Trump's cabinet

[TGHusker]

 

Politically, the weakness of the argument has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil. …

 

 

This would be the case with either Hillary or Donald. It is our obligation as the choosers of these "lesser of two evils" to fight against the evil we choose.

 

Remember that we chose evil, indeed. I felt disgusted when I voted for Hillary, even though she was that lesser evil choice.

 

Yes, Knapp - that line is a very powerful line. It reminds me of the 'Confessing Church' under Hitler - those who refused to go along - led by Detrick Bonheoffer who ended up being martyred as a political prisoner in a Nazi camp 2 weeks before the US troops liberated the camp. And what you said below the quote is also a true statement. Often times the choice is clear but sometimes as in this election, the choices are both very bad and sometimes one person's good judgment is opposite another person's good judgment in determining the worse of the 2 evils. But regardless, if there is an evil in our decision, it does then fall on us to correct the evil as the best we can within the realm of our responsibilities, abilities, and opportunities to influence.

 

Oh, and by the way, I didn't mark my ballot for either Hillary or Donald and yet I felt like even in that regard I was choosing an evil just because there wasn't a better alternative - I was voting evil by being silent. I was going to choose Johnson until he started to say some flaky things and forgetting things. Maybe he was still a lessor evil but I thought by voting for him I'd be sending a message that he was also acceptable when he clearly wasn't as the campaign went on. As in the case of the Dems and the Repubs the VP was better than the top of the ticket.

Edited November 16, 2016 by TGHusker

[TGHusker]

 

 

Bannon - White Supremacy apologist

Gaffney - McCarthey-esque Conspiracy theorist & Muslim hater

Kobach - Legal team for hate group FAIR & speaker at anti-Muslim conventions

 

"Give them a chance."

"There's nothing to protest yet."

 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I was hoping for some 'sane' appointments. But I was hoping too much I guess. I figured Rudy, Newt, and Ben Carson would get spots (some of you don't think these guys are 'sane' but they are accomplished indivduals who could be of benefit in the right spot.) But even these guys have a history of positive accomplishments in comparison to these quoted above. Both Ben and Newt have said they won't take cabinet positions and believe they could be more effective as special advisors. Carson was rumored to be in line for Sec of Ed but I didn't like him in that spot. Rudy wants to be, so it is reported, SOS - which I think is the wrong spot for him. FBI, CIA, Home Land Security, maybe AG but not SOS. One report said Ted Cruz is being considered for AG - but Trump responded that only he knows who are the 'finalists'. I'm sure the Senate would love to get rid of Cruz and would probably confirm him 100-0 even if they were ideologically opposed to him.

 

I'm hearing Rudy pulled out of SOS consideration when some info was pulled up showing him consulting with or getting paid by some inappropriate sources.

 

That is good news. I think he would not be a good fit and I think he had some built in conflicts of interest.

[knapplc]

Well, again, for the 1,000th time (and counting) there wasn't an equality of evil between Hillary and Trump. Hillary is a corrupt politician, like all the other corrupt politicians who ran this time.

 

Trump is the outlier, and a very different brand of evil than Hillary. We have to combat this equivalency, because by equating these two very disparate people we are ignoring the evil that Trump espouses. That is exactly the danger from your own quote.

[TGHusker]

Well, again, for the 1,000th time (and counting) there wasn't an equality of evil between Hillary and Trump. Hillary is a corrupt politician, like all the other corrupt politicians who ran this time.

 

Trump is the outlier, and a very different brand of evil than Hillary. We have to combat this equivalency, because by equating these two very disparate people we are ignoring the evil that Trump espouses. That is exactly the danger from your own quote.

Yes, I know that Knapp. I'm not saying they are equal. I'm not arguing that point. From a pure governance point of view Hillary would be the status quo, keep things like they are and probably have the least potential to damage the nation. She is known and we know what we get wt her. Thus the lessor in a number of ways.

We would hope that she would not institutionalize corruptness - the potential evil that rested with her. She would have the better temperament and could be easier to keep in check by a congress that would watch her every move.

 

Wt Donald, there is a whole host of issues - temperament, judgment, moral issues, discrimination issues, experience (lack of) etc. He would be harder to keep in check by a Congress of his own party. However, I can see how good people could decide to choose either way as to whom they believe to be the lessor. The more I think about it the more concerned I am of the potential abuses that a trump admin may pose if left to its wildest whims and not corralled by congress.

And maybe as you note it is the job of those who see the issues more clearly to continually sound the horn and be a "watchman on the wall" against the abuses posed by Trump's plans and ideas and now by some of his choices in the cabinet or as advisors. So, it doesn't bother me in the least and I encourage it - speak your mind on Trump. I guess I'm still in a holding my breath mode - waiting to see what shoe drops and what one doesn't. Yet, I'll speak out about some of the cabinet choices that I don't agree wt as I have above. Actually, I'm still waiting to hear some positive names in that regard.

[NM11046]

Totally random question here, wondering if anyone knows the answer.

 

A friend and I today were talking about how shellshocked Trump looks, bags under his eyes (more than usual) and seems to be gaining weight. She speculated that he would have a heart attack in the next couple years, either because of his health or because of the job (or twitter).

 

If he were to pass prior to being sworn in what happens? (disclosure: I am by no means hoping or asking for this man to die -- simply wasn't sure on protocol if a President Elect can not be sworn in) Obviously there is a chain of command for sitting presidents, vp's etc.

[Red Five]

It has to be the VP, right?

 

I have noticed that he does look increasingly haggard. All of the campaigning had to take a toll on him. He reportedly only sleeps a couple hours a night.

 

Look at the pictures of Bush/Obama from when they were inaugurated to when they left office. They completely changed. Doesn't seem like it will be kind to a 70 year old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FrankWheeler]

Totally random question here, wondering if anyone knows the answer.

 

A friend and I today were talking about how shellshocked Trump looks, bags under his eyes (more than usual) and seems to be gaining weight. She speculated that he would have a heart attack in the next couple years, either because of his health or because of the job (or twitter).

 

If he were to pass prior to being sworn in what happens? (disclosure: I am by no means hoping or asking for this man to die -- simply wasn't sure on protocol if a President Elect can not be sworn in) Obviously there is a chain of command for sitting presidents, vp's etc.

 

If a winning Presidential candidate dies or becomes incapacitated between the counting of electoral votes in Congress and the inauguration, the Vice President elect will become President, according to Section 3 of the 20th Amendment.

[zoogs]

The more I learn about Steve Bannon...

 

“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon said. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

 

Bannon’s “facts” were, in fact, well off. A May 2015 study found that 27 percent of professionals working in Silicon Valley companies were Asian or Asian-American. They represented less than 19 percent of managers and under 14 percent of executives, according to the report.

[BigRedBuster]

The more I learn about Steve Bannon...

 

 

When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think... Bannon said. A country is more than an economy. Were a civic society.

 

Bannons facts were, in fact, well off. A May 2015 study found that 27 percent of professionals working in Silicon Valley companies were Asian or Asian-American. They represented less than 19 percent of managers and under 14 percent of executives, according to the report.

Glad he is an expert in hiring the best people in the world.

[schriznoeder]

Rick Perry for Energy Secretary?

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/306499-rick-perry-considered-for-energy-secretary-report

[TGHusker]

Here is a shocker: It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/romney-and-trump-to-discuss-secretary-of-state-position-nbc-source-says.html

 

If Trump can build bridges wt Romney he can do it wt the Dems as well and maybe get something done. Romney led the never Trumpers.

 

Romney would be an excellent choice in comparison to the other names being thrown out there for SOS.

[Moiraine]

Here is a shocker: It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/romney-and-trump-to-discuss-secretary-of-state-position-nbc-source-says.html

 

If Trump can build bridges wt Romney he can do it wt the Dems as well and maybe get something done. Romney led the never Trumpers.

 

Romney would be an excellent choice in comparison to the other names being thrown out there for SOS.

I don't see the logic there. It's like saying if X is greater than 5 then (X-1) is greater than 5. Which is to say not necessarily. If it was the other way around it'd make more sense. If Trump can work with the Democrats he can work with traditional Republicans. The other way around? Maybe.

[RedDenver]

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.

Republicans were involved in the impeachment proceedings against Nixon, so it's not unprecedented.

[TGHusker]

 

Here is a shocker: It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/romney-and-trump-to-discuss-secretary-of-state-position-nbc-source-says.html

 

If Trump can build bridges wt Romney he can do it wt the Dems as well and maybe get something done. Romney led the never Trumpers.

 

Romney would be an excellent choice in comparison to the other names being thrown out there for SOS.

I don't see the logic there. It's like saying if X is greater than 5 then (X-1) is greater than 5. Which is to say not necessarily. If it was the other way around it'd make more sense. If Trump can work with the Democrats he can work with traditional Republicans. The other way around? Maybe.

 

I see your point there but Romney was as anti-trump as any Dem - maybe slightly less due to party loyalty. What I'm saying is that if this report is true, than Trump is willing to reach out to foes/opponents/dare I say enemies and work with them to get something accomplished. There is also a report that he's been talking to Ted Cruz. Again another arch opponent. Maybe he won't settle for just yes men and appreciates strong convictions even if those convictions don't always line up with his. Time will tell what will pan out but I think Romney is a better choice than Rudy or Sessions, or Newt as a SOS.

[Danny Bateman]

Let's wait until he actually does something. Actions speak a lot louder than reports and possibilities, no?