I’m looking for a simple flowchart; face shot, and biography.
It just seems like his idea for smaller government is to appoint people that are the exact opposite of the Mission Statement of the Bureaus that they serve.
For instance:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/ben-carson-housing-urban-development-trump.html?_r=0
Ben Carson’s house. (Skip ahead two minutes.)
This guy is supposed to help with our homeless problem?
Surgeon General? Dr Oz or Dr Phil?
Mercola.
Or Dr. Demento.
:dubious: You realize we’re talking about, for instance, the selection of an EPA head who promotes anti-science views on climate change and favors dismantling large amounts of environmental regulation, not to mention much of the EPA itself.
This is not a case of “both sides do it”. This is not normal partisan politics. This is the equivalent of, say, a Democratic President-elect picking a Trotskyite socialist who favors nationalizing the US oil industry to be Secretary of Commerce.
No Clinton Cabinet appointee would have been anywhere near as radical towards the left as several of Trump’s picks are towards the right. Pretending otherwise is just a feeble evasion of reality.
Pssst, already under discussion in this thread.
Merged post #381.
[/moderating]
Come on. Put a little thought into it. What has the Surgeon General been most famous for over the last few decades?
His anti-smoking crusades.
Surely the tobacco industry can recommend someone: they have found a number of doctors over the years who have shown smoking is good for your health.
Used to have them, but they died.
This is a foolish and reductionist view of politics. The views of the minority party are not and never have been irrelevant, and governing as though they are is a peril to democracy. Trump’s cabinet picks are not within the normal parameters of wrong: they’re a clear attempt to subvert decades of legal structures. It’s as if the mayor of my town appointed a noted gang leader as the new chief of police.
Unless Trump’seems cabinet picks are notorious criminals, I don’t see how it’s at all like that. I was talking with a conservative state legislator just yesterday who said the new EPA chief is a “rock star”. He’s very excited about the pick. Do you think it’s possible that you’re defining “within normal parameters” as “people Democrats want”?
That’s EXACTLY how the Democrats governed in 2009.
Not in reality-based memories of 2009. Obama bent over backwards to get Republicans to buy into the ACA. After giving concession after concession, it became clear that Republicans had no interest in voting for it no matter how many concessions they got. Democrats held out their hands in the spirit of bipartisanship only to receive the middle digit in return.
Boy do you have a short memory.
Because…you say so, right?
I would define “within normal parameters” as someone who supports the mission of the Department or Agency they’re appointed to. Most of Trump’s picks are anything but normal.
Unless, of course, it’s opposite day. Where DeVos supports the mission of the Department of Education, Scott Pruitt isn’t a oil company lackey, and Democrats are partisan hacks willing to shut down the government for a completely unrelated issue.
The next pick will be Chris Christie heading up the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition.
You said “most”. The RCP tracker shows that Trump has named 20 people, 10 of which are to cabinet posts. How many of these 10/20 people do you think do not “support the mission of the Department or Agency they’re appointed to”, and which ones are they?
Cite? Because that’s not how I remember it.
You forget. Cites are meaningless now. Facts are open to interpretation, depending on what “news” you’ve just read, as posted by a teenager in Macedonia. History is whatever you think it must have been.
This is why, when the country is completely fucked up 4 years from now, it will all be Obama’s fault.
That’s a great idea! Let’s sidetrack this thread by rehashing what has already been discussed before, both here and in a lot of other threads on the subject.