# Trump's Cabinet of Curiosities **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 10, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367 "2016-11-10T16:28:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/421 "2016-12-09T19:27:47Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > My wagers end in tattoos. > > Did you miss civilian oversight of the military, or do you just keep ignoring it? I’ll make it simple. The Secretary of Defense serves as part of civilian oversight of the military. James Mattis is not a civilian. As such, he cannot serve as part of the civilian oversight of the military. Make him SecDef in 2020, or preferably 2024, and I’m all aboard, no qualms at all. I like civilian oversight of the military. Generally, it’s a good, even great, principle, and one we should protect. I don’t know why the limit was reduced from 10 years to 7 years, but I didn’t really consider that the death of civilian oversight of the military. I don’t really think reducing it further, from 7 to 4 years, is really the end of civilian oversight of the military either. But overall, let’s call that a point against Mattis. On the other hand, Mattis has a reputation as someone who is not afraid to say what he thinks, and he is considered very successful in his professional life. I consider both of those things points in his favor. But none of that has anything to do with whether Mattis is “within normal parameters” or not based on _your_ definition of the phrase. You don’t think he’s opposed to the mission of the DoD, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/422 "2016-12-09T19:31:05Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > My wagers end in tattoos. > > Did you miss civilian oversight of the military, or do you just keep ignoring it? I’ll make it simple. The Secretary of Defense serves as part of civilian oversight of the military. James Mattis is not a civilian. As such, he cannot serve as part of the civilian oversight of the military. Make him SecDef in 2020, or preferably 2024, and I’m all aboard, no qualms at all. Apparently he’s fine with ignoring it. What should be a major issue is just a “point”. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/423 "2016-12-09T19:32:02Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > Cite or retract. > **[H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- Senate Vote...](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s396)** > > This is the Senate's health care bill. The bill started off with text regarding an unrelated matter but the Senate is co-opted this bill as a vehicle for passage of … ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/424 "2016-12-09T19:34:14Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Not sure if this will change your mind, but [The Economist](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/10/daily-chart-1) found a lot of GOP parentage in the bill. Thanks for the article. The study that is the source for that article is really interesting, but longer than I have time to read through right now. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/425 "2016-12-09T19:35:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- GovTrack.us](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s396) What is it you think your cite shows? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/426 "2016-12-09T19:35:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Apparently he’s fine with ignoring it. What should be a major issue is just a “point”. It’s neither a major issue nor a point either for or against whether Mattis is “within normal parameters” according to Chisquirrel’s definition of the phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/427 "2016-12-09T21:18:46Z")
“Normal parameters” for a high-level position like this involves: -Years of experience working closely on the issues that the position will require work on, or else on very closely related issues; and -No obvious ideological disagreement with the agency’s mission or the laws it enforces. This isn’t just “people Democrats don’t like.” If a Democrat appointed Elizabeth Warren to be head of the FCC, that’d be someone Democrats didn’t like. If a Democrat appointed Jane Fonda to head the Department of Defense, or Willie Nelson as the head of the DEA, or Chelsea Manning to head up the NSA, that’d be what Trump is engaged in here. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/428 "2016-12-09T21:44:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “Normal parameters” for a high-level position like this involves: > > -Years of experience working closely on the issues that the position will require work on, or else on very closely related issues; and > -No obvious ideological disagreement with the agency’s mission or the laws it enforces. > > This isn’t just “people Democrats don’t like.” If a Democrat appointed Elizabeth Warren to be head of the FCC, that’d be someone Democrats didn’t like. If a Democrat appointed Jane Fonda to head the Department of Defense, or Willie Nelson as the head of the DEA, or Chelsea Manning to head up the NSA, that’d be what Trump is engaged in here. And which nominations, specifically, do _you_ think are outside of “normal parameters”? Is it just Betsy DeVos? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/429 "2016-12-09T21:47:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If a Democrat appointed Elizabeth Warren to be head of the FCC, that’d be someone Democrats didn’t like. Clarification nitpick: I think you meant to type “someone Republicans didn’t like”. I agree with the rest of your post. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/430 "2016-12-09T21:55:56Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s neither a major issue nor a point either for or against whether Mattis is “within normal parameters” according to Chisquirrel’s definition of the phrase. What I find to be a major sticking point, you dismiss as trivial and irrelevant. I’m done repeating myself. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/431 "2016-12-09T21:59:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What is it you think your cite shows? Well, Republicans didn’t vote for it, so obviously there was no attempt to include them! This from the party of [QUOTE=Senator McConnell] The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/432 "2016-12-09T22:11:53Z")
[Donald Trump Picks Another Goldman Sachs Exec To Join His Administration](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gary-cohn-donald-trump_us_584ae1d8e4b0e05aded3962a) Clang Clang Clang Clang Clang… Its going to be a looooooooooooooooong, coooooooooooooooold, Winter. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_jeffrey_lebowski/32/215_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/433 "2016-12-09T23:48:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And which nominations, specifically, do _you_ think are outside of “normal parameters”? Is it just Betsy DeVos? Scott Pruitt and Andrew Puzder are foes of the Agency/Department that each will be overseeing. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/434 "2016-12-10T00:19:36Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](#): > > Scott Pruitt and Andrew Puzder are foes of the Agency/Department that each will be overseeing. If I’m understanding you right, we’re now down to 2-3 out of ~21 appointments that are not “within normal parameters”. Is that a fair statement, or are there others you think fall into that category? Let’s talk about Andrew Puzder specifically for a moment, if you don’t mind. Why do you consider him a “foe” of the Department of Labor? I must admit that as I type this, I know precious little about Puzder or his history. If I were asked to guess though, I’d guess that he falls on the pro-business side, as do most Republicans, if you were to place politicians on a spectrum with pro-business on one end and pro-labor on the other end. Is that all it is, that he’s a pro-business Republican? Or has Puzder personally done something to distinguish himself as particularly anti-labor (above and beyond a run-of-the-mill Republican)? If so, what was it? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/435 "2016-12-10T01:59:45Z")
> [@Little\_Pig](#): > > [Donald Trump Picks Another Goldman Sachs Exec To Join His Administration](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gary-cohn-donald-trump_us_584ae1d8e4b0e05aded3962a) > > Clang Clang Clang Clang Clang… And the Sandernistas kept attacking Hillary for giving a few speeches to Goldman Sachs, and thus refused to support her… well they got what they deserved. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/436 "2016-12-10T02:30:37Z")
So Rudy took himself out of consideration. Guess he’s been kissing that enormous orange ass all these months for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/437 "2016-12-10T03:39:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And which nominations, specifically, do _you_ think are outside of “normal parameters”? Is it just Betsy DeVos? I’m not going to through every single one, but will just look at two right now: Betsy DeVos, and Scott Pruitt. DeVos has no real history working within any large educational institution. She has no relevant experience, and she’s unqualified on that count. Her ideological opposition to much of what the DoE is required by law to do is icing on the cake. Scott Pruitt has no scientific expertise to speak of, and his main qualifications consist of fighting against the laws that the EPA is required to enforce. He has no business heading up the EPA. Do you argue that either of them have credentials anywhere within the normal credentials for heading up a major agency that administers specific aspects of federal law? Do you argue that neither of them have ideological positions that place them at odds with the missions of the agencies they’ve been tapped for? ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/438 "2016-12-10T04:08:50Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > So Rudy took himself out of consideration. Guess he’s been kissing that enormous orange ass all these months for nothing. Thank the christ that loony fucker is out of the picture, along with that bloated piece of malware from Jersey and ol’ eye of Newt. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/439 "2016-12-10T04:10:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Scott Pruitt has no scientific expertise to speak of, and his main qualifications consist of fighting against the laws that the EPA is required to enforce. He has no business heading up the EPA. Y’know, maybe I should qualify my claim that he’s outside of normal parameters. While we’ve had qualified scientists heading up the EPA for the last 8 years (thanks, Obama!), and even beyond (can’t believe I’m saying it, but thanks, W!), you can go back and look at Reagan’s nominee, [Ann Gorsuch Burford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Gorsuch_Burford). She, like Pruitt, had no environmental or even scientific expertise, and she, like Pruitt, came to the agency hostile to its intentions and did her best to dismantle it. She dragged her feet as much as possible on phasing lead out of commercial products, refused to turn over records to congress, was the first US cabinet member ever cited for Contempt of Congress, and eventually resigned in disgrace. So I guess there’s precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2016, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367/440 "2016-12-10T04:14:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And the Sandernistas kept attacking Hillary for giving a few speeches to Goldman Sachs, and thus refused to support her… well they got what they deserved. E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-T point\*\* DrDeth\*\*! [Alas, as George Carlin said …](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-cabinet-of-curiosities/771367.md?page=23)