Trump's cabinet

[BigRedBuster]

OK...I'm seriously trying my best to find positive things in the Trump administration. But, how can I be when he is filling the positions around him with people like Bannon and this guy?

 

[Bigred_inSD]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article114950423.html

 

Former Kansas official as possible AG. He will be a controversial pick if indeed nominated for the position.

If this clown gets the spot we will have so many legal battles thing up our courts nothing will get done. I assume this bozo also wants stop and frisk to be nation wide for those who look suspicious coughblackcough as well

[knapplc]

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)_/¯

[Bigred_inSD]

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)_/¯

Is it possible to have another human as a spirit animal? Because I think you are mine.

[zoogs]

Those who assume that America will always be fine are ignoring, I think, the fact that we have never elected a demagogue before.

 

The past years, for all Obama's failures, have happened under a pretty competent administration. Even in the Bush years, there was a baseline sort of sanity.

 

These are very uncharted waters.

[Landlord]

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)_/¯

 

 

Just wait and see.

[Red Five]

Waiting for Alex Jones to get a position in the administration...

[TGHusker]

Waiting for Alex Jones to get a position in the administration...

Press Secretary

 

Actually Laura Ingram (sp?) is said to be lobbying for PS job.

[Sargon]

Those who assume that America will always be fine are ignoring, I think, the fact that we have never elected a demagogue before.

 

The past years, for all Obama's failures, have happened under a pretty competent administration. Even in the Bush years, there was a baseline sort of sanity.

 

These are very uncharted waters.

 

Obama is a demagogue and his administration is extremely under qualified.

 

What is the name of that fiction writer who worked the Iran not a treaty treaty then told the press the admin was lying to the dopes (public)? What was that over qualified genius's name? Diploma, background? (I could do this dozens of times he has next to nobody suitably qualified anywhere DOJ lol State Dept double lol, VA IRS omg they are all idiots).

[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.

[Sargon]

 

 

IIRC I remember hearing a while ago that Trump's chief energy advisor was an oil company exec or someone of similar ilk. I'd not expect the GOP to make any type of real push towards renewables. They have no reason to. They are in bed with Big Oil/Coal and can get away with saying those maximize our economic potential.

They probably do, in the short term.

 

 

Well, yeah, no arguing that. I just think it's grievously irresponsible to not think long term. I understand not everyone shares that belief.

 

Also, can we just take a second and appreciate something else... Ben Carson for Sec of Education? The guy who believes the Great Pyramids were gigantic ancient grain silos?

 

 

Grievously irresponsible eh? What do you think about year after year of half trillion to over a trillion of deficit spending with no projection of improvement anywhere in sight? Long term!

Iran deal looks good in the long term?

[NM11046]

 

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.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

It's almost as if we as a nation could have seen this coming and steered away from putting such people in power.

I still want these people to accept these positions to blunt as much of the damage as possible. Take one for the team and all that.

 

This is a powerful article. Excellent read. One quote:

 

In a powerful essay written half a century ago, Hannah Arendt warned about lesser evils (pp. 35-36):

you are confronted with two evils, thus the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Those who denounce the moral fallacy of this argument are usually accused of a germ-proof moralism which is alien to political circumstances, of being unwilling to dirty their hands. …

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

 

Why do they forget? It isn’t hard to fathom. Once you are inside, your frame of reference changes. The work is challenging and invigorating and cutting-edge. You see that many of the people you’re working with are decent and likable. You tell yourself that decent people like these wouldn’t do anything indecent. Gradually your moral compass aligns with theirs (and you don’t notice that theirs are simultaneously aligning with yours); and gradually all your moral compasses align with The Program. You develop team spirit, and you don’t want to let your team down by shirking; you can’t be a nay-sayer on everything. You lose your sense of outrage, which is, after all, a feeling we experience when we see something abnormal. Once the abnormal becomes routine, outrage fades.

And above all, you reassure yourself of your own decency because you can contrast yourself with the real radicals, the true believers. They’re right down the hall. In meetings, you try your best to mitigate the damage; you win a few of these fights and become heartened. But you lose more than you win, and your own sense of fair process – “I waged the good fight but lost fair and square” – leads you to acquiesce. You may even find yourself publicly defending the decision you opposed; at best, your duty of confidentiality seals your lips. Your degrees of freedom are radically constricted.

Drawing on the experience of 1933 and 1934, Arendt warns that “we now know that moral standards can be changed overnight, and that all that then will be left is the mere habit of holding fast to something” (p. 45). That something will be the bureaucratic new normal that you see around you.

Arendt adds a political argument against participating in Big Man government:

No man, however strong, can ever accomplish anything, good or bad, without the help of others. … Those who seem to obey him actually support him and his enterprise; without such “obedience” he would be helpless. …

In these terms, the nonparticipators in public life … are those who have refused their support by shunning those places of “responsibility” where such support, under the name of obedience, is required. And we have only for a moment to imagine what would happen … if enough people would act “irresponsibly” and refuse support.

Her key insight: when you stay in your job, and perform lesser evils, you are supporting the administration, even if in your own mind you abhor it. Your own mind is irrelevant: if you participate, you support.

There’s an obvious objection to her insight: enough people aren’t going to act “irresponsibly” and refuse support. Supporters are always waiting in the wings. In fact, the new boss may be yearning to drive away the conscientious non-political civil servants, to make space for hard line replacements. Why give in? Why exile yourself? Or, if you’re a job seeker: why let the bad guy get the job?

Arendt’s answer is this: In the nightmare scenario, you are deluding yourself to think you can turn the train, or even slow it down. Maybe you could in an administration committed to the rule of law. But that is not the nightmare scenario we are talking about

[zoogs]

@TG -- yeah, I think that article made a strong case. We all hope for the nightware scenario not to unfold. I think it is less likely to unfold if our best and brightest refrain from compromising themselves. They could instead devote their energies to opposition. I don't know that there's a clear cut answer.

 

Grievously irresponsible eh? What do you think about year after year of half trillion to over a trillion of deficit spending with no projection of improvement anywhere in sight? Long term!

Iran deal looks good in the long term?

I mean, if you want a better understanding of those things, just google it.

[knapplc]

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.