Trump's cabinet

[zoogs]

I just hope Trump spends a lot more time around Obama. Maybe they'll keep in touch. He'd be a good influence, and some of that just might rub off.

[jsneb83]

 

 

 

 

 

Reince Cheif of Staff. But Banning Cheif Strategist. God help us all...

 

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/797917368189992960

Great picks by Trump. Priebus deserves a medal for managing the RNC during both the wild and crazy primary season as well as this general election. He could have sabotaged Trump's chances of winning the nomination just as DWS did on the Democratic side, but he listened to the will of the people and now is being rewarded for his efforts.

Explain how Bannon is a great pick.

 

Bannon doesn't think I'm as good as you are. Because I don't have a penis or testicles.

 

 

I can't believe how much people write off a person's words. A person's words show what/who they will and will not fight for.

Many in Obama's current cabinet are pro-secular

That's a bad thing?

 

Didn't you know church and state go hand in hand?

 

Yeah, it even says so in the Constitution, oh wait...

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I just hope Trump spends a lot more time around Obama. Maybe they'll keep in touch. He'd be a good influence.

 

From what I've heard from Trump since meeting with Obama on Thursday and in the 60 Minutes interview tonight, he seems to (gasp) like President Obama.

[zoogs]

 

I just hope Trump spends a lot more time around Obama. Maybe they'll keep in touch. He'd be a good influence.

From what I've heard from Trump since meeting with Obama on Thursday and in the 60 Minutes interview tonight, he seems to (gasp) like President Obama.

 

Yes, and that's encouraging -- although I'm also skeptical. Trump will say anything about anybody; he's shown himself to be quite mercurial. I've seen little reason yet to suspect he won't go back to calling him a failed President and a disaster if Obama ever hints at criticizing him.

 

But for now, a popular sitting President...liking him is useful. And so are these small signals of normalcy. Like oh, how charming -- Melania and "Mrs. O" are getting along famously.

 

Only time will tell. Trump, I think, is suspicious enough of the Republican establishment that Obama does have some opportunity to really win him over.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I feel like the beginning of Trump's presidency is going to be like watching a child go through all their firsts, and there *WILL* definitely come moments in which Trump won't be able to get exactly what he wants or be able to do exactly what he wants to do. For example, you violate the Geneva Convention and you bet your ass you're going to be impeached. No, if Trump and his advisers truly want to be nefarious, they'll have to do it insidiously.

 

I'm anxious about what is going to happen, but will keep an open mind towards the policies emerging from Congress and from his office. They won't all be bad, but it'll just be a matter of if the good can outweigh the bad.

[zoogs]

Would the Republicans /ever/ impeach their own President, though? There's no historical basis for this, and recent evidence in particular is lacking that they would do it for any reason. America does have a history of flouting international pressure, on the other hand; I'm not sure that's important either to those in power or the people. (I realize Geneva was only an example)

 

The only way I can see the GOP abandoning Trump is if he fails to be a reliable advocate for their policy. This creates strong and dangerous incentives both ways: a Party that contorts and excuses him as he contravenes whatever norms, and a President that pushes their policy to enjoy his continued free reign. Such a partnership would even be mutually beneficial.

 

This would be more speculative if it weren't already the story of his candidacy.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reince Cheif of Staff. But Banning Cheif Strategist. God help us all...

 

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/797917368189992960

Great picks by Trump. Priebus deserves a medal for managing the RNC during both the wild and crazy primary season as well as this general election. He could have sabotaged Trump's chances of winning the nomination just as DWS did on the Democratic side, but he listened to the will of the people and now is being rewarded for his efforts.

Explain how Bannon is a great pick.

 

Bannon doesn't think I'm as good as you are. Because I don't have a penis or testicles.

 

 

I can't believe how much people write off a person's words. A person's words show what/who they will and will not fight for.

Oh give me a break...now playing the gender card. We've already heard some pundits claim Hillary lost because of sexism, Van Jones claimed is was because of a whitelash (despite the fact that blacks have voted for the Democratic candidate for decades by a much higher margin), and on and on. Many in Obama's current cabinet are pro-secular and think right-wing evangelicals are wacko and have made such statements over the years. Valerie Jarrett is to the left what Bannon is to the right...both play to the base and are focused on appeasing the base.

So. I take you don't have an answer to what makes Bannon a great pick.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

 

Reince Cheif of Staff. But Banning Cheif Strategist. God help us all...

 

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/797917368189992960

Great picks by Trump. Priebus deserves a medal for managing the RNC during both the wild and crazy primary season as well as this general election. He could have sabotaged Trump's chances of winning the nomination just as DWS did on the Democratic side, but he listened to the will of the people and now is being rewarded for his efforts.

Explain how Bannon is a great pick.

 

Bannon doesn't think I'm as good as you are. Because I don't have a penis or testicles.

 

 

I can't believe how much people write off a person's words. A person's words show what/who they will and will not fight for.

Oh give me a break...now playing the gender card. We've already heard some pundits claim Hillary lost because of sexism, Van Jones claimed is was because of a whitelash (despite the fact that blacks have voted for the Democratic candidate for decades by a much higher margin), and on and on. Many in Obama's current cabinet are pro-secular and think right-wing evangelicals are wacko and have made such statements over the years. Valerie Jarrett is to the left what Bannon is to the right...both play to the base and are focused on appeasing the base.

So. I take you don't have an answer to what makes Bannon a great pick.

 

there isn't one. Bannon was a terrible pick. This is like having communist Van Jones in the White House but to the right. I was glad to hear Pence is taking over the Transition team but I would bet this choice of Bannon is all Trump's.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reince Cheif of Staff. But Banning Cheif Strategist. God help us all...

 

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/797917368189992960

Great picks by Trump. Priebus deserves a medal for managing the RNC during both the wild and crazy primary season as well as this general election. He could have sabotaged Trump's chances of winning the nomination just as DWS did on the Democratic side, but he listened to the will of the people and now is being rewarded for his efforts.

Explain how Bannon is a great pick.

 

Bannon doesn't think I'm as good as you are. Because I don't have a penis or testicles.

 

 

I can't believe how much people write off a person's words. A person's words show what/who they will and will not fight for.

Oh give me a break...now playing the gender card. We've already heard some pundits claim Hillary lost because of sexism, Van Jones claimed is was because of a whitelash (despite the fact that blacks have voted for the Democratic candidate for decades by a much higher margin), and on and on. Many in Obama's current cabinet are pro-secular and think right-wing evangelicals are wacko and have made such statements over the years. Valerie Jarrett is to the left what Bannon is to the right...both play to the base and are focused on appeasing the base.

So that makes Bannon, known misogynist and anti-Semite, an appropriate pick as a policy adviser?! That's absurd!

 

Also, you'd think--with a good relationship with Israel being a top priority of Republicans, that having Bannon as a policy adviser wouldn't send the best of messages to Israel.

At work on my phone so difficult to reply to all the groupthink happening in here, but whatever I see trending on sites like Huffington Post are being regurgitated here. The level of freak out taking place by the left right now is epic. Everyone needs to just take a deep breath andfollow the advice of Hillary and Obama to give Trumpnq chance. The left claims to be the "open minded" party but that only seems to apply when everything falls in line with their own beliefs. Its a new day in America...rather than fighting it, embrace it.

[zoogs]

I'm not familiar with Van, so in the spirit of rationality over sensationalism --the same spirit that would see Breitbart for what it has become -- why is he a communist?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

Reince Cheif of Staff. But Banning Cheif Strategist. God help us all...https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/797917368189992960

Great picks by Trump. Priebus deserves a medal for managing the RNC during both the wild and crazy primary season as well as this general election. He could have sabotaged Trump's chances of winning the nomination just as DWS did on the Democratic side, but he listened to the will of the people and now is being rewarded for his efforts.

Explain how Bannon is a great pick.

Bannon doesn't think I'm as good as you are. Because I don't have a penis or testicles.

I can't believe how much people write off a person's words. A person's words show what/who they will and will not fight for.

Oh give me a break...now playing the gender card. We've already heard some pundits claim Hillary lost because of sexism, Van Jones claimed is was because of a whitelash (despite the fact that blacks have voted for the Democratic candidate for decades by a much higher margin), and on and on. Many in Obama's current cabinet are pro-secular and think right-wing evangelicals are wacko and have made such statements over the years. Valerie Jarrett is to the left what Bannon is to the right...both play to the base and are focused on appeasing the base.

So. I take you don't have an answer to what makes Bannon a great pick.

How about this...Bannon is not a prolific insider and will be able to keep Trump in touch with those who want him to be a disruptor and change agent. Also, Priebus is the chief of staff and everyone seems to be focused on Bannon.

 

Trump has a great team in place. Pence as a former leader in the House understands the legislative branch and how to get things done. Priebus is a collaborative figure that knows how to manage through conflict and keep things moving forward. Bannon and others can help ensure Trump does not get swallowed up by the DC establishment who will want him to minimize making major changes. I would like to see Newt as SOS and Rudy as attorney general.

[knapplc]

Van Jones said he was a Communist. You can read a bit about his bio here. And the controversy surrounding him here.

Van Jones was appointed as Obama's Special Advisor for "Green Jobs" as part of the Council for Environmental Quality."

Republicans protested his appointment and he resigned after a video surfaced of Jones calling Republicans "assh*les."

Jones served in an advisory capacity on a committee for about six months before resigning amid heavy Republican pressure.

 

 

Van Jones in a tertiary role on a committee IN NO WAY is the same as Bannon's role. Nor is Jones' rhetoric even remotely as incendiary as Bannon's. Equating the two is yet another step in the wrong direction, away from conciliation and further towards separation.

[TGHusker]

Because he said he was. He was one of the 'community organizer' type brought into the WH to implement the Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals approach on a national level. You now see these same type of rules being implemented wt

the 'spontaneous' protests funded by Soros and others to protest the Trump election.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/13/how_could_obama_have_hired_van_jones_98293.html

 

Around midnight on the Saturday of the Labor Day weekend, the White House announced Van Jones had resigned as President Obama's "green jobs czar."

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Mr. Jones said in his resignation letter. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

The "lies and distortions" consisted of reporting Mr. Jones' arrest during a riot, and quoting, accurately, from statements Mr. Jones had made and from petitions he had signed.

Mr. Jones was arrested during the rioting in Los Angeles in 1992 that followed the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. Mr. Jones spoke of that experience in a 2005 interview with a newspaper in the San Francisco Bay area:

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28, and then the verdicts came down on April 29," he told the East Bay Express. "By August, I was a communist."

Mr. Jones attributed his conversion to the people he met during his incarceration:

"I met all these radical young people of color, I mean really radical, communists and anarchists," he told the East Bay Express. "It was like 'this is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."

Mr. Jones was arrested again in 1999 during the anti-free trade riots in Seattle.

In 1994, Mr. Jones was one of the founders of STORM, a Marxist-Leninist group whose hero was Chinese Communist dictator Mao Tse Tung.

But what did Mr. Jones in was the revelation that in 2004 he had signed a petition calling on then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to investigate whether the Bush administration had been behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Mr. Jones acknowledged he'd signed the petition but claimed he hadn't read it carefully and that it did not represent his views. The veracity of this claim was called into question when it was reported that Mr. Jones had been one of the organizers of a "truther" rally in San Francisco in January 2002.

Reporters also uncovered a number of racist statements Mr. Jones has made, including this one from January of last year: "the white polluters and white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities."

With the exception of the indefatigable Jake Tapper of ABC News, none of those who reported these things were part of the "mainstream" media. The first time that readers of The New York Times or The Washington Post, or viewers of CBS News or NBC News, were made aware there was a controversy about Mr. Jones was when they reported his resignation.

It was chiefly blogger Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit) and Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck who dug up the details of Mr. Jones' colorful past. To do so, they utilized that newfangled instrument called "Google," with which reporters for the Times and Post seem to be unfamiliar.

The Obama administration would like to have the controversy over Mr. Jones end with his dead-of-night resignation. But it should be just beginning.

Jeffrey Lord, who was a speechwriter in the Reagan administration, noted that in administrations past, the Secret Service would not have permitted someone with Mr. Jones' background to enter the White House with a visitor's pass. Yet Mr. Jones was made a high-level appointee with considerable influence.

For Mr. Jones to get a White House job, even more senior aides to President Obama either had to be unaware of his background, or indifferent to it. The former suggests an appalling degree of incompetence. The latter is more likely:

"Ooh. Van Jones. We were so delighted to recruit him to the White House," White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told a conference of left-wing bloggers last month. "We were watching him ... for as long as he's been active out in Oakland."

Did the Secret Service object to Van Jones? If so, who overrode them? What did the president know and when did he know it?

These are questions which ought to be asked. But I doubt anyone from CBS or NBC, The New York Times or The Washington Post will ask them.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/13/how_could_obama_have_hired_van_jones_98293.html#ixzz4Q0HOjWRl
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

[zoogs]

Ah, I see. Thanks!

 

It kind of sounds like he was talking about that as a phase in his political development from his younger years. He talks about how he was a rowdy nationalist and then the Rodney King case hit in '92. Since then it certainly seems he has been "one of those" environmentalists (I don't mean this in a totally bad way, I guess), a socialist, and so forth. Which I think is an important distinction. It seems to me he referred to his radical roots to describe his personal evolution, but once he was appointed that became a liability owing to our continuing national hysteria (some of it understandable) over the term 'communist'. Ref: Politifact.

 

It would have been more than a little surprising to me to see CNN actually feature a committed Communist firebrand, but I suppose diversity of voices and all that.

 

I will say if his hero is still Chairman Mao, he should maybe read up on his history.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

 

Explain how Bannon is a great pick.

 

Bannon doesn't think I'm as good as you are. Because I don't have a penis or testicles.

 

 

I can't believe how much people write off a person's words. A person's words show what/who they will and will not fight for.

Oh give me a break...now playing the gender card.

 

 

What is wrong with you? If I had said "Trump only won because he's a man," you could argue I was playing the gender card, whether that's true or not. But it doesn't apply to my post. My post is essentially: "This guy is sexist. How is he a good pick?" If you don't understand how that's not playing the gender card, you need to learn what the phrase means.

 

Here's another example to clear it up for you: If I wasn't female I would have gotten an A on this exam.

 

 

Good job not actually answering my question.

 

 

First bold - I agree. Words & actions are both being ignored/discounted. Take those away and there is nothing left on which to judge someone. It is one thing for someone to say they do not care about a person in power being a racist/sexist/bigot. It is another thing entirely to deny it when there is a lifetime's body of work that proves it.

 

Second bold - Gender-bias is still an issue especially in math/science disciplines. While that may be the gender card, it may also be accurate statement...