President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The architect of Obamacare wasn't in a position of any sort? Who's mucking stuff now?

A top position, aka in this discussion a Cabinet level position? Nope. If you want to intentionally fcuk up semantics go right ahead though. Anyone else you'd like to name, you seemed to suggest you had a problem with multiple academic picks.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

A top position, aka in this discussion a Cabinet level position? Nope. If you want to intentionally fcuk up semantics go right ahead though. Anyone else you'd like to name, you seemed to suggest you had a problem with multiple academic picks.

Splitting hairs much? The person in charge was Kathleen Sebelius, a politician, with no background for the job. She turned the responsibility over for the development of Obamacare to a academic. She doesn’t get away with your Pontius Pilate defense, and neither does he.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Splitting hairs much? The person in charge was Kathleen Sebelius, a politician, with no background for the job. She turned the responsibility over for the development of Obamacare to a academic. She doesn’t get away with your Pontius Pilate defense, and neither does he.

OK, so same question, based on the discussion we've had here and your response to OB, your suggestion is that a military appointment to the Secretary of Health would have been a better choice? why?

Why? They would still have oversight from Congress?
Today 15:17

Because the military would have the ability to arm itself and congress doesn't mean much when you can just carry out a coup d'etait; after all you own all the means of production to carry out operations. Again, I thought this point was patently obvious, that the military has obvious gaps in its organization as a check and balance. That, and the government isn't in the business of being a weapons manufacturer, with the one exception which is again, for very obvious reasons.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

A top position, aka in this discussion a Cabinet level position? Nope. If you want to intentionally fcuk up semantics go right ahead though. Anyone else you'd like to name, you seemed to suggest you had a problem with multiple academic picks.

Remember all those “Czar” positions? Many coming from academia with leftist agendas which were far from the mainstream? You want names... Cass Sunstein, Todd Stern, John Holdren, and then there’s the worst pick of his presidency... Elena Kagan.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

OK, so same question, based on the discussion we've had here and your response to OB, your suggestion is that a military appointment to the Secretary of Health would have been a better choice? why?

I don't know where you are getting this from. I don't want a military person in charge of every cabinet position... just some.

And what do you think the mainstream media would do if Trump started naming 'Czars' for key functions, bypassing Congressional approval? They would be storming the presses with pitchforks and torches, as we all know they believe history starts today.

Because the military would have the ability to arm itself and congress doesn't mean much when you can just carry out a coup d'etait; after all you own all the means of production to carry out operations. Again, I thought this point was patently obvious, that the military has obvious gaps in its organization as a check and balance. That, and the government isn't in the business of being a weapons manufacturer, with the one exception which is again, for very obvious reasons.

Military coup d'etait? That's what you're now afraid of? Hey, you're in luck though... that's what the second amendment is for. :)

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Military coup d'etait? That's what you're now afraid of? Hey, you're in luck though... that's what the second amendment is for. :)

In the immediate future no, but that's no reason to make it simpler to achieve.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I don't want a military person in charge of every cabinet position...

Why not? Follow the thought experiment to its logical conclusion, and imagine the entire executive - President, VP, all cabinet positions - staffed by serving generals. Would you have a problem with that?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why not? Follow the thought experiment to its logical conclusion, and imagine the entire executive - President, VP, all cabinet positions - staffed by serving generals. Would you have a problem with that?

Would have to review their qualifications. Might be okay with it. Might be okay with all women or all gays or all native Americans etc being in the entire executive positions, also. Would depend on their qualifications. Leftist academics... not so much.

Anyway Obama won in the general category. He appointed 3 four star generals, where Trump might appoint 2 four star and 1 three star. That's 12 stars to 11... Obama wins.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Might be okay with it.

You might be OK with the entire executive branch of a republic being serving generals.

Wow.

K-9

As long as they are Republicans!

Overheal

I guess history really does start today so

Atlantic Dawn

So far he is doing great with his cabinet picks, wish he was running Ireland.

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

You might be OK with the entire executive branch of a republic being serving generals.

Wow.

So long as it was republican, "certain posters" here absolutely would jump in behind it even if they knew it would lead to the end or sheer detriment of their country. Just so long as there was an (R) there, which is what matters to them and not their actual country.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

As long as they are Republicans!

You make that sound like it’s a bad thing.

Seriously though, doesn’t any president when coming into office staff his cabinet, advisors, and appointment picks primarily from his own political party?

K-9

Ach yes, I'm sure if it was Obama doing it you'd be fully behind it.

Works the other way too of course. Others on here would be rationalising it if he was doing it.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Ach yes, I'm sure if it was Obama doing it you'd be fully behind it.

Works the other way too of course. Others on here would be rationalising it if he was doing it.

That's politics!

I wasn't behind many of Obama's picks as I considered many of them too far left for America... But I expected it knowing his background.

K-9

My fear is some of these picks are very right wing and elitist, globalist types when it comes to the economy.

We'll see, but just as you saw too much Governmental over reach, I can see a big swing to corporate culture. Those "little guys" who voted Trump are going to feel very let down, would be my bet anyway.

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

My fear is some of these picks are very right wing and elitist, globalist types when it comes to the economy.

I think the types of people he picked is relevant but not as relevant as trump's own agenda.

As with everything else he does, he won't delegate much of the decision Making. He didn't put experts in charge because they might have strong opinions on how departments should work.

How long before he starts throwing these cabinet picks under the bus? He did it to Chris Christy and general Flynn's son (for tweeting about Hillary's paedophile ring in a chip shop basement). The first picks aren't that important but it distracts the media while Trump gets the job done.

He picked his children to run his businesses - does anyone actually believe he won't be running the country as part of his business empire?

InTheTrees

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How long before he starts throwing these cabinet picks under the bus? He did it to Chris Christy and general Flynn's son (for tweeting about Hillary's paedophile ring in a chip shop basement).

Well to be fair the fake story about the pizza shop resulted in some right wing wacko storming the place with a rifle and handgun, shooting the place up and then an armed siege by police before he gave up.

InTheTrees

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He picked his children to run his businesses - does anyone actually believe he won't be running the country as part of his business empire?

It comes down to the senate really. And how much they're willing to put up with from him. I expect they'll use their influence to try to make him tow the line. Whether that'll work or not who knows. It probably will. McConnell looks like he's already caved in.

InTheTrees

K-9 wrote: »

We'll see, but just as you saw too much Governmental over reach, I can see a big swing to corporate culture. Those "little guys" who voted Trump are going to feel very let down, would be my bet anyway.

The new Secretary of Labor is an ex fast food CEO and doesnt believe in the minimum wage and thinks the future lies in automation.

I'm sure he has lots of ideas on how to bring all the jobs back.

El_Duderino 09

InTheTrees wrote:

Well to be fair the fake story about the pizza shop resulted in some right wing wacko storming the place with a rifle and handgun, shooting the place up and then an armed siege by police before he gave up.

Sure. He threw the guy under the bus the moment he needed to distance himself from something. He did the same with Chris Christy and he'll do the same with snyone he needs to. I think k there's a strategy behind the targets of his attacks.

He picks a fight out of the blue or over the smallest offence, and hammers that journalist, company, country or even team member. The randomness and severity of attacks send a message to everyone else that they should count themselves lucky that it's not happening to them. In short Don't step out of line.

Attacking people almost at random is part of his management style. It's also a classic element of abusive relationships -blowing hot and cold trains people to be on their best behaviour at all times to minimise the chance of being attacked - basically it trains his team to be arze-lickers and implement whatever decisions he makes. It's not an environment that encourages taking initiative or challenging the leader.

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

We'll see, but just as you saw too much Governmental over reach, I can see a big swing to corporate culture. Those "little guys" who voted Trump are going to feel very let down, would be my bet anyway.

I think you'll be shocked at how much the little guy will let him away with.

If you look at it from language theory with signifier and signed (stay with me). 'Signifier' is the words used and 'signed' is the meaning. He said (signifier) he would build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it, deport the illegals, ban Muslims and he grabs wonen by the puzzy.

The 'signed' part of much more interesting. Take them one at a time.
Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it actually means he will bully the Mexican government into doing something against its interests.

Deport illegals means he will he harsh to these people and he won't care about breaking up their families etc. Also freeing jobs for proper white Americans.

Ban Muslims means he will be harsh on Muslims and treat them like an entire race of suspects.

Grab women by the puzzy means he takes what he wants and doesn't care about PC.

Those are really appealing messages to a lot of people. Thats how they talk and they've never heard a politician who speaks like them. He doesn't have to DO any of those things to keep their support because he has already DONE the important part by showing the little guy that he's one of them and they now control the white house.

He won't build a wall all across the birder, he won't deport all the illegals, he won't ban Muslims. The Guardian etc. will report on it but the little guy won't care by that stage.

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. He threw the guy under the bus the moment he needed to distance himself from something. He did the same with Chris Christy and he'll do the same with snyone he needs to. I think k there's a strategy behind the targets of his attacks.

He picks a fight out of the blue or over the smallest offence, and hammers that journalist, company, country or even team member. The randomness and severity of attacks send a message to everyone else that they should count themselves lucky that it's not happening to them. In short Don't step out of line.

Attacking people almost at random is part of his management style. It's also a classic element of abusive relationships -blowing hot and cold trains people to be on their best behaviour at all times to minimise the chance of being attacked - basically it trains his team to be arze-lickers and implement whatever decisions he makes. It's not an environment that encourages taking initiative or challenging the leader.

The people he picks fights with are people that are well able for the fight. We all have this narrative that Trump hates Blacks, LGBT and minorities which of course is both absurd and dangerous journalism.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

The people he picks fights with are people that are well able for the fight. We all have this narrative that Trump hates Blacks, LGBT and minorities which of course is both absurd and dangerous journalism.

I don't know of anything he said against LGBT. He's a populist with the republicans and less clever people as his base. If he feels being harsh to LGBT people is necessary, then he wouldn't hesitate. The same could be said for any group outside his base though.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

The people he picks fights with are people that are well able for the fight. We all have this narrative that Trump hates Blacks, LGBT and minorities which of course is both absurd and dangerous journalism.

On the point about him picking fights with strong people, that's true. He doesn't only pick fights with strong people but Boeing isn't a small company. It works on the same principle as the new inmate in prison walking up and punching a big fella. These more currency in picking a fight with a big player. If it's a surprise and sharp attack, you can wipe a billion off theur stock, get a journalist to live under fear of rape or death for a period.

It's extremely effective.

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know of anything he said against LGBT. He's a populist with the republicans and less clever people as his base. If he feels being harsh to LGBT people is necessary, then he wouldn't hesitate. The same could be said for any group outside his base though.

The Dems have been making the claim he is homophobic for choosing Mike Pence or because he likes Putin's style of leadership. It is a case that he has points of agreement with both these two men. That does not mean he is personally homophobic. He was the first to come out and sound his outrage over the atrocity in the Orlando LGBT community. Hillary wanted to be PC and not get involved in calling it a religious motivated act of terrorism.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

The Dems have been making the claim he is homophobic for choosing Mike Pence or because he likes Putin's style of leadership. It is a case that he has point of agreement with both these two men. That does not me he is personally homophobic. He was the first to come out and sound his outrage over the atrocity in the Orlando LGBT community. Hillary wanted to be PC and not get involved in calling it a religious motivated act of terrorism.

Ok. I'm not a democrat and I haven't made that claim.

I don't think he has any beliefs around things like gays because I don't think he had any real believes, beyond the belief that there's currency in how he treats them. He knows that being harsh on minorities can win favour with his base.

Personally I'm sure he couldn't give a toss about gays one way or the other but if he ever needs to cosy up to the religious and throw days under the bus to do it, tgen there's your answer. As I said, he would do the same with any group outside his base.

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you'll be shocked at how much the little guy will let him away with.

If you look at it from language theory with signifier and signed (stay with me). 'Signifier' is the words used and 'signed' is the meaning. He said (signifier) he would build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it, deport the illegals, ban Muslims and he grabs wonen by the puzzy.

The 'signed' part of much more interesting. Take them one at a time.
Build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it actually means he will bully the Mexican government into doing something against its interests.

Deport illegals means he will he harsh to these people and he won't care about breaking up their families etc. Also freeing jobs for proper white Americans.

Ban Muslims means he will be harsh on Muslims and treat them like an entire race of suspects.

Grab women by the puzzy means he takes what he wants and doesn't care about PC.

Those are really appealing messages to a lot of people. Thats how they talk and they've never heard a politician who speaks like them. He doesn't have to DO any of those things to keep their support because he has already DONE the important part by showing the little guy that he's one of them and they now control the white house.

He won't build a wall all across the birder, he won't deport all the illegals, he won't ban Muslims. The Guardian etc. will report on it but the little guy won't care by that stage.

Many Americans really underestimate just how many Mexicans don't like their home gvt. The statements coming from Trump's mouth have always been aimed at the Mexican gvt so if he is playing to the crowd which he is clearly doing, some of his message is also going out to those Mexicans who really dislike their gvt.

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Personally I'm sure he couldn't give a toss about gays one way or the other but if he ever needs to cosy up to the religious and throw days under the bus to do it, tgen there's your answer. As I said, he would do the same with any group outside his base.

In fairness, Trump has shown very little inclination to try and curry favour with the GOP's ultra-conservative Christians. Maybe he knows that they'll never vote Democrat, especially with Hilary as their candidate.