Trump's cabinet

[HuskerNation1]

Asked why he defends Bannon.

 

Bashes the left.

 

Well done, sir.

You are in the same boat as zoogs and others on here constantly complaining. I personally have never met Bannon and am not in here to support or blast him...you guys are butt hurt over losing the election and lashing out at any little thing possible. I am sure whoever Trump picks for his remaining cabinet openings you will run to Huff post or salon to find how you plan to criticize that person. I get it...that is your game plan, but I would encourage you to wait and see what happens the next 2 years before complaining about a President cabinet when the POTUS has not even been sworn in.

[zoogs]

This is dishonesty. You don't want us to "give him a chance". You want criticism to be quashed. You want there to be no opposition to the man you are thankful is not Obama. It's okay to be upfront about that.

 

I'll stand by all the substantive concerns that Trump has brought on himself. He earned all of it.

[HuskerNation1]

This is dishonesty. You don't want us to "give him a chance". You want criticism to be quashed. You want there to be no opposition to the man you are thankful is not Obama. It's okay to be upfront about that.

 

I'll stand by all the substantive concerns that Trump has brought on himself. He earned all of it.

So you are admitting you are not giving him a chance. I got it. Typically most Americans offer a new President a honeymoon period to give him a chance...you have just continued the persistent bashing that was present before the election.

[Danny Bateman]

I agree that Trump has earned every ounce of criticism levied at him. Sorry, he gets no honeymoon period. Far more people voted against him than voted for him. He's going to have to earn trust through governance, because right now he's done nothing to earn it from most of the country.

 

As for Bannon, well... he's a horse of a different color. He's a hateful, spiteful little man who tries to couch his bigoted views under the guise of fighting for the people against the globalist elites.

Steve Bannon should have no seat in the government. Period.

[HuskerNation1]

I agree that Trump has earned every ounce of criticism levied at him. Sorry, he gets no honeymoon period. Far more people voted against him than voted for him. He's going to have to earn trust through governance, because right now he's done nothing to earn it from most of the country.

 

As for Bannon, well... he's a horse of a different color. He's a hateful, spiteful little man who tries to couch his bigoted views under the guise of fighting for the people against the globalist elites.

 

Steve Bannon should have no seat in the government. Period.

First off, far more people did not vote against him. That is just a lie. Second here is a good article written by a liberal author that describes what is happening by some on this site and throughout social media

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/138996/liberal-response-trump-devolving-outrage-porn

[Danny Bateman]

If Trump wants my trust, he should stop appointing guys who appear to be racists to important positions. Or, in the case of Priebus, Haley, or DeVos, people who have any actual experience at all for the position for which they have been appointed.

 

As to my "lie"?

 

DJT votes: 62.2M

 

TOTAL votes for DJT: 62.2M

 

HRC votes: 64.2M

 

GJ votes: 4.4M

 

JS votes: 1.3M

 

EM votes: .5M

 

TOTAL: 70.4M + other minor write-in votes

 

Source

 

Obama is right. We need a set of basic set of common facts upon which we can all agree.

[HuskerNation1]

For all you whiners on here, Obama had a lot of controversial and extreme/racists appointments in his initial cabinet. Eric Holder is extremely racist and always supports African Americans over whites even when at fault. One example is outline here, but we saw that time and again in cases like Ferguson and elsewhere. No matter who the POTUS is, their appointments all will have baggage or said or done things in the past that can be called out. Let's not forget that Obama also appointed Hillary as Secretary of State, someone who did not abide by the code of conduct for maintaining confidentiality and taking her job seriously, someone that botched up every foreign policy situation brought in front of her, etc..

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/

[HuskerNation1]

If Trump wants my trust, he should stop appointing guys who appear to be racists to important positions. Or, in the case of Priebus, Haley, or DeVos, people who have any actual experience at all for the position for which they have been appointed.

 

As to my "lie"?

 

DJT votes: 62.2M

 

TOTAL votes for DJT: 62.2M

 

HRC votes: 64.2M

GJ votes: 4.4M

 

JS votes: 1.3M

 

EM votes: .5M

 

TOTAL: 70.4M + other minor write-in votes

 

Source

 

Obama is right. We need a set of basic set of common facts upon which we can all agree.

 

To the part in bold, give me a break. Obama himself had no leadership experience prior to taking over as POTUS, and had a horrible cabinet working for him. You are completely naive if you think that the approach Trump is taking for filling his cabinet is any different than most other new Presidents take.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Wow....so.....we have a president and all his surrogates and followers saying...."all that stuff he promised and said he would do in the election was BS...because we had to say awful outrageous stuff to get deplorable people to vote for him "

 

 

This is just golden.

I don't think it's a stretch that most candidates say things they really don't mean. I think I could see through the rhetoric, that's why I wasn't having a coniption when he was elected.

 

The use of the word deplorables.....I hope that you're better than that.

Do you think the KKK members that are holding celebrations because they voted him are deplorable?

[Landlord]

I know it's not technically against board rules, but is there ever a scenario where someone can be banned from the board for being unable to actually hold real conversations or live in reality with any level of rational thinking?

 

 

Not implying anything about anyone specific, of course. Sorry for the off-topic post.

[zoogs]

Haha, OK. In order to double down on the "Obama and Trump are just two normal President-elects, similar in kind" analogy we're going to own up to an "AG Eric Holder is an extreme racist" argument.

 

cornstar, what does "see through the rhetoric" imply? I mean, no doubt politicians engage in rhetoric when they need to. Seeing through the rhetoric is knowing those Senators (both sides of the aisle) who are supporting the "9/11 families" know this bill is damaging and will eventually, in their convoluted way, work to mitigate it. Or seeing Clinton/Kaine talk a tough game about the TPP but understand that, given their instincts and economics, "we need a better deal" is going to mean a minor tweak being touted as the major change they needed to push for it again.

 

With Trump, every indication we have is that he takes conspiracy-theory spinning loons like Alex Jones more seriously than the New York Times. There's very little indication he doesn't take what the white nationalists ("many people are saying") are saying as gospel to the utter exclusion of voices on the other side of the aisle.

 

If there's "seeing through the rhetoric", that implies Trump actually understands illegal immigration is declining, that Mexicans in America are generally hardworking and low-crime, and that it would be economically costly to both sides to pursue a vengeful bar/deport program...but he's saying all this ugly stuff anyone because it's politically useful sop. That is equally indefensible, and downright dangerous.

[Danny Bateman]

The man's worldview consists of his quest for power. He will legitimize and stand by things that support that quest, and try to tear down and delegitimize things that don't.

 

It doesn't matter if the former is Alex Jones or white supremacists and the former is the NYTimes, WaPo, or actual statistics and empirical facts. This is his worldview, as it has been since he was born into wealth and lived his entire life with it. He's going to continue to try to gather more power.

 

You can see clear evidence of this in his cabinet. It is all friends and people who licked his boots from the beginning. Very different to Obama's choices, contrary to bnil's worldview, where he selected a bitter campaign rival for SoS and a Republican as his SoD.

[zoogs]

Here's an example where perhaps we can see through the rhetoric with Trump: coal.

 

Trump, or at least his allies, have to know that coal isn't going to be saved. Talking that way just won them votes. However, Clean Power Plan and other Obama climate initiatives can still be dismantled.

 

Such a push would be explicitly and overtly at the service of fossil fuel industry, catering very much not to the needs of the coal communities who fell for this.

[Danny Bateman]

And we should be honest about coal. Do not think that Obama and others want to continue to transition away from coal JUST because it's bad for the environment and dangerous for workers.

 

Coal just isn't profitable. We have much better alternatives at this point-- primarily, natural gas. Even progressives have given up protesting coal, largely because they know it's dying on its own. They've moved on to protesting fracking.

[BigRedBuster]

Seriously....how can he be impressed with this guy while at the same time ridiculing Hillary for her email server.

 

#poorjudgement