Embarrassed Republicans love to change the subject. He ought to be telling us how great Trump’s choices are!
McMorris Rodgers to be Trump’s Interior pick
They’re having Spotted Owl on the White House menu come January.
Steve Mnunchin in Treasury - Shady banker overseeing bankers reminds me of something about a fox guarding the henhouse.
James Mattis in Defense - Yes, he’s a well-respected general, and I like him. He’s also a lifelong military man and only recently retired. He’s the antithesis of civilian oversight of the military. Unfortunately, there’s no Secretary of Ass-Kicking.
Betsy Devos - She openly advocates against public schooling. Need I continue?
Ben Carson in HUD - A surgeon with no coherent economic policies, aside from basing his tax plan on tithing. The last time he was in a city, he lost his luggage. “Increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination”? He may not be contrary to the stated mission, but that’s simply because he hasn’t given a clear position on anything. Nothing about his says “this man is perfect for this position.”
Jeff Sessions as AG - Those charges of racism just ain’t going away. He’s repeatedly advocated against legal protections for the LGBT community repeatedly. He supports torture…oops, “enhanced interrogation”.
That’s half your cabinet. I may disagree with some of the politics of the others, but that’s irrelevant.
I actually thought i was helping to bring the thread back to the original topic: Trump’s cabinet picks, rather than letting it descend into snarky irrelevance. It looks like it didn’t work though.
A Bundy sympathizer, sweet!
6/11 now.
You said:
What has Mattis, for example, ever done to make you think he doesn’t “support the mission of the Department of Defense”. According to their website:
Can we agree that James Mattis meets your definintion of “within normal parameters”?
There’s a bunch of others on that list. Mattis is the best of the lot, I’m guessing that’s why you keep bringing him up.
I can accept him, but can Trump? Why does Trump think Mattis is the reincarnation of Patton? Is it because he’s a Marine and has a nickname “Mad Dog”? He is straightforward enough, he’s not one of the fierce critics of The Donald who are rushing forward to kiss the brown ring and swear fealty. Il Douche likes loyalty. See the problem? Don’t worry, you will.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that Steve Mnunchin does not support the mission of the Treasury Department. The only thing you mentioned was that he is a banker, and so you don’t like him overseeing bankers, but that’s exactly what Obama gave us too. Jack Lew, the current Secretary of the Treasury, appointed by Obama, used to be the COO of CitiGroup. Did you feel like Lew was not a nominee “within normal parameters”? If you did feel like Lew was a fairly normal Secretary of the Treasury, can you accept that Mnunchin is too? Or do you still think he is not “within normal parameters”?
I wouldn’t claim that Ben Carson has the perfect set of life experiences to make him the best HUD secretary ever, but, as you seem to acknowledge, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he’s opposed to the mission of HUD. So, we can agree that he’s “within normal parameters” too, right?
Mnuchin ran a bank that foreclosed on a 90 year old woman over a 27 cent underpayment. Something tells me that public service is not his forte.
The Department of Justice lists their mission as:
I haven’t read anything or seen anything that leads me to believe Jeff Sessions is unsupportive of this (admittedly broad list of platitudes). What’s your evidence that he is? Or can we accept that he is a nominee “within normal parameters” too?
That has nothing at all to do with whether or not he does not “support the mission of the Department or Agency [he is] appointed to”.
[QUOTE=10 U.S.C. § 11]
There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
[/QUOTE]
He’s not a civilian in the eyes of the law, and he won’t be until almost the end of Trump’s term. That’s been waived once in 70 years, and I don’t see a reason to fight that precedent. In fact, going back 50 years, every SecDef with military experience had been out of the military for 15 years or more, and none of them reached even battalion command rank, let alone 4-star general. He seems to be a great guy, and a great leader. SecDef, he ain’t.
He’s probably going to be the next SecDef. I’ll even make a wager with you, if you like. But none of that is my point. You said:
Do you have any reason to think Mattis is not “within normal parameters” according to the definition you provided?
Which portions of the ACA do you think were concessions to Republicans? I think the Dem leadership made a lot of concessions to wavering, moderate Democrats to keep them on board, and not much of any to Republicans. But I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.
Not sure if this will change your mind, but The Economist found a lot of GOP parentage in the bill.
“Obama did it too!” is a trash argument. Give me something with meat.
If you amend it to say “ensure public safety for straight, white citizens against threats foreign and domestic”, then he’d fit. It’s been testified that he referred to the NAACP and ACLU as un-American and communist-inspired. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which defined crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity as hate crimes.
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.
Is there any specific reason to set aside this rule has only very reluctantly set aside over a century ago?
Cite or retract.