldn't invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the 82nd Airborne against George Floyd protesters, among other things.
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
Compared to Trump, I’d say Bolton was an adult in the room.
Heck, Dick Cheney was against Trump winning a second term. When Dick Cheney and (for instance) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agree on something...
I actually still think Cheney was worse than Trump. But my attitude toward his pro-Harris endorsement was: "Trump is capable of doing way more damage right now than a retired Dick Cheney is, and since some people seem to think, however wrongly, that Cheney's basically a cool guy, if his statement helps keep Trump out of office, I can live with that."
Turns out it didn't work, probably because, even among the non-haters, Cheney isn't held in particularly high esteem. Probably just a colourless, mostly forgotten bureaucratic figure who happened to be the warm pitcher of spit for a while in the 2000s.
The final vote on Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense will be tomorrow. Two GOP Senators, Collins and Markowski, have said they will vote against him. He survived a procedural vote this evening 51 to 49. Could there be another two Senators who can stand up to him?
The final vote on Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense will be tomorrow. Two GOP Senators, Collins and Markowski, have said they will vote against him. He survived a procedural vote this evening 51 to 49. Could there be another two Senators who can stand up to him?
I don't think Churchill (who invented the post of Minister of Defence) had any qualifications either, apart from total self-belief. Fortunately he had General Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, who was prepared to stand up to him (and answered to the King). Is anyone in Washington able to stand up to Hegseth and Trump?
Umm. Churchill had extensive experience with your military, serving in the Army in India and the second Boar War. He held a number of civilian positions in both Liberal and Conservative governments. During WWI he had positions related the the military. Somewhere along the lines he became the Lord of the First Admiralty of the Navy--that did not go so well. But he had a number of posts in the Secretary of State. He had a tonne of experience in government.
This is compared to Hegseth who rose to the rank of Major in the Army National Guard and then became a talking head on a conservative TV network.
Can anyone stand up to Trump and Hegseth? They had a retired Marine General on NBC last night (I forget her name). She pointed out the military is very professional. They will follow orders as long as they are legal and ethical. However, Hegseth and Trump's next step is to fire all the woke Generals (they already fired the former commander of the Coast Guard). We will see where this will end up.
With Mitch McDonnald voting with the Democrats, it just might loosen up other Republican Senators regards other Trump appointments, such as RKjr's nomination for Health and Human Services, and for FBI, and Director of Intelligence/
Personally, I think Hegseth will not make it a year before he is drummed out of office for drinking on the job.
Churchill thought he had inherited the military genius of the Duke of Marlborough. Ke hadn't. Brooke says he had no understanding of the importance of logistics in modern warfare.
Returning to the topic of Trump's government appointees--Hegseth never got to the point of being a proven strategist, much required as Secretary of the Department of Defense.
Brooke's point was not strategy, but practicality, given the resouces available. But yes, he was a bitter man, and with reason. And I am pursUing a tangent.
Bumping this back up, though I wish I could still use the Hegseth thread. But this does involve other members of the cabinet and/or members of the administration.
The acting inspector of the Pentagon has now said he is going to take a look at the Signal exchange about Yemen now at the request of the cochair of the Senate Armed Forces Commission. On NPR this morning, in the 1A news round up, one of the talking heads commented there is a key difference in what the Pentagon IG said. He said he would evaluate the incident versus he would investigate the incident, as if to say the IG is not thinking it rises to a violation of the law.
But, in the ongoing conversation on 1A, it seems that there may be twenty other incidents where battle plans were discussed on Signal.
Then to, there seems to have been discussions on gmail about Russia, China, Ukraine as well by other members of the cabinet.
Now, to me, there are two explanations to why this is happening.
Both Signal and Gmail are outside the control of the National Archives which is tasked with keeping record of government communications.
Then too, this goes to show how the members of the administration care less about government security.
Remember when the Right Wingnuts called for Ms Clinton to be locked up because of her use of a private internet server. Funny, how they are now silent about their people using public social media outlets to do the same thing, if not worse.
Of course, Trump says he knows nothing about this. Reminds me of the character Oberfeldwebel Schultz, the German POW sergeant in the series Hogan's Heros. Trump even looks like Schultz except Donal has hair.
... to prevent their communications from being preserved as required by the Presidential Records Act, and avoid them being discoverable in litigation, or subject to a subpoena or Freedom of Information Act request.
Comments
Thanks.
I think if I was writing a dystopian screenplay about a literal fascist takeover of America based on current real-life politics, Tulsi Gabbard is who I would cast in the fuhrer role.
Hey, I think this could be worked into a 1970s gorefest horror flick.
Carrie Lake
Ms Guilfoyle has been the main squeeze of Donald J Trump Jr., but they have apparently broken up.
But, I do wonder if Don Jr.'s balls were part of the pictures Guilfoyle showed the assistant.
I don't usually comment on typos but this one made me smile.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-hegseths-controversial-religious-views-could-affect-military-leadership
Ambassadorships have long been a way to reward powerful campaign supporters. This is the first time I've heard of the U.S. diplomatic corps being used as a dumping ground to get the president's kid's inconvenient exes out of the country.
The problem for Republican Senators is Trump has threatened to post challengers in their next primaries if they vote against his nominees. But I really think his power is beginning to ebb. I know I have said this before, but the Senate has already stood up to him over Gaetz; he is going to find he cannot automatically change the constitution over birthright citizenship, the education department cannot be eliminated with the stroke of a pen, in two years a new Congress will be seated, etc.
Gaetz was a special case. Even though he's from the House, he's thoroughly disliked in the Senate as well. Stupid stunts in one house tend to bleed over into the other. I'm not sure we can count on that level of antipathy towards other nominees.
They are not yet in the room.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/12/12/heres-why-kari-lakes-nomination-as-voice-of-america-director-is-raising-alarms/
I am reminded about something Seymour Hersh said about the Nixon Administration.
“The abiding characteristic of this Administration is that it lies”.
It’s a confident expectation that such will be the abiding characteristic of the incoming Trump administration. Which makes Kari Lake a perfect fit for the role so far as that administration is concerned. As well as a perfectly disastrous choice for anyone who wishes the VOA (and its reputation) well.
As far as I'm concerned, during Trump's first term, "adults in the room" just meant something like "Administration officials who still supported GW Bush's foreign policy".
Could be. My opinion on the phrase might be somewhat coloured by having heard John Bolton described as such.
Well, for example, did you support the termination of the Iran nuclear deal? Because, in my view, that was one of the absolute worst decisions made by that administration, and Bolton was AT LEAST as enthusiastic about it as Trump was.
My understanding of the term is that it was used to mean people who could act as a restraining force on Trump's most reckless impulses, specifically because of the relative degree of "sense and experience" you reference. Because otherwise there's not much point in commending them for having that "sense and experience".
Long and the short, I personally don't know of many, if any, instances of Bolton pushing the administration in a better direction, but a few of him doing the opposite.
So yeah, no. He was pretty much on side with some of the worst stuff that happened.
Okay, but what specific examples would you cite to show that Bolton was better compared to Trump?
But go ahead and spend time now moaning about how bad those years were, get it out of your system, because things are going to get a whole lot worse starting on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
It still seems to me that you’re overthinking this. This is shorthand, not an actual academic or journalistic take on pros and cons.
Look, I think Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all made some stupid and terrible decisions that I disagreed with and continue to disagree with strongly. I’d still say that compared to Trump, they’d be “adults in the room,” because while their decisions may have been deeply flawed and misguided, they were, for the most part, at least prompted by what they thought was in the best interests of the country, compared to Trump’s arrested-development approach that he’s all that matters.
Well, you're the one who decided to defend the proposition that Bolton was "one of the adults in the room", so I assumed you must think it makes some actual, tangible difference in policy, beyond just an abstract personality descriptor.
Otherwise, what's the point of the personality comparison? It's like saying you think Jones is a better driver than Smith, because Jones is calm and collected whereas Smith is a screaming ninny, without actually citing anything about their respective driving records.
But here. Lemme help ya out...
STETSON: Bolton was no better than Trump. Look at the trashing of the Iran nuclear deal. And moving the embassy to Jerusalem. He went along with all that stuff.
SOMEBODY ELSE: True, but he also tried to dissuade Trump from meeting with Kim Jeong Un, a meeting which only served to validate a totalitarian dictatorship, with no benefit for either the USA, the ROK, or the suffering people of North Korea.
Now, as it happens, I disagree six ways to Sunday with the opinion I have Somebody Else expressing there, but it's the kind of substantive example I was looking for.
And that's my good deed for the day.
@Ruth
Yes, I know John Bolton wasn't the sum totality of the Trump administration. But, in contrast to the implications of "adult in the room", in my view he went along with and encouraged some of the worst things the administration did, and I'm hard pressed to think of any positive contributions to balance that off.
But thanks for the article. I'll give it a look.
(And yes, I know it’s the kind of substantive answer you were looking for. I could have cited it as an example, and even thought about doing so. Your citation of it does suggest my citation of it was unnecessary, because you already knew answers. My point wasn’t so much that the phrase is an abstract personality descriptor as that it’s not something you arrive at by making pros-and-cons lists. In the case of a president, it’s about judgment and an understanding of limits of the office.)
Heck, Dick Cheney was against Trump winning a second term. When Dick Cheney and (for instance) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agree on something...
Exactly. I don't remember who said it, but I recall someone saying, "I never thought I'd long for the quiet statesmanship of George W. Bush."
I actually still think Cheney was worse than Trump. But my attitude toward his pro-Harris endorsement was: "Trump is capable of doing way more damage right now than a retired Dick Cheney is, and since some people seem to think, however wrongly, that Cheney's basically a cool guy, if his statement helps keep Trump out of office, I can live with that."
Turns out it didn't work, probably because, even among the non-haters, Cheney isn't held in particularly high esteem. Probably just a colourless, mostly forgotten bureaucratic figure who happened to be the warm pitcher of spit for a while in the 2000s.
Only one, apparently. Mitch McConnell joined Collins, Murkowski, and every Senate Democrat in voting against Hegseth. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to confirm Hegseth, despite very credible allegations of drunkenness, sexual abuse, and a total lack of qualifications.
This is compared to Hegseth who rose to the rank of Major in the Army National Guard and then became a talking head on a conservative TV network.
Can anyone stand up to Trump and Hegseth? They had a retired Marine General on NBC last night (I forget her name). She pointed out the military is very professional. They will follow orders as long as they are legal and ethical. However, Hegseth and Trump's next step is to fire all the woke Generals (they already fired the former commander of the Coast Guard). We will see where this will end up.
With Mitch McDonnald voting with the Democrats, it just might loosen up other Republican Senators regards other Trump appointments, such as RKjr's nomination for Health and Human Services, and for FBI, and Director of Intelligence/
Personally, I think Hegseth will not make it a year before he is drummed out of office for drinking on the job.
Returning to the topic of Trump's government appointees--Hegseth never got to the point of being a proven strategist, much required as Secretary of the Department of Defense.
The acting inspector of the Pentagon has now said he is going to take a look at the Signal exchange about Yemen now at the request of the cochair of the Senate Armed Forces Commission. On NPR this morning, in the 1A news round up, one of the talking heads commented there is a key difference in what the Pentagon IG said. He said he would evaluate the incident versus he would investigate the incident, as if to say the IG is not thinking it rises to a violation of the law.
But, in the ongoing conversation on 1A, it seems that there may be twenty other incidents where battle plans were discussed on Signal.
Then to, there seems to have been discussions on gmail about Russia, China, Ukraine as well by other members of the cabinet.
Now, to me, there are two explanations to why this is happening.
Both Signal and Gmail are outside the control of the National Archives which is tasked with keeping record of government communications.
Then too, this goes to show how the members of the administration care less about government security.
Remember when the Right Wingnuts called for Ms Clinton to be locked up because of her use of a private internet server. Funny, how they are now silent about their people using public social media outlets to do the same thing, if not worse.
Of course, Trump says he knows nothing about this. Reminds me of the character Oberfeldwebel Schultz, the German POW sergeant in the series Hogan's Heros. Trump even looks like Schultz except Donal has hair.
Let it go, Gramps.
So good of you to give your expert interpretation.
Hell, no. I am not letting it go. It was a legitimate thread, and you killed it.
Never said I was an expert, just gave my opinion. If it is too much for you, you have a problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/05/why-trump-administration-used-signal-hegseth-gabbard