monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Is there news about Mr. Trump's plans to upgrade our nukes?

Donald Trump Calls for Expansion of Nuclear-Weapon Capabilities

Updated Dec. 22, 2016 5:02 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump said in a cryptic tweet on Thursday that he supports an expansion of U.S. nuclear-weapon capabilities,...

Poor defense. I want evidence and facts, not your opinion.

Well, it's probably not "news" at this point, but, yeah....

Quote:

Donald Trump Calls for Expansion of Nuclear-Weapon Capabilities

Updated Dec. 22, 2016 5:02 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump said in a cryptic tweet on Thursday that he supports an expansion of U.S. nuclear-weapon capabilities,...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-calls-for-expansion-of-nuclear-weapon-capabilities-1482443444

Are there any details about what that means though? It could mean almost anything.

I find it fascinating that the very strident voices being raised against Trump fail to recognize the degree to which their own exaggerated indignation and behavior in reaction to his actions duplicates the same ego centrism and authoritarianism of which they so lavishly accuse him.

Us Americans don't understand what "propaganda" really is.

It won't be necessary because I've no interest in engaging with a minor propagandist who fancies himself important.

Quote:

Us Americans don't understand what "propaganda" really is.

Golly. Not true at all. When you come over to visit, you can go through my library and take notes on books/authors available.

In dozens of hours of audio recordings reviewed by USA TODAY of his Breitbart News Daily radio show in 2015 and 2016, Bannon told his listeners that the United States and the Western world are engaged in a “global existential war,” and he entertained claims that a “fifth column” of Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated the U.S. government and news media. Those recordings, preserved online, offer an often unfiltered window into the thinking of Trump’s interview-averse senior adviser.

...During an interview in February 2016, Bannon expressed alarm about China and Islam as he talked about a Breitbart story proclaiming a mosque at the North Pole, although it was actually in a northern Canadian village hundreds of miles away.

“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian West is on the retreat,” he said. “Talk to us about this mosque on the North Pole.”

Yates was an Obama holdover [asked to stay on temporarily]; she was expected to keep the Justice Department running until the Trump team had been confirmed. She might have seen herself as without a mandate. She might have thought that she had no choice but to support the new President when he signed an order that, though gussied up with a supposed temporary focus on dangerous lands, laid the basis for a religious test on immigration and for institutionalized discrimination against certain legal residents—not to mention the spectre of family division and the possible abandonment of America’s treaty obligations. When lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups rushed to court to challenge the executive order, and U.S. Attorneys assembled lawyers to defend it, Yates could have sent federal attorneys into court, if only to go through the motions. She wouldn’t have had to do anything but mourn the harm to ordinary lives and to America’s values. Perhaps no one would have blamed her. Or she could have garnered all the praise she needed, in her circles, by resigning in a muted fashion and then, as a private citizen, writing an op-ed or giving an interview, maybe even an enraged one. Yates did something different: she decided that her job, her official position, not her policy beliefs or even the dictates of her conscience, required that she defy the President.

...This could all be seen as a particularly dramatic resignation letter. There can’t be any doubt that Yates was going to be out of a job soon after she sent it—this Monday Night Massacre, despite the Nixonian parallels, should come as less of a surprise than the original Saturday-night version, given everything that we already know about Trump. But, by daring Trump to fire her, and for doing her job until and despite his decision to do so, Yates made a powerful statement about the profession of politics itself. A large part of it is the ever more essential struggle to keep careerism and partisanship from blinding one to citizenship and principle. (Paul Ryan and a lot of his colleagues have failed this test.) But there is also, for those who form the moving parts of our constitutional machinery, a question of the duty one has—and to what, and to whom.

Trump has an easy answer: to him. In the White House statement regarding the matter, released on Monday night, he made it clear that he confuses constitutional obligations with personal obedience. “The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” it said. “Betrayed” is a shocking word here, particularly given the suggestion that she is indifferent to American lives, suggesting as it does that she ought to be seen as a traitor to her country, rather than a dissenter. (As a prosecutor, she helped win the conviction of Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber.) And, indeed, the statement goes on to say that Yates “is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.” Does Trump really know that about her? Does he know anything about her, other than that she didn’t listen to him?