India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 22 Nov 2016 10:57

hnair wrote: She sounds like the first woman President of America

There would be competition from Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley, it seems like..

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Nov 2016 15:10

True that!
But she has to walk that fine line between the Dems and Republicans now.

Trump has to prove himself, he is an unknown entity. It is unclear if association with him will be career building or career destroying for someone so precariously placed as Tulsi.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Nov 2016 15:12

For Tulsi, the Democratic party has all but disowned her. Only Bernie sanders and his support base remains, and her own base in Hawaii and the some of the military folks.
I was just looking at the twitter feeds of the news that she met with trump. There was NOT ONE favourable comment on her in some of the people's reactions - smacked of outright bigotry there.

She is so eminently capable and qualified, but is also eminently disadvantaged because of her sex, religion and skin color

Tulsi Gabbard and Paul Ryan are the people to watch out for for the future

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 22 Nov 2016 15:58

Tulsi wont become a President as the centrist parties in the west are loosing their support base. It just as much true for US as any other western country.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 22 Nov 2016 17:55

Arjun wrote:
hnair wrote: She sounds like the first woman President of America
There would be competition from Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley, it seems like..

elizabeth warren will be popular with the bernie crowd. for the dem party, everything is up in the air. whoever manages to lead the party to mid term victory will get in a good position for 2020.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 22 Nov 2016 21:44

CRamS wrote:
The biggest myth perpetuated, either deliberately or due to incompetent polling and election modeling, is that Trump has no support among college educated whites and women including white women across the board. In reality, whites, both educated and uneducated, male and female voted for Trump overwhelmingly.

That is somewhat inaccurate depiction. Only whites without college degree overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Whites with college degree voted narrowly for Trump, 49 - 45, smaller than historical numbers.

Pew Research

Among whites, Trump won an overwhelming share of those without a college degree; and among white college graduates – a group that many identified as key for a potential Clinton victory – Trump outperformed Clinton by a narrow 4-point margin.

Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group. In 2012 and 2008, non-college whites also preferred the Republican over the Democratic candidate but by less one-sided margins (61%-36% and 58%-40%, respectively).

Trump won whites with a college degree 49% to 45%. In 2012, Romney won college whites by a somewhat wider margin in 2012 (56%-42%). Trump’s advantage among this group is the same as John McCain’s margin in 2008 (51%-47%).

Due largely to the dramatic movement among whites with no college degree, the gap between college and non-college whites is wider in 2016 than in any past election dating to 1980.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 22 Nov 2016 22:28

Dipanker wrote:That is somewhat inaccurate depiction. Only whites without college degree overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Whites with college degree voted narrowly for Trump, 49 - 45, smaller than historical numbers.

The "narrowness ïs due to the women. White college educated males voted for Trump 54% to 39%

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 23 Nov 2016 03:21

Arjun wrote:
Dipanker wrote:That is somewhat inaccurate depiction. Only whites without college degree overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Whites with college degree voted narrowly for Trump, 49 - 45, smaller than historical numbers.
The "narrowness ïs due to the women. White college educated males voted for Trump 54% to 39%

Corollary of that would be that white women voted for Hillary in greater number.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 23 Nov 2016 06:45

Dipanker wrote:
Corollary of that would be that white women voted for Hillary in greater number.

Is it because they're more passionate ?
...and, of course, the 1st female POTUS thing.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 23 Nov 2016 07:06

Dipanker wrote:
Arjun wrote: The "narrowness ïs due to the women. White college educated males voted for Trump 54% to 39%
Corollary of that would be that white women voted for Hillary in greater number.

Obviously...only to be expected.

I am glad that the Dems, after putting up a historic woman candidate have retained their 'progressiveness' and put a Black Muslim in charge. All the best to you in next elections !

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 23 Nov 2016 15:03

More white women voted for Donald Trump than for Hillary Clinton

Trump fared well with women voters despite sex assault claims

"What we learned yesterday is that angry white women have political power too ... and if you allow yourself to forget about women, you are going to lose. This is what happened to Hillary." - Juliet Williams, professor of gender studies at UCLA

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 23 Nov 2016 17:36

PratikDas wrote:More white women voted for Donald Trump than for Hillary Clinton

I still feel the liberals quoted here don't get it. I am no way supporting Trumpets politics.

Trump’s success amongst white women, said Mikki Kendall, a feminist cultural critic, was evidence that many white women weren’t bothered by his comments toward women, and that they “don’t think racism is a big deal.”

“For them, it’s not real. They don’t have to worry about it, so you must be exaggerating. It’s Ivanka Trump [saying], ‘I’ve never had to deal with sexual harassment,’ and she’s only worked for her dad and companies she’s owned … It’s not like the patriarchy stops because you have a vagina,” Kendall explained.

They might have been bothered by Trumpet's comments on women but economic factors like job/pay were more troubling to them. Similarly even when his comments about Latinos were offensive these women understand that more immigration means more competition for jobs for themselves and their children. The so called liberals/progressives talk of all issues in black and white / for or against / with me or against me kind of rhetoric but in actual life one has to deal with various shades of Grey.

“Sixty-three percent of white men said, ‘If I can’t be in charge, burn it down — which surprised exactly no one.” Watch Bee’s full monologue below.

Another rant. The so called liberals/progressives first say that white men don't matter to their kind of politics and totally cut them off. When the white man, left to fend for himself, backs an anti-establishment candidate he is charged with trying to "burn down the house". Also, to be noted is that white women, half of who voted for Trumpet, are given a free pass in some commentary because it would spoil the narrative of Angry White male as the curse of American society.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 23 Nov 2016 17:53

PratikDas wrote:Trump fared well with women voters despite sex assault claims

This one is much much better.

Experts said the outcome is not surprising, and reflects an election in which issues about the economy, jobs and immigration were much higher on all voters' priority list than gender issues.

"At the heart of it is what was driving all voters," said Diane Heith, professor and chair of the Department of Government and Politics at St. John's University in New York.

<snip>

"There was no sisterhood created," Heith said. "The issue of how he treated women did not overshadow the attitudes these individuals already had -- being disaffected and how they had been treated by the establishment elite of which Hillary was absolutely part of."

However, some still expected the issue of womanhood to over ride everything else.

"White women sold out their fellow women, their country, and themselves last night," added the author. "Most white women don’t want to be part of an intersectional feminist sisterhood. Most white women just want to be one of the guys. And we will all suffer for it."

This lady is right in the first part but the first part of the last line is illuminating. "Angry white women" where taken for granted with the assumption that "feminist sisterhood" talk was all that was need to rope them in.

"A narrative about this election took hold very early on and that narrative was that Trump was mobilizing the angry white man vote, with angry white men (such as) coal miners in West Virginia or unemployed auto workers in Michigan," Williams said.

"Frankly, all of us on the right and the left really should have wondered what the angry white vote means," she added.

"What we learned yesterday is that angry white women have political power too ... and if you allow yourself to forget about women, you are going to lose. This is what happened to Hillary."

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 23 Nov 2016 18:57

Nikki Haley is new UN ambassador of the US. Thats a important position. How does it fit into Indian geo political intentions/ambitions?

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 23 Nov 2016 19:12

i wouldn't read much into that from an Indian perspective.

What Trumpet has ~~done~~ tried to do is toss a bone to the colored and women folks.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Nov 2016 19:21

pankajs wrote:i wouldn't read much into that from an Indian perspective.

What Trumpet has ~~done~~ tried to do is toss a bone to the colored and women folks.

Indeed, and not to rehash old discussions, that Nikki chic herself is a female version of a rank Uncle Tom, a wannabe white Christian nationalist. DDM will go berserk next few days

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/uspol ... 161123.htm

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Nov 2016 19:29

pankajs wrote:
"White women sold out their fellow women, their country, and themselves last night," added the author. "Most white women don’t want to be part of an intersectional feminist sisterhood. Most white women just want to be one of the guys. And we will all suffer for it."
This lady is right in the first part but the first part of the last line is illuminating. "Angry white women" where taken for granted with the assumption that "feminist sisterhood" talk was all that was need to rope them in.

This feminist sisterhood BS is only taken seriously and blindly imitated by elite SDRE women in developing countries like India. First and foremost, issues concerning women are not monolithic. What trumped the vote in favor of Trump is white Christian nationalism and white women are as Christian nationalist as their guy counterparts. This is quite different from some abstract notion of women sisterhood.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Nov 2016 20:14

Obama laid the foundation for this failure.

And Hillary built the house.

Bill: the doorman.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 23 Nov 2016 21:09

Not sure why Nikki Haley gave up Governership of S Carolina for this relatively lightweight position...perhaps the deal was that with this exposure to international relations she could emerge as contender down the road for Sec of State.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Nov 2016 21:48

Arjun wrote:Not sure why Nikki Haley gave up Governership of S Carolina for this relatively lightweight position...perhaps the deal was that with this exposure to international relations she could emerge as contender down the road for Sec of State.

It may have been an "offer she couldn't refuse".

Nikki took a bold and risky step indeed, by being a coloured woman governor who ordered that the Confederate Flag be taken down from state buildings in South Carolina. She also volubly opposed Donald Trump during the primaries. Therefore, she is not someone DT would like to see remain in a position where she might actively influence domestic US politics.

If you look at the US Ambassador to UN post, it's mostly a showpiece and political cul-de-sac. Obama put Samantha Powers there and she was never seen or heard of again other than in incidental news stories about the UN bleat-bleat. John Bolton, too, was considered too kooky even by his fellow neocons for a position of real consequence... and shunted away to this backwater during the George W Bush administration.

So DT's team might have essentially told Nikki: take it or leave it. "Take it" is a win-win whereby a token brown person gets an important-sounding appointment and is simultaneously removed from a position of influencing heartland US politics one way or the other. "Leave it", and Nikki would have found herself facing full-throated racist, tea-party opposition to her governorship candidacy next time around, a la Eric Cantor. With Washington, the White House and the RNC backing her opponent to the hilt... a one-way ticket to political oblivion.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Nov 2016 22:20

Nikki Haley's backing of Rubio was politically stupid. I thought back then that she wouldn't have much of a future b/c her political instincts are pretty bad.

Her and the South carolina clique of Gowdy and Scott jumped into the Rubio ship. The whole thing was phenomenally stupid. Scott and Gowdy will get on their knees and beg forgiveness. But Haley went too far in her criticism of Trump. Frankly, I'm even surprised that he's giving her the time of the day.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Nov 2016 22:22

Rudradev wrote: Not sure why Nikki Haley gave up Governership of S Carolina for this relatively lightweight position...perhaps the deal was that with this exposure to international relations she could emerge as contender down the road for Sec of State.

It may have been an "offer she couldn't refuse".

Look broadly
It is connected to India and UNSC seat.
Also the GOP and GOTUS wants a public figure to connect with Indians worldwide. Indians are with GOP - statement has to be made.
Women leadership to Indian origin is also another angle to give signal to Indian women leadership.

LokeshC · Post by **LokeshC** » 23 Nov 2016 22:23

Errrrr. Are we that important?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Nov 2016 22:24

Good question

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Nov 2016 01:00

LokeshC wrote:Errrrr. Are we that important?

Getting there , May be , sure , yea, GOP needs model minority inside than singing outside. Paki are already whining that Hindoi and Christoi both agree on removing Jihadi from world scene.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 24 Nov 2016 01:10

Rudradev wrote:
Arjun wrote:Not sure why Nikki Haley gave up Governership of S Carolina for this relatively lightweight position...perhaps the deal was that with this exposure to international relations she could emerge as contender down the road for Sec of State.
It may have been an "offer she couldn't refuse".

Nikki took a bold and risky step indeed, by being a coloured woman governor who ordered that the Confederate Flag be taken down from state buildings in South Carolina. She also volubly opposed Donald Trump during the primaries. Therefore, she is not someone DT would like to see remain in a position where she might actively influence domestic US politics.

If you look at the US Ambassador to UN post, it's mostly a showpiece and political cul-de-sac. Obama put Samantha Powers there and she was never seen or heard of again other than in incidental news stories about the UN bleat-bleat. John Bolton, too, was considered too kooky even by his fellow neocons for a position of real consequence... and shunted away to this backwater during the George W Bush administration.

So DT's team might have essentially told Nikki: take it or leave it. "Take it" is a win-win whereby a token brown person gets an important-sounding appointment and is simultaneously removed from a position of influencing heartland US politics one way or the other. "Leave it", and Nikki would have found herself facing full-throated racist, tea-party opposition to her governorship candidacy next time around, a la Eric Cantor. With Washington, the White House and the RNC backing her opponent to the hilt... a one-way ticket to political oblivion.

Disagree. Nikki Haley was strong enough to win S. Caroline without the help of the tea party or Trump. She can win again. She should decline this post and make her own fortunes as she has done in the past. They want her out of South Caroline and give the governorship to someone they like. They fear Haley continueing her governship. She should turn it down.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 24 Nov 2016 18:42

LokeshC wrote:Errrrr. Are we that important?

In the opinion of trend watchers and super forecasters, WE are incredibly important.

durairaaj · Post by **durairaaj** » 24 Nov 2016 18:58

Hitesh wrote:
Rudradev wrote:
It may have been an "offer she couldn't refuse".

Nikki took a bold and risky step indeed, by being a coloured woman governor who ordered that the Confederate Flag be taken down from state buildings in South Carolina. She also volubly opposed Donald Trump during the primaries. Therefore, she is not someone DT would like to see remain in a position where she might actively influence domestic US politics.

If you look at the US Ambassador to UN post, it's mostly a showpiece and political cul-de-sac. ...
Disagree. Nikki Haley was strong enough to win S. Caroline without the help of the tea party or Trump. She can win again. ...

I agree. They want to handover the Governorship to Lt. Gov Mc Master a white republican. She should consider declining the post and instead run for senator position later.

UN ambassadorship is a toothless show piece that also says that how Trump will treat UN in the neat future.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 24 Nov 2016 19:56

svinayak wrote: Look broadly
It is connected to India and UNSC seat.
Also the GOP and GOTUS wants a public figure to connect with Indians worldwide. Indians are with GOP - statement has to be made.
Women leadership to Indian origin is also another angle to give signal to Indian women leadership.

It definitely, looks connected to India, but doubtful about UNSC seat. Hope it is also for UNSC. The negative fallout is Nikki Haley will be used as poster child and utilized for maximum psy-ops inside India, about wimmen power. There is already, hope lost on Raoul, so lot of effort from the India's rascal gang is gearing to project Bianca ~~Borgia~~ Maiano Gandhi, as Indira. This will be very useful to peddle and put lipstick on the India's Borgia's clan. Lot of wheels within wheels. Presstitutes in India will have prolonged orgasm, at such a prospect. Wheels have been set in motion, to salvage the clan.

Trump succumbing to NYT is a pointer to how deepstate will and can operate. Need to be careful about wishful thinking about UNSC. China will promptly act as bad cop to scuttle any moves along with all weather friend Russia secretly despising India's influence and scuttle. Most of what US can do will be window dressing.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 24 Nov 2016 20:53

svinayak wrote: Look broadly
It is connected to India and UNSC seat.
Also the GOP and GOTUS wants a public figure to connect with Indians worldwide. Indians are with GOP - statement has to be made.
Women leadership to Indian origin is also another angle to give signal to Indian women leadership.

Give me a break. This kind of a statement reminds me of a rabid India hating witch who used to write for NYT. Her name is Barbara Crosette. At a time when India was still considered at best a land of curry and snake charmers, she came out with a piddly book full of India hate and she gave an examples of India policy makers' delusion regarding India's non aligned position, its moral posturing, and self importance. (Notwithstanding her India hatred, it was hard to disagree with the examples). She gave several examples of where as usual Uncle and his side-kicks at the UN would sponsor some resolution, India was hardly a bit player in those negotiations with the west hardly paying any attention to India, and yet in Delhi, among the elites, it was fashionable to declare that "ultimately this resolution will pass only if India and other non aligned countries sign on". She was lamenting the self delusion.

Likewise, you need a reality check. India is farthest from the minds of Trump's and Nikki Haley (she has long ago abandoned her Indian roots and become an honorary white Christian). I wonder how you could even draw this conclusion based on some completely irrelevant observations. Its like saying the spike in the sale of orange juice in Florida is because of the spike in the sale of condoms in San Francisco. I mean sure, these are two separate events, and both might be factual, but what has one got to do with the other?

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 24 Nov 2016 21:00

Isn't it that this is last term for Nikki as Governor and she can't get elected to the post because of term restriction or is it only for Presidents ?
So maybe she is giving up tops 2 more years of Governorship in return for a more global role and then can come back as Senator or Sec-State in the next admin. I am sure she would have considered her options better than anyone of us sitting here.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 Nov 2016 21:13

Yes, she couldn't have run for Governor anycase in 2018.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Nov 2016 22:49

There is still a good chance that Tulsi Gabbard can get the Secretary of State portfolio. That would be a lot more compatible with Indian interests than Nikki Haley at the UN.

Trump would probably go with the showmanship than with some grey old man as S.o.S.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 25 Nov 2016 00:19

Wilbur Ross expected to be named Commerce Sec ! He made boatloads of money exiting from his investments, many of them to Indian firms (Mittal Steel, Sun Group for Spicejet)...so should have good memories of India. Does the H1-B visa issue come under domain of commerce department ?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 25 Nov 2016 00:50

CRamS wrote: India is farthest from the minds of Trump's and Nikki Haley (she has long ago abandoned her Indian roots and become an honorary white Christian). I wonder how you could even draw this conclusion based on some completely irrelevant observations.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/ ... rival.html

The third reason for New Delhi to clap is her track record of being extremely supportive of India's concerns and sensitivities in matters concerning our national interests, whether they be on trade and commerce or geo-strategy or terrorism from the across the border from Pakistan. The fourth is the reportedly excellent rapport Nikki Haley shares with the Modi Government, and particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This should help India push its agenda at the United Nations, particularly on the frozen Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT). One fervently hopes she will demonstrate the push that is needed from the world's only superpower to make the CCIT into reality. Since the US's efforts alone will not make this happen, Haley will have to persuade other member-countries to do their bit. It will be interesting to see how she manages to deal with intransigent nations like China, which continue to poke not just India but the US as well. Given Trump's promised aggression, Haley will have to walk on old landmines, and lay some new ones.

From the Indian perspective, what is of key importance is how Haley manages the India-Pakistan relations. While the US has the long-held position that the Kashmir issue is for New Delhi and Pakistan to resolve through bilateral mechanisms, there are related matters where her position, emanating from those of the Trump Administration, will be keenly watched in India. President-elect Trump has already indicated at taking a hard line on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism affecting not just India but Afghanistan and Bangladesh too (both incidentally are close friends of India). It will be left to Haley to pursue aggressively diplomatic measures at the UN forum to name and isolate Islamabad if the latter refuses or fails to mend its ways. Given that she too enjoys, for whatever reasons, a hard line image on this issue, New Delhi can expect some fireworks. But then all of these possibilities are, well, in the realm of possibilities.

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 25 Nov 2016 02:56

I wouldn't project any benefits to India in any of these appointments. India, does not have the pull to influence any appointments in massa. At best, these kind of appointments would generate some temporary goodwill. At worst, these kind of appointees could be mutu and screw us.

DT is doing what he wants/needs to do.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 25 Nov 2016 05:52

^+1.

Anyone recall the righteous joy with which Dick Verma's descent into Delhi was greeted with, here on BRF? Why not the same level of scepticism for 'em PIO'd neo-Trumpeteers?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 27 Nov 2016 06:09

I wouldn't say that India does not have much say in the US. The Indian community over time has built up a very solid image and is now increasingly influential politically as well - note the very public contribution of Shalabh Kumar to Trump's campaign - this will certainly count for something.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Nov 2016 10:15

I wouldn't say that India does not have much say in the US.

India has no say. NRIs have very little to no say. Over the years NRIs have contributed financially, but have relatively little influence. The generation/s that are born in the US have begun to contribute, but I very much doubt they have "India" in mind. My unscientific data leans extremely heavily towards NRIs not thinking of India while voting. With DT I think even the pivot is gone. I doubt DT cares for Aussies, Japan, etc, so he will let India drift too. And, DT will not care for Indian political sentiments, nor things like NSG or SC seat. He will build a few Towers in India and have Indians pay for them , standard ops.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Nov 2016 10:21

VikasRaina wrote:Isn't it that this is last term for Nikki as Governor and she can't get elected to the post because of term restriction or is it only for Presidents ?
So maybe she is giving up tops 2 more years of Governorship in return for a more global role and then can come back as Senator or Sec-State in the next admin. I am sure she would have considered her options better than anyone of us sitting here.

SC has term limits of 2 years for the gov, but she can run after one term. So that state has 2 terms on, one term off.