Biden wins the election. How active will he be in purging Trump loyalists?

[SuntanLotion]

Did I hear it correctly, Hillary said Biden should not concede under any circumstances? Even if he doesn’t have the votes?

[Buck_Godot]

@SuntanLotion

Did I hear it correctly, Hillary said Biden should not concede under any circumstances? Even if he doesn’t have the votes?

Wrong thread?

[Senegoid]

I’m sure Hillary said, or at least meant that Biden should absolutely not concede if the vote is anything like close.

In fact, it’s coming back to me: IIRC, I read that she said Biden should absolutely adamantly NOT concede until ALL the votes are counted, and not a moment sooner.

[Akaj]

Somebody has to say it: Cite?

[Senegoid]

@Akaj

Somebody has to say it: Cite? -

Here, let me google that for you:
Googling the keywords: hillary tells biden not to concede
turns up pages of cites. Seems like every news source in the free world is covering it. Here’s an example:

Hillary Clinton urges Biden not to concede in close election.

Hillary Clinton, who lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, urges Joe Biden not to concede until all votes are counted.

Clinton said that possible delays in tallying ballots – with mail-in voting set to reach unprecedented levels – mean Biden must hold back from accepting defeat initially.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out and, eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side,” Clinton said in an interview with Showtime’s “The Circus.”

Clinton, who won almost three million more votes than Trump overall in 2016 but lost to him in the state-by-state electoral college count, suggested that the Republicans are hoping to get the result they want through in-person voting on the day – and not necessarily wait for any delayed mail-in ballots to be counted.

Her comments follow warnings from both sides that the result of the election may not be known on the evening of November 3.

The same search also turns up Republicans blasting her for saying that.

[k9bfriender]

@flurb

Ironically, the reason why Trump was able to appoint the majority of the Board is because Bernie Sanders blocked President Obama’s nominees from getting a vote in the Senate.

I’m not a fan of Sanders, but it must be mentioned that, while he did participate in the blocking of those nominees under the rightful understanding that they would implement drastic cuts to the USPS, his participation was not required in the Republican majority senate to block them.

[Akaj]

Sorry, I actually meant to reply to Suntanlotion’s "Did I hear it correctly … question, which sounded suspiciously like “People are saying …”

[bump]

@Jas09

Generals and Admirals are career military officers. I’m not aware of any of them that could be considered Trump loyalists. In a perfect world they are apolitical, but obviously it takes some political acumen to become a general or an admiral. From what I can tell in general the high-level military are not Trumpists.

The Chiefs of Staff of the various services and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are each chosen for a four year term, but they also serve at the pleasure of the President.

That said, they’re not political hacks who are appointed without military experience, each is usually already a four star general/admiral before appointment (not sure if that’s a statutory requirement or not), so the pool is very limited- around 24-25 officers I think.

So it’s highly likely that General Milley, the other chiefs of staff, and the unified combatant commanders are not political appointees in the same sense as say… Betsy DeVos or Dennis DeJoy. These are people who worked their way up through the organization and are likely to be reasonably competent.

[FlikTheBlue]

@bump

The Chiefs of Staff of the various services and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are each chosen for a four year term, but they also serve at the pleasure of the President.

That said, they’re not political hacks who are appointed without military experience, each is usually already a four star general/admiral before appointment (not sure if that’s a statutory requirement or not), so the pool is very limited- around 24-25 officers I think.

So it’s highly likely that General Milley, the other chiefs of staff, and the unified combatant commanders are not political appointees in the same sense as say… Betsy DeVos or Dennis DeJoy. These are people who worked their way up through the organization and are likely to be reasonably competent.

The good news is that those people are only in charge of military policy and not policy for the whole country. And as noted they aren’t Trump hacks. And a Biden appointed secretary of defense will be supervising them.

[dtilque]

@Mickyfinn

I’ll make it pretty simple for me. Get a calendar. Chronologically look at everything the orangeanus did. Do the exact opposite. Note: This does not only apply to his appointments.

If we get a Dem Senate and House, some of that could be done by legislation. It would save a lot of time and paperwork to just undo by law all the regulatory changes from the last four years. For example, I’ve seen lots of changes made by the EPA in that time and every one of them reduced the protection of the environment from what was the previous regulation. Now I’m just going by what made the news, so maybe I missed some good changes. Somehow I doubt it, though.