• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's Cabinet

MaggieD said:
I wonder what status quo organization closed their eyes to the pollution in Waukegan Harbor. And what status quo organization has not gotten it cleaned up. And what status quo organization let Outboard Marine file bankruptcy to avoid the fines...
Click to expand...

So you're of the mind that Donald Trump will clean up our air and water.
 
MaggieD said:
He is certainly controlled by his conscience. Presumably we all are. However, the answer I was looking for -- he is controlled by the POTUS. He is not in charge.
Click to expand...

He advises the POTUS. He is an individual complete with flaws and strong characteristics.

Unfortunately, one character trait suppressed by the military experience is conscience. The military demands, trains and conditions all members to follow orders. The conscience is trained to go to the corner and shut up. That training works better on some individuals, and less well on others. From Charge of the Light Brigade, "ours is not to wonder why, ours is to do, and die". Painfully true.

In fact the SecDef IS in charge, of his department.
 
Thoreau72 said:
He advises the POTUS. He is an individual complete with flaws and strong characteristics.

Unfortunately, one character trait suppressed by the military experience is conscience. The military demands, trains and conditions all members to follow orders. The conscience is trained to go to the corner and shut up. That training works better on some individuals, and less well on others. From Charge of the Light Brigade, "ours is not to wonder why, ours is to do, and die". Painfully true.

In fact the SecDef IS in charge, of his department.
Click to expand...

He's in charge of his dept under the auspices of the POTUS, executing HIS vision and HIS agenda. I do not accept your mischaracterization of our military. In fact, I resent the small-mindedness that puts forth that theory. We had a Five Star General as a well respected POTUS who was also the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces. He wasn't Frankenstein.

Quit trying so hard to vilify those you nay not agree with. In ****ingfact? Vilifying those you not only know nothing about? But who haven't even been seated. Such small mindedness.
 
The final straw for me was the apportionment of Vlad Tepes as head of the US Garlic Commission.. One too many chickens in the hen house if you ask me.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
i don't think they should disagree with the mission or the existence of the departments and the positions.
Click to expand...

Why not? We certainly need some rather important changes, which nobody that is happy with the status quo will strive to make. There is a downside no doubt. But it is hard to see how non marginal change should otherwise come about.

What disturbs me more is that most are not known for good grasp of the background to the various job areas.
 
If you want to reduce the reach of the DOEs then put people in charge who are opposed to things like over regulation, corrupt Teacher's unions and large government bureaucracy. Same with labor. Hire someone who knows how to create jobs, not create skewed labor markets.


Liberals think all government is good and want more of it. Its a stupid ideology.
 
My issue with the Cabinet is that Trump has gone so outside the box, and has imposed so little ideological conformity to his picks, that managing the executive branch is going to be extremely hard to manage. Trump here is like the early days of NASA, building an untested rocket with a lot of fuel, and we all know going in that it might just blow up on the launch pad. It was clear to all astute observers that Trump is not ideological at all, that he is practical, bit setting up a government that is nearly impossible to run because there will be such strong constant internal disputes (and self dealing?) is not practical.

Trump we know has the ego to always think he can do it, and he likes to make stuff hard because he needs a challenge...for Trump challenge=fun....but come on.

Re picks not being interested in preserving the status quo in the departments they are running that is kinda the point. DC Government is a complete wreck through and through, it is not just the bosses, something that Trump is smart enough to know and a patriot enough to want to try to fix.



MERRY CHRISTMAS
 
Last edited:
Militant_Vegan_ said:
i don't think they should disagree with the mission or the existence of the departments and the positions.
Click to expand...

The mission of the departments and the existence of the departments are two very different things. I fell like it would be a good idea to renew the charter of every Federal Organization every year.

Here is a list of 50 examples of waste. I have cut and pasted my favorite from the list.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste?lfa=Entitlements
<snip>
7. Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.[7]
<snip>

There are so many things wrong with that point it boggles the mind.
 
MaggieD said:
I read a post from a DPer roundly criticizing Trump's cabinet picks because he had chosen people who were more or less opposed or uncomfortable with the status quo of the departments they were representing. The poster saw this as ridiculous.

Why? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to appoint people who were in bed with the status quo? What kind of valuable criticism would they bring?

When I served on a village board of trustees, I studied the group dynamics of committees and department heads. Know who always beings about the most constructive change? The biggest pain in the ass on the committee. Why? Because they are constantly challenging the, "We've always done it this way," mindset.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between someone who opposes the status quo, and someone who is hostile to the entire reason for a government department.
 
code1211 said:
The mission of the departments and the existence of the departments are two very different things. I fell like it would be a good idea to renew the charter of every Federal Organization every year.

Here is a list of 50 examples of waste. I have cut and pasted my favorite from the list.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...a=Entitlements
<snip>
7. Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.[7]
<snip>

There are so many things wrong with that point it boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

The reference on this point is written by a guy who writes for Breitbart, but even in his write-up, the study suddenly sounds a lot more reasonable. The study is looking at ways that alcohol consumption among sex workers (including, but not limited to, prostitutes) influences rates of HIV infection, and finding possible avenues of interruption. The point is to find ways to stem the spread of disease, and that will directly benefit the U.S. If this study ultimately prevents, say, 200 instances of HIV infection, it will have been money well-spent. I feel fairly confident that similarly complicating factors will be found on most of the other items on the list.

On an entirely different note: all this "waste" just puts money back into the economy. It creates jobs where none were before--jobs the private sector would probably not create with the same money. This is a well-known and easily-understood point: businesses only hire people when they have enough customers to warrant doing so, and the wealthy can only purchase so many widgets. Without government "waste," money would tend to flow upwards and just stay parked in various investment instruments.
 
Oil Guys, Goldman Sacs, White Nationalist, Generals, War Mongers, & people that gave him large sums of money. Whats not to like, pretty much the opposite of what Trump ran on.

Trump is the Status Quo
 
MaggieD said:
I read a post from a DPer roundly criticizing Trump's cabinet picks because he had chosen people who were more or less opposed or uncomfortable with the status quo of the departments they were representing. The poster saw this as ridiculous.

Why? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to appoint people who were in bed with the status quo? What kind of valuable criticism would they bring?

When I served on a village board of trustees, I studied the group dynamics of committees and department heads. Know who always beings about the most constructive change? The biggest pain in the ass on the committee. Why? Because they are constantly challenging the, "We've always done it this way," mindset.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Trump filled his cabinet with people who have always supported him. When you served on this board of trustees, did the people who were best friends with the head of the board make the most changes? In other words, shouldn't we be concerned that the cabinet is being filled with yes men?
 
MaggieD said:
He's in charge of his dept under the auspices of the POTUS, executing HIS vision and HIS agenda. I do not accept your mischaracterization of our military. In fact, I resent the small-mindedness that puts forth that theory. We had a Five Star General as a well respected POTUS who was also the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces. He wasn't Frankenstein.

Quit trying so hard to vilify those you nay not agree with. In ****ingfact? Vilifying those you not only know nothing about? But who haven't even been seated. Such small mindedness.
Click to expand...

I don't see how presenting what I was taught by US Army officers in Army ROTC is vilifying anybody. Your imagination seems in overdrive today. Who or what am I mischaracterizing? Are you suggesting to me that General Officers are perfect individuals? Not human somehow? Angelic and highly principled?

And if you don't believe that military indoctrination INCLUDES conditioning to follow orders and ask no questions, YOU have never experienced being in the military. Keep in mind that the only general and field grade officers who spoke out against torture conscientiously were soon drummed out of the military.

Good morning Maggie, wake up and smell the napalm. Ike's warning was not idle talk.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think there's a difference between someone who opposes the status quo, and someone who is hostile to the entire reason for a government department.
Click to expand...

That's a fair statement. I don't know enough about Trump's choices to come to the conclusion that those are the people he's chosen. I do think you have a thoughtful point, though.

Mustachio said:
Trump filled his cabinet with people who have always supported him. When you served on this board of trustees, did the people who were best friends with the head of the board make the most changes? In other words, shouldn't we be concerned that the cabinet is being filled with yes men?
Click to expand...

Well, to use your analogy of the board of trustees, the people on the board who were friends of the village president were the one's that were most eager to advance his agenda. I have to ask why you would expect a president to appoint people to his cabinet who DIDNT support him. And whether or not you have examples of past presidents who've done that.

Thoreau72 said:
I don't see how presenting what I was taught by US Army officers in Army ROTC is vilifying anybody. Your imagination seems in overdrive today. Who or what am I mischaracterizing? Are you suggesting to me that General Officers are perfect individuals? Not human somehow? Angelic and highly principled?

And if you don't believe that military indoctrination INCLUDES conditioning to follow orders and ask no questions, YOU have never experienced being in the military. Keep in mind that the only general and field grade officers who spoke out against torture conscientiously were soon drummed out of the military.

Good morning Maggie, wake up and smell the napalm. Ike's warning was not idle talk.
Click to expand...

No, you're right. I have never experienced the military. And, frankly, after gaining SOMEWHAT of an understanding of their indoctrination to accept orders without question, I used to joke that I'd be in front of a firing squad in no time.

I've been fortunate enough (or UNfortunate enough) to have heard multiple friends' stories about their Vietnam experience. Some of them saw and did horrendous things in that war. They came home, laid down their guns and spent their lives atoning. Military men are not The Boogeyman.

And, as Forest said, "That's all I'm going to say about that."
 
MaggieD said:
That's a fair statement. I don't know enough about Trump's choices to come to the conclusion that those are the people he's chosen. I do think you have a thoughtful point, though.



Well, to use your analogy of the board of trustees, the people on the board who were friends of the village president were the one's that were most eager to advance his agenda. I have to ask why you would expect a president to appoint people to his cabinet who DIDNT support him. And whether or not you have examples of past presidents who've done that.



No, you're right. I have never experienced the military. And, frankly, after gaining SOMEWHAT of an understanding of their indoctrination to accept orders without question, I used to joke that I'd be in front of a firing squad in no time.

I've been fortunate enough (or UNfortunate enough) to have heard multiple friends' stories about their Vietnam experience. Some of them saw and did horrendous things in that war. They came home, laid down their guns and spent their lives atoning. Military men are not The Boogeyman.

And, as Forest said, "That's all I'm going to say about that."
Click to expand...

Nor did I say they were The Boogeyman. I merely pointed out that they are human, just like the rest of us. Capable of good, and capable of the opposite. :peace I prefer to see them as good men and patriots, then comes along Powell and Betrayus, giving me nothing good to work with....
 
ashurbanipal said:
The reference on this point is written by a guy who writes for Breitbart, but even in his write-up, the study suddenly sounds a lot more reasonable. The study is looking at ways that alcohol consumption among sex workers (including, but not limited to, prostitutes) influences rates of HIV infection, and finding possible avenues of interruption. The point is to find ways to stem the spread of disease, and that will directly benefit the U.S. If this study ultimately prevents, say, 200 instances of HIV infection, it will have been money well-spent. I feel fairly confident that similarly complicating factors will be found on most of the other items on the list.

On an entirely different note: all this "waste" just puts money back into the economy. It creates jobs where none were before--jobs the private sector would probably not create with the same money. This is a well-known and easily-understood point: businesses only hire people when they have enough customers to warrant doing so, and the wealthy can only purchase so many widgets. Without government "waste," money would tend to flow upwards and just stay parked in various investment instruments.
Click to expand...

And the government only hires people when they have extra money in their budget and need to waste it to get it again next year.

IF the advent of drinking among Chinese prostitutes is what causes them to do their work, perhaps this is a good study. If, on the other hand, the exchange of money is what causes them to do their work, perhaps the government should simply have a single IRS agent enact better tracking of the monetary exchange and demand that the employer enroll them in Obamacare.

I can't believe you are defending this ridiculous expenditure of money.
 
code1211 said:
And the government only hires people when they have extra money in their budget and need to waste it to get it again next year.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think it's waste. What does the person they hire do with their paycheck? They go and spend it on products and services in our economy.

code1211 said:
IF the advent of drinking among Chinese prostitutes is what causes them to do their work, perhaps this is a good study. If, on the other hand, the exchange of money is what causes them to do their work, perhaps the government should simply have a single IRS agent enact better tracking of the monetary exchange and demand that the employer enroll them in Obamacare.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your reply--it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I posted. The point of the study is to look at one way that HIV is spread, and to find ways to interrupt those vectors. The propaganda on it from the Heritage Foundation billed it as a program to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly at work. The difference between those descriptions is night and day--the Heritage Foundation's description is correct in the same way it's correct to describe the Kennedy assassination as a demonstration of physics.

code1211 said:
I can't believe you are defending this ridiculous expenditure of money.
Click to expand...

That is most likely because you've made up your mind that it's ridiculous before investigating the matter, which is bad epistemic practice and leads to false beliefs.
 
MaggieD said:
I read a post from a DPer roundly criticizing Trump's cabinet picks because he had chosen people who were more or less opposed or uncomfortable with the status quo of the departments they were representing. The poster saw this as ridiculous.

Why? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to appoint people who were in bed with the status quo? What kind of valuable criticism would they bring?
Click to expand...

"Status quo" could mean many things. For instance, Medicare exists: that's the status quo. Trump's picked an HHS Secretary and a budget director who don't like that status quo. Given that neither does the GOP House leadership from which those folks came, that status quo may well change. That would not be a step forward.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I'm not sure why you think it's waste. What does the person they hire do with their paycheck? They go and spend it on products and services in our economy.



I don't understand your reply--it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I posted. The point of the study is to look at one way that HIV is spread, and to find ways to interrupt those vectors. The propaganda on it from the Heritage Foundation billed it as a program to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly at work. The difference between those descriptions is night and day--the Heritage Foundation's description is correct in the same way it's correct to describe the Kennedy assassination as a demonstration of physics.



That is most likely because you've made up your mind that it's ridiculous before investigating the matter, which is bad epistemic practice and leads to false beliefs.
Click to expand...

The point of the study funded by this particular grant was to study the behavior of Chinese prostitutes doing business outside of the USA.

By any standard, a ridiculous allocation of US taxpayer funds.

As I understand it, the USA has HIV and prostitutes and booze. Why not conduct the study, if it is critically needed, in the USA? The Heritage Foundation describes it almost exactly as the person running the program describes it.

Even Politifact rates the claim of waste as only half true. The point is, unless it's completely justified, why are the idiots spending money we don't have on things we don't need? They should be more careful with my money.

Do you like it when idiots steal your money and waste it? I don't.

U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job

<snip>
The research will take place in the southern Chinese province of Guangxi.
<snip>
"Previous studies in Asia and Africa and our own data from FSWs [female sex workers] in China suggest that the social norms and institutional policy within commercial sex venues as well as agents overseeing the FSWs (i.e., the 'gatekeepers', defined as persons who manage the establishments and/or sex workers) are potentially of great importance in influencing alcohol use and sexual behavior among establishment-based FSWs," says the NIH grant abstract submitted by Dr. Li.
<snip>

Founder of Tea Party Nation claims U.S. government has spent $2.6 million to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly | PolitiFact

<snip>
We rate the claim Half True.
<snip>
 
Last edited:
Rick Perry...picked to run the department he wanted to abolish and then forgot in a debate. You can't make this stuff up.

I am actually kind of for it though because of the chaos this will seed in the world. If the U.S. makes a new concerted effort to exploit oil and gas, it will likely crash the price leading to horrific consequences to Russia and karma restoring itself for the election. Renewable sources are going to be marketable regardless of the DOE.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, to use your analogy of the board of trustees, the people on the board who were friends of the village president were the one's that were most eager to advance his agenda. I have to ask why you would expect a president to appoint people to his cabinet who DIDNT support him. And whether or not you have examples of past presidents who've done that.
Click to expand...

Obama did. He kept Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. I can go back in history and I'm pretty sure there are a lot more examples.

Also, other Presidents aren't Trump. I think even people who love Trump are aware of the fact that his ego is beyond enormous. I also think that he's used to people doing whatever he says and they're gone if they correct a spelling mistake he's made (that's a metaphor). Having a cabinet that's more or less your most prominent backers reinforces the notion that you don't want the best - you want somebody who will do what they are told.
 
An analyst on one of news shows a few weeks ago made the comment that what he was hearing was that a lot of people in Washington who work in the bureaucracies were getting a little anxious about all the CEO and generals being picked by Trump, worried they would actually have to do something.
 
MaggieD said:
I read a post from a DPer roundly criticizing Trump's cabinet picks because he had chosen people who were more or less opposed or uncomfortable with the status quo of the departments they were representing. The poster saw this as ridiculous.

Why? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to appoint people who were in bed with the status quo? What kind of valuable criticism would they bring?

When I served on a village board of trustees, I studied the group dynamics of committees and department heads. Know who always beings about the most constructive change? The biggest pain in the ass on the committee. Why? Because they are constantly challenging the, "We've always done it this way," mindset.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's not just 'status quo', but a lot of times, it is people whose previous jobs was extracting money from the public for their own personal gain. They also have financial or personal reasons to go against the public interest. IT's one thing to shake things up.. it's another to screw the entire country because of religious or financial personal motivations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom