President-Elect Trump criticized the intelligence community for having fake reports and allowing those reports to leak. He conducted his own “leak” fishing expedition and plugged the leak—or “caught, fired, and fried” the leak. If he can find his leaks with no power of the pen, why can’t the “intelligence” people find their leaks? That must be Trump’s question, anyway. Of course he Tweeted against the agencies.
Is it wrong for a president-elect to criticize people he can soon fire? There is no way that this president-elect has criticized his soon-to-be subordinates as much as the soon-to-be ex-president will continue to criticize without end. Obama plans to stay in Washington, and it isn’t because he likes gazing at the Eisenhower Building.
When Brennan lectures, “It’s more than about Mr. Trump; it’s about the United States of America,” he’s talking about his future boss. That’s not right or wrong; that’s just not smart. Even Comey was smart enough not to go up against Obama. Maybe Brennan expects to be fired anyway.
A lot of people aren’t thinking about what will happen when the man they continue to criticize becomes president. They weren’t thinking about all the deals they made that weren’t going to last. Whether the trade deals were good or bad, Americans were never going to tolerate China and Mexico taking American jobs forever. Clinton’s and Bush’s and Obama’s trade deals weren’t going to last. But, people didn’t see that either. They didn’t see a lot of stuff that was coming. That’s somewhat of a unifying quality among the anti-Trumpists. It still is, apparently.
Ford’s move to do exactly what Trump anticipated—while claiming they made the move independently of Trump—raises deeper questions. “Only” investing $700M in Michigan rather than $1.6B in Mexico should have made sense all along—unless the real reason Ford planned to move to Mexico was about confidence in the future American economy.
American confidence seems to be up. Construction companies think so, at least.
Not much else has dominated US political-economic news, except a Texan visit from Taiwan’s president. With all the good things happening, there just isn’t much news to report.
Beijing continues rattling prototype sabers over Trump’s talk and his walk. The Trump cabinet will be packed with savvy Secretaries who are wise to bad deals. People who want good deals will be supportive. People who want bad deals will object. Everyone has made his own position clear. Now, it’s time to see whose ideas will work and whose will produce change, not mere talk of change.
At the close of WWII, General Eisenhower ordered that as many pictures be taken of the Jewish Holocaust as possible because, so he explained, “some bastard will say this never happened.” Soon, Trump’s opponents, both in America and around the world, will try to claim that they “always supported” him. But, they are already on record.
The WWII Jewish Holocaust came up in Taiwan, however. Probably innocence fueled by ignorance and driven by anti-Simetic propaganda led teachers to approve a Nazi-style parade in a Taiwanese school courtyard at an assembly. The students didn’t know how bad it was. The teachers at the private school probably didn’t know either—even though it was their job as teachers to know history. It is worth mention that private schools in Taiwan usually are a “lower quality” than private schools in the West, which are considered for the “elite”. Taiwan is very misunderstood, but now Taiwan has misunderstood Israel. Outrage sparked across the nation.
Taiwan’s president is taking heavy action, demanding apologies to Israel and cutting whatever funding the private school received. But, therein lies the new dilemma. Since Beijing objects to Taiwan’s president giving a common courtesy call to America’s new president, will Beijing object to Taiwan apologizing directly to Israel for selectively portraying events in WWII? That would paint Beijing as anti-Simetic. If Beijing does not object, then their own objection to the Tsai-Trump phone call would be self-invalidated by mere precedent. If Beijing says nothing, it will surely face more opposition from anti-Semitic groups.
But, then we have Israel’s position. Israel does not recognize Taiwan as a state. Israel has its own dissident states that refuse to recognize Israel. So, the golden rule, “love your neighbor as yourself” raises interesting questions about whether Israel has a double standard. Taiwan has suffered its own holocaust—though on a much smaller scale—from the Chinese Nationalists who seized Taiwan assets and slaughtered Taiwanese. Remember, “Nazi” means “National-Socialist” and German National-Socialist seizure of Jewish property paid for 30% of Germany’s action in WWII, according to studies. There are many other striking similarities between Taiwan and Israel, though the two are nowhere new identical.
Now, with Taiwan’s honest-innocent mistake facing fierce self-correction, Taiwanese support for Israel is seen loudly throughout the globe. We are now at a point where Beijing’s policy toward Taiwan is a catch-22 and it is now in Israel’s self-interest to formally recognize the island that bears such relevant likeness to itself. No matter what the decision is, the people will know, and public support will swing more toward both Israel and Taiwan.
Socialists worldwide claimed Trump would be bad for America and predicted his loss in the election; Russia probably would think the same and try to help him. If Russia aimed to help Trump, that would be yet one more mistake on behalf of the global club of socialists—both official and unofficial. There is no news here, though many report it as such.
The faithless elector movement has already found it’s scrutiny, already fulfilling Symphony’s prediction from just last week. Their point man is reported as a would-be fraud. And, the dwindling movement itself does not include most of the people who voted against Trump. These are only the few who don’t know how to accept loss.
The anti-Trump alarmism has an interesting history since his announcement to run. Trump makes public comments that reflect a private self-talk of “no excuse, no whining, and know which battles you’ll lose”; his opponents lost, don’t seem to know it, make progressively-more dramatic excuses of how it’s “someone else’s fault” (this time the Russians), and won’t stop whining. They seem to follow the Kübler-Ross five-stages of grief. This current suspicion of the Russians has a few contradictions…
In the “election hack” narrative, no one claims that votes were directly altered. Though, precincts in Wisconsin had more Republican votes than registered voters and Democratic precincts in Detroit had something similar. Both parties can thank Hillary for exposing those precincts in her generous reverence for honesty—but, we don’t hear much thanks.
The purported “bias” in the leaked-hacked info. implies that an unbiased leak would have been preferable. And, it ignores the reversed bias from the American media, not to mention its failure to recognize the use of “fear marketing” from the Trump opposition.
Moreover, the clearer influence of Russian propaganda has always been in sectors of education, where the Constitution is attacked, turning points in American history are left out, and Communism is touted as an ideal theory. Those who opposed Trump seem to agree with one or more of those talking points, but only seem concerned as if Russia wanted to pick and choose candidates rather than sowing doubt of the entire process itself; and they certainly show no concern for the Russian influence in their own ideology. The Russian-conspiracy theorists should suspect themselves most of all—and they will, sooner or later.
It’s clear that China doesn’t want Trump to become the next US president. Beijing’s concerns over US politicians’ views has the Chinese media in full-swing.
Rather than being worried about a Chinese influence in US elections, the deeper concern is with Russia. But, if the Russians hacked the election to help Trump, that would mean the Russians were working against the will of their new best friends in China. Since unproven suspicions are on the table, let’s invent a more unfounded suspicion: The Chinese hacked the election to support Hillary and made it look like the Russians did it—but that couldn’t be true. One suspicion has seemingly faked evidence, the other has a motive, neither is substantial. In the end, one thing is clear: Asia wishes it could influence US elections more than it can. And, here we are.
Japan’s conflict with China also escalates. Chinese money is moving out of China. And, Trump’s battle of Boeing is, of course, influence by Boeing’s presence in China. The world has become significantly smaller, but that news only hit headlines this week.
Pentagon waste topped $125 billion and someone tried to cover it up. Trump complained about $4 billion with Boeing. That could mean that he is focused on details too-small or that he is minding the pennies so the dollars will take care of themselves.
The Hillary-backed recount included the Republican House Speaker’s district and was shut-down by a Democratic White House controlled federal judge after Hillary’s Republican opponent gained votes—and no one thought the whole incident to be suspicious.
Casting doubt on Trump’s legitimacy is one suspicion that sits among others. If the Russians were so uncharacteristically sloppy in their appearance of an election hack, then Liberals, along with the Democratic White House controlled CIA, suspecting the hack are doing what the Russians wanted. The accusation that the Russians hacked the election would actually indite the incumbent administration.
Post-election opposition to Donald Trump is ripening into form. There are two ends of the “business man” spectrum: good and bad, both morally and effectively. The bad business leaders don’t make a good product and only make gains—or more often than not minimize losses—by strong arming, cutting smoke-filled back room deals, and hostile takeover methods. The good business leaders make a great product that people want to buy and lead a company that people want to work for.
We have Bill Gates at one end—with a company some people want to work for and a product no one looks forward to purchasing (let alone updating)—and then Steve Jobs at the other—with a company many people want to work for and a product even the competition idolizes. In the most recent presidential elections, the wealthy candidates had the Clintons and Bushes at one end, Trump at the other, and Ross Perrot in the middle.
The concept doesn’t only apply to business, but also non-profits and governments. Dishonest leaders have to be dishonest because they don’t have the work ethic or “market smarts” to make money the so-called “honest way”. The honest leaders prefer the “honest way” because it’s easier for them—that’s what they have gotten good at: building an organization that really does something well.
As with having bad credit, being bad at what someone does is a kind of “security risk”. Leaders who don’t know how to lead will tend to find alternative ways of getting the appearance of good results. But, leaders who know what they are doing are less likely to be dishonest, unethical, or corrupt.
Trump says things in public that he says to himself to keep himself motivated and on course. “Go-getters” and fired-up entrepreneurs recognized what Trump said in what they tell themselves daily: Don’t accept excuses for failure, especially from yourself.
Most people don’t see a difference from one wealthy man to the next. The loud voices complaining about Donald Trump especially can’t tell this difference. They thought they were so right in their theory that they couldn’t see that their theory lacked the ability to understand what made the candidates different nor to foresee who would win the election. Now that their theory has been proven wrong, some are listening while others are balling-up in panic so they can continue to tell themselves they are right in the face of mounting evidence.
The faithless electors vowing to vote against Trump even before the electoral college meets in mid December are making a big mistake. We can only break the glass once and they will be made examples of to maintain the integrity of future elections. Their concerns about foreign influence and making dangerous statements applied to many previous presidents much more so than Trump. But, that is difficult to identify for people who don’t see how apply the polarized relationship between Gates and Jobs.
