Trump's cabinet

[commando]

5 hours ago, ZRod said:

All valid, but this was just an advising/harmonizing role in the white House. The role(s) and the responsibilities are still there with the agencies, they just don't report out to another person in the chain of White House staff any longer. That doesn't seem so evil to me. In my work I report out to at least 2 different people who essentially have the same roles with different seniority, and I do this for about 3 or 4 different groups of people. It really bogs down processes and creates alotnof extra work for us grunts actually doing the work. This could be a good thing.

 

Let's not fall into the Trump didn't so it's bad trap. That's all I'm saying.

trump is essentially preaching that everything everyone but him has done was evil and only he can save us....he wants us to fall into that trap.   

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, commando said:

trump is essentially preaching that everything everyone but him has done was evil and only he can save us....he wants us to fall into that trap.   

Sorry, auto correct screwed that up. It should have read "Trump did it". I think all this winning is slowly morphing our brains to be Trump like, in that we think everything done by his administration is pure crap. More often than not it will be, but we still need to think critically about things before we stamp it as certified poo.

[TGHusker]

The beautiful couple now both have top security clearance.  How precious.  Or should it be how precarious.  If Hillary was President and she named Chelsea as a special advisor wt top security clearance - oh the uproar from the Repub congress there would be. 

 

 

https://www.axios.com/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-status-jared-kushner-f0ff4333-3665-4778-9c35-ba10bae55d94.html

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, ZRod said:

Sorry, auto correct screwed that up. It should have read "Trump did it". I think all this winning is slowly morphing our brains to be Trump like, in that we think everything done by his administration is pure crap. More often than not it will be, but we still need to think critically about things before we stamp it as certified poo.

 

 

The example you picked out isn't a very good one to make the point, though. It's something that happens to be extremely important right now. If anything we should be adding more cybersecurity positions, and there absolutely needs to be one in the White House.

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The example you picked out isn't a very good one to make the point, though. It's something that happens to be extremely important right now. If anything we should be adding more cybersecurity positions, and there absolutely needs to be one in the White House.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. There are people responsible for cyber security. It's unfortunate that someone with as little experience as Bolton is coordinating that effort, but maybe less bureaucracy can streamline things in such an important and critical area.

[Moiraine]

29 minutes ago, ZRod said:

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. There are people responsible for cyber security. It's unfortunate that someone with as little experience as Bolton is coordinating that effort, but maybe less bureaucracy can streamline things in such an important and critical area.

 

 

You're also speaking of this example (I'm sure there are better examples you could use) as if it's an isolated incident. Members of the intelligence community, I think even the head of the NSA perhaps(?) have said Trump has given them zero directives on dealing with this stuff. On top of that Trump shouts the loudest about "the emails" and he and his family are purportedly using personal devices themselves. There is just no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt on this particular action. It's just par for the course where Trump is concerned. In my opinion we need a White House that understands the dangers with this stuff and is involved.

 

As far as general things, at the very beginning of the Trump presidency I made a point to have an open mind, and he came out with that list of the things he wanted to do right away. I fully supported at least 2 of them and thought maybe a couple others sounded alright. Then he decided almost immediately not to fight for them. One of them was term limits. My biggest issues that he's had an impact on so far are the environmental law changes, and lowering taxes, but also the fact that he so clearly makes his decisions based on whether it was Obama's idea. That shows me he is a s#!tty decision maker.

[ZRod]

8 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You're also speaking of this example (I'm sure there are better examples you could use) as if it's an isolated incident. Members of the intelligence community, I think even the head of the NSA perhaps(?) have said Trump has given them zero directives on dealing with this stuff. On top of that Trump shouts the loudest about "the emails" and he and his family are purportedly using personal devices themselves. There is just no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt on this particular action. It's just par for the course where Trump is concerned. In my opinion we need a White House that understands the dangers with this stuff and is involved.

 

As far as general things, at the very beginning of the Trump presidency I made a point to have an open mind, and he came out with that list of the things he wanted to do right away. I fully supported at least 2 of them and thought maybe a couple others sounded alright. Then he decided almost immediately not to fight for them. One of them was term limits. My biggest issues that he's had an impact on so far are the environmental law changes, and lowering taxes, but also the fact that he so clearly makes his decisions based on whether it was Obama's idea. That shows me he is a s#!tty decision maker.

And that is your opinion, and that's fine.

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, ZRod said:

And that is your opinion, and that's fine.

 

 

You made a post implying people had a negative opinion about something only because it was Trump so this is kind of a funny place to go the one-liner, "that's your opinion" route.

 

Seems like our original post was one that called for a discussion/explanation of opinions.

[ZRod]

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You made a post implying people had a negative opinion about something only because it was Trump so this is kind of a funny place to go the one-liner, "that's your opinion" route.

 

Seems like our original post was one that called for a discussion/explanation of opinions.

And we had a discussion. Obviously we have different experiences, and opinions on the subject. So, neither of our minds are probably going to change. I don't think this was a smart move by the administration, but it certainly isn't going to be as catastrophic as some people make it out to be. In some aspects it could facilitate quicker action/reaction.

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

And we had a discussion. Obviously we have different experiences, and opinions on the subject. So, neither of our minds are probably going to change. I don't think this was a smart move by the administration, but it certainly isn't going to be as catastrophic as some people make it out to be. In some aspects it could facilitate quicker action/reaction.

Eliminating that one position by itself isn't that big a deal, but anything involving Bolton is almost certain to end in catastrophe.

[Moiraine]

Just now, ZRod said:

And we had a discussion. Obviously we have different experiences, and opinions on the subject. So, neither of our minds are probably going to change. I don't think this was a smart move by the administration, but it certainly isn't going to be as catastrophic as some people make it out to be. In some aspects it could facilitate quicker action/reaction.

 

 

I think you could have just put it that way. It was a bit condescending to assume people only disliked it because it was Trump. There have been some pretty good examples that could be used to show that happening, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.

 

If you had an issue just with the cataatrophic part I can understand that (e.g. that it's like getting rid of the Navy - the guy should've said admiral, or something like that. I don't know Navy ranks).

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

The leader lies so why shouldn’t everyone else?

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Danny Bateman]