What do you think of Trumps cabinet?

It seems to be full of generals and the very rich. Do you thiink that this is the cabinet that his followers, i.e., the average man, was looking for or the cabinet that the very wealthy wanted?

independentusa said:

It seems to be full of generals and the very rich. Do you thiink that this is the cabinet that his followers, i.e., the average man, was looking for or the cabinet that the very wealthy wanted?

Click to expand...

I dont really know much about his appointees and im on the *show me* program. I expect him to surround himself with sucessfull people. Being rich or from the military are not disqualifers for me.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

What would give me a chubby is if they could actually slash their budgets and save money. Even if its only 1% it would be a great improvement.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

independentusa said:

It seems to be full of generals and the very rich. Do you thiink that this is the cabinet that his followers, i.e., the average man, was looking for or the cabinet that the very wealthy wanted?

Click to expand...

Sure it is. But it would've been about the same if it was Hillary's cabinet.

The swamp isnt being drained. He conned his supporters on that point big time. The swamp is instead growing. Its essentially the same swamp with a different face.

Of those announced to date there are only 2 DC politicians and both have been fierce opponents of the rat agenda. There are 2 military nominees...both wildly popular with the DOD community. There are 4 women, none of whom are federally elected politicians. He has 1 announced black American candidate, 1 Asian American candidate, and 2 extraordinarily successful businessmen.

We'll have to see the final tally to judge for sure,

independentusa said:

It seems to be full of generals and the very rich. Do you thiink that this is the cabinet that his followers, i.e., the average man, was looking for or the cabinet that the very wealthy wanted?

Click to expand...

I wish there was a Baker or Kissinger in it.

TheDemSocialist said:

The swamp isnt being drained. He conned his supporters on that point big time. The swamp is instead growing. Its essentially the same swamp with a different face.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that? I would not be surprised, if his voters liked successful people with mostly little political experience.
If that were all there was to complain about.....

TheGoverness said:

Sure it is. But it would've been about the same if it was Hillary's cabinet.

Click to expand...

It would have probably had less military experience.

joG said:

It would have probably had less military experience.

Click to expand...

I'd be happy if they stopped adding Generals at this point - I think that is enough, now diversify a bit more and add in some depth. I don't dislike much that he's done so far but it's hard to tell if they will actually do what I WANT them to do, or if they're going to go off into right field....

independentusa said:

It seems to be full of generals and the very rich. Do you thiink that this is the cabinet that his followers, i.e., the average man, was looking for or the cabinet that the very wealthy wanted?

Click to expand...

Generals typically are far from rich. So that is a nice element.

Would love to see Petreaus nominated for SoS.

Second choice would be Bolton...

independentusa said:

It seems to be full of generals and the very rich. Do you thiink that this is the cabinet that his followers, i.e., the average man, was looking for or the cabinet that the very wealthy wanted?

Click to expand...

From what I am seeing, he is interviewing people who are smart, savvy, capable, experienced, and not part of the permanent political class establishment. I don't really care how rich they are--rich people are less likely to be in it for the money--and the right kind of military experience is a plus. He is taking his time and being very deliberative to choose the right person for each job.

If the people he is choosing are able to help eliminate bad policy and implement policy that is actually good for the people, if they are able to organize the government bureaucracy into something that actually works for us instead of for itself again, and eliminate the horrendous fraud, waste, and self-serving extravagance in government, then Trump will have done a great service for us all.

pragmatic said:

Would love to see Petreaus nominated for SoS.

Second choice would be Bolton...

Click to expand...

My pick is Bolton. Good guy, smart, experienced, and able to cut through the crap and get to the heart of the matter. I will accept Mitt Romney if that is Trump's choice, but my gut tells me that that would be Trump's first serious mistake and I would be disappointed.

TheGoverness said:

Sure it is. But it would've been about the same if it was Hillary's cabinet.

Click to expand...

Except that Clinton's cabinet's qualifications would have started with racial/gender/sexual orientation preferences first, then political affiliation, then $$$ spent on her campaign and then qualifications.
Trump's appointments look like they're going to start with qualifications and then that's pretty much it...

TheDemSocialist said:

The swamp isnt being drained. He conned his supporters on that point big time. The swamp is instead growing. Its essentially the same swamp with a different face.

Click to expand...

Really?

You have a guy going into the EPA that's got a long history of having issue with the EPA's regulations on businesses and private individuals. I would wager a guess that he'll strip back a lot of those regulations, which to Trump supporters would be part of "draining the swamp" as it would be reducing the size and scope of the federal government on peoples lives and private industry.

You have a girl going into the Dept of Education that's got a long history of having issue with public education and the process of just throwing money at it and assuming results will occur, while being a big proponent of individual choice in schooling, as well being down on federal as opposed to more local levels of control on schools. I would wager a guess that she'll shift things back to a more state and local level in terms of curriculum and push for a shift towards a program that puts money back to individuals in order to allow them to have a greater choice in what school to send their kids to. This would reduce the size and scope of the federal government on peoples lives, again a part of "draining the swamp" to a Trump supporter.

The ONLY people who seem to equate "drain the swamp" with "get rid of anyone rich or having involved with government at any point ever" are liberals, typically the most solidly left leaning types, stating such as a means of attacking him. I've found VERY few people who actually SUPPORT Trump who suggested before the election, or after it, that such a definition for "drain the swamp" was what they thought he meant. Indeed, the very pick of his VP nominee...a man with a significant track record in government...should've been well apparent that such a view wasn't how he was defining it.

The hypocrisy attacks on "drain the swamp" are basically laughable; a bunch of individual pissed off and angry that Trump won, ignorantly defining what he meant to serve their purpose, and then using their unquestionably biased and inaccurate definition as a means to attack him. Basically, the same pathetic and laughable gameplan they were using the entire campaign long that left them utterly and completely shocked when their side lost.

Ockham said:

I'd be happy if they stopped adding Generals at this point - I think that is enough, now diversify a bit more and add in some depth. I don't dislike much that he's done so far but it's hard to tell if they will actually do what I WANT them to do, or if they're going to go off into right field....

Click to expand...

DHS and DOD are two places that I think a military person makes a lot of sense, and have no issues with the choices there. National Security advisor, again, one where a military man would make sense.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd really see another spot where I'd say "Yeah, a general is the way to go" in terms of the top end positions.

Ockham said:

I'd be happy if they stopped adding Generals at this point - I think that is enough, now diversify a bit more and add in some depth. I don't dislike much that he's done so far but it's hard to tell if they will actually do what I WANT them to do, or if they're going to go off into right field....

Click to expand...

I am with you on the generals thing. But I am less complacent about Trump's behavior thus far.

faithful_servant said:

Except that Clinton's cabinet's qualifications would have started with racial/gender/sexual orientation preferences first, then political affiliation, then $$$ spent on her campaign and then qualifications.
Trump's appointments look like they're going to start with qualifications and then that's pretty much it...

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. We can see the pathetic results of Obama's political appointees based on the same criteria Hillary would likely use. I can't think of a single government bureaucracy that is being run efficiently or effectively after eight years and if the media actually reported on those missteps, accounting snafus, waste, and malfeasance as they did with President Bush and will almost certainly do to Trump, the deplorable aspects of the Obama administration would be the entire front page of the newspapers and 90% of the telecasts.

This is a swamp with decades of an entrenched permanent political class, elected, appointed, and hired into the bureaucracy, that will not be easy to drain. But at least treating it seriously will help and allow us to begin necessary reforms to create a streamlined, modernized, and effective government that works for us instead of for itself.

I have mixed reactions thus far.

I am on hold with DeVos
Worried about Sessions and Price
Really liking Mattis and Kelly
Pleased about Chao
Optimistic for stability with Mnuchin
Down on Carson
Thanking Christ Priebus is there
I like Haley but wish she was somewhere else in the administration
I like McMahon
Cautiously optimistic with Pruitt
Down on Flynn

Fiddytree said:

I have mixed reactions thus far.

I am on hold with DeVos
Worried about Sessions and Price
Really liking Mattis and Kelly
Pleased about Chao
Optimistic for stability with Mnuchin
Down on Carson
Thanking Christ Priebus is there
I like Haley but wish she was somewhere else in the administration
I like McMahon
Cautiously optimistic with Pruitt
Down on Flynn

Click to expand...

Bannon is one that comes off as problematic. That one almost seems like a taunt.

pragmatic said:

Bannon is one that comes off as problematic. That one almost seems like a taunt.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I wonder if his name was thrown out so that Trump would have someone to use as a compromise appointment...

pragmatic said:

Bannon is one that comes off as problematic. That one almost seems like a taunt.

Click to expand...

Bannon, in any decent universe, should have remained in the bleak white spaces of Brietbart. Then again, his boss should never have been elected for this position.

faithful_servant said:

Yeah, I wonder if his name was thrown out so that Trump would have someone to use as a compromise appointment...

Click to expand...

We all need a Karl Rove. But I would have rather had Karl any day of the week.

I think there's legitimate reasons for concern that he's choosing military generals for 2 positions that are supposed to have civilian control. I like Mathis as much as the next guy, but those rules are in there for a reason. Even if Trump comes in and manages to actually reduce the influence of interest groups on our politicians, if he reduces our rule of law that has keep us one of the most stable governments in the world for 240 years, it might all be for naught.