If I were a US voter I would have reluctantly voted for Trump. I had no confidence in his opponent, but not a lot in him. Since the election, as a keen observer, I've been watching The Donald morph into what is starting to look like a pretty formidable President. The best place to see this is in his choices for the various cabinet positions. It suggests he really does want to drain the swamp.

You can see the enthusiasm for his approach in the Dow Jones which is soaring. The US might be back in business.

Here is a list of the appointments so far. What do you think?
VP
Mike Pence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence

Secretaries
State
Rex Tillerson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson
Treasury
Steven Mnuchin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mnuchin
Defence
James Mattis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mattis
Jeff Sessions AG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions
Interior
Cathy McMorris Rodgers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers
Wilbur Ross Commerce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Ross
Labor
Andrew Puzder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Puzder
Health
Tom Price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Price_(U.S._politician%2529
Ben Carson Housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
Transportation
Elaine Chao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Chao
Education
DeVos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos Betsy
Homeland Security
John F. Kelly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kelly_(Marine%252

I was a lukewarm Trumpian from the outset as he seemed to be the only Republican available who offered a workable solution to the myriad problems that had beset the US under its previous three presidents. I became more enthusiastic about him once he started to flesh out his thoughts with scripted speeches such as his foreign policy speech in April (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8RqLN3Qao).

This is a presidency that came about through a radical understanding as to how to campaign ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/#76cf02b2f50f) and will adopt radical procedures to implement its aims. We'll hear a lot about him not being 'presidential' because he doesn't think like a politician. The president will be the CEO and rely heavily on his immediate subordinates to implement their shared agenda. As such look to these various secretaries to have a larger degree of autonomy than we've been used to over the past decade, while being kept on a short leash. We, and they, know that failure will be a sacking offence, despite the optics.

As to the personnel, its hard to quibble. One of the problems with bringing in a Tillerson type, is the possibility that they get swallowed up in the byzantine DC bureaucracy. But there is enough 'insider' knowledge in the likes of Pence, Chao and Sessions to combat such problems. As well, it seems that there is a significant knowledge-base below the secretary level who will hold the hands of the uninitiated while being dedicated to the agenda. As such, the potential benefits of an acknowledged international player like Tillerson, greatly outweighs the risks, real as they are.

/cont

/cont

Clearly Trump has three overriding objects: get on top of the immigration problem, reboot the economy and rationalise the US position in the world. Congress still carries the risk of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, but its hard to see it standing against Trump, Sessions, Kelly et al on immigration. Trump understands that energy policy is crucial to the economic reboot and he now has the people in place (including Pruitt) to make the US a world leader in that regard.

Given Australia's growing problems with our education systems, I'm particularly interested in how, and if, DeVos addresses her ideas on school voucher systems. We may well see a real-life experiment in new education thinking that could radically change our own funding arrangements.

This is a very different type of leadership group and the problems it'll face are formidable since it still has to deal with a politician dominated Congress. It could easily go pear-shaped but I'm very optimistic.

Obviously no thinking person could have voted for Hillary, but I will admit to having my doubts about Trump also.

I've been holding my breath, waiting to see if he actually lived up to any, or most of his promises. So far he is looking even better than I have hoped. Lucky US, they got the Trump, & we got the loser.

Hi Graham,

I don't think that Donald Trump would have
gotten this far if he were lacking in
intelligence. The New York Times tells us
that he is the first non-politician to be
elected President since Dwight Eisenhower.

I tend to agree with the New York Times summation
that President elect, Donald Trump very likely
knows what the rest of us know - that some of the
things he promised to do in order to get elected
make no sense. For that reason alone
he may not do them. There's also the fact that
even a Republican Congress may resist his policies,
for example - funding the construction of the
proposed wall bordering Mexico.

Time will undoubtedly tell. However, Trump just may
surprise us all.

The US election isn't quite over just yet.
Trump needs to get the 270 college votes on December 19, then he needs to make it to inauguration day on Jan 20.
There are a lot of potential electors among the college vote who may be prepared to cross over and support Hillary Clinton in a 'conscience' type vote.(bribes, deals, whatever)
Some states carry penalties but they're only small.
Many in the independent media have reported a soft coup by Hillary in play.

They're opinion is that the globalists haven't done everything they've done to lose control now and see Donald Trump reverse everything back towards nationalism / populism.

Apparently (don't quote me) she needs 32 electoral college votes but even is she gets them congress can still block the move.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-13/soft-coup-builds-more-electors-demand-russian-interference-briefing-they-vote

Maybe they are looking for a reason that they can justify voting for Hillary?
- That's what all this so-called electoral rigging by Russia is actually about. And the 'Hillary won the popular vote' thing too. It's clear there was vote anomalies favoring Hillary, plus the illegals, dead people, and people who were being bused from one polling booth to another...
The truth is she shouldn't have even won the nomination, stats actually showed Bernie Sanders should've won (but that's history now).
The recounts were an attempt to tie those states up in litigation to close the college vote gap for Hillary.

Stein was never challenging the electoral outcome, she made 6mil from donations and US electoral law says if you retire from politics you can keep your unused 'war chest'.
There's talk some of the states are pretty peeved about the costs though and might make her pay for the recount.

And if this Hillary soft-coup thing doesn't work and stop Trump, they may yet JFK him.
It know it probably sounds a little bit doubtful but that's what I'm hearing.