I’m probably radically-more economic-freedom-oriented than you or many people would be comfortable with. While I wouldn’t call myself “against” overtime or sick leave, I do think that it generally falls into the category of questions that ought to be worked out between an employer and employee (or, in a nod to unions, employees), or perhaps by the individual states (in a nod to federalism). I’m not overly-eager to have one-size-fits-all national standards set on these things (or many other things) by some bureaucrats in Washington.
I’m not at all certain that Trump knows what “federal” means in this context, and “raise the federal minimum wage” wasn’t what I thought of as one of his major campaign themes. YMMV.
One of the top fifty. One hundred if you count taking both sides.
Truly “he means what he says” [sarcasm]
I never made that claim. I’ve always felt that Trump was a fairly poor public speaker, without a lot of knowledge to back him up, and said quite a few inconsistent things. Still, through all of that, I got a vague sense from his campaign about a few things, like that he’d focus more on securing our borders than Obama did or Hillary would have, and that he wanted to see taxes cut, and that he wanted to see the right of the people to keep and bear arms protected (which in and of itself was a fairly new evolution for him). So far I haven’t seen much from his transition team or nominees that has me very concerned (even though I probably would have picked different people in some cases), and certainly not anywhere near enough to wish that Hillary had won instead.
Of course not, we already noticed that you avoided looking at inconvenient cites.
You’ve missed the point entirely.
“So far I haven’t seen much from his transition team or nominees that has me very concerned”
No, I think I got it, what I pointed out then was what others noted, you can be unconcerned only by dismissing or ignoring the cites others make with no good reasons really, it is not really a demonstration of open mindless. And before you reply you should know that I do not expect you to understand. I did make my last note there for other readers, not just you.
Yup, this is an area we’re probably better off just agreeing to disagree. I don’t see how any middle ground can be reached with people who think 90+% of Republican Senators would not be “within normal parameters” for the job.
Well, as I pointed many times before it is just a happenstance of history* that currently almost all Republicans congress critters demonstrate that they are not within normal parameters.
*If one could magically make the president to be Teddy Roosevelt one could expect to see most republicans to be progressive regarding the environment, unfortunately nowadays most Republicans gained power by favoring very ignorant but very profitable positions.
If your definition of “normal parameters” for a government appointment excludes half of Congress, you think it’s the half of Congress that’s wrong, not your definition of “normal parameters”? I guess you’d just better prepare yourself for a lot of disappointment over the next 4/8 years.
All that bowing and scraping by Romney and others for SOS job was wasted.
Uh, I think you are reaching again for the populist fallacy, it does not change the facts that most Republicans are wrong or loopy. The reality is that you do not want to face the realization that you should also be disappointed.
On edit: And Trump shows what I did notice he needs to see as a “quality” that virtually all his cabinet should have, that they need to be climate change deniers. The new SOS is an Exxon Mobil CEO.
Well, once someone with Tillerson’s foreign policy expertise entered the race, they really had no chance.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
“On edit: And Trump shows what I did notice he needs to see as a “quality” that virtually all his cabinet should have, that they need to be climate change deniers. The new SOS is an Exxon Mobil CEO.”
[/QUOTE]
One thing to add there:
Yes, I did notice that he has claimed to understand the seriousness of the issue, but he is the kind of fellow were his actions betray what he is really all about:
*Yep, that is indeed denialist tripe in a slightly different package.
I don’t think you’ve got the populist fallacy argument quite right. I’m not claiming that not raising the minimum wage is the correct answer because half of Congress thinks it is. I’m claiming that it’s a normal position because half of Congress holds it. To pretend it’s not “within normal parameters” you have to stretch the definition of those three words in insane ways.
Anyways, onto the second sentence: why do you think I should be disappointed? I like school vouchers, and don’t care if the minimum wage doesn’t get raised, and want secure borders. What has Trump done so far that you think should disappoint me? This sounds like more liberals pretending to know what’s in conservative’s self-interest better than conservatives do. Are you a fan of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”?
I was referring to the demonstrated unscientific position of denying that humans are changing the climate.
So yes, you are the one ignoring why the populist fallacy is being used by the Republicans.
Depending on where you live we are more likely to face hell or high water thanks to the denial position of virtually the entire cabinet and almost all Republicans in congress regarding climate science.
And it is not only the degradation of the environment but of education, besides climate change denial the degradation of our education under fellows that also deny evolution points to a degradation of science education in general.
For more of what the Republicans should had learned but refuse to realize the harm they are making you need to see what Neil Degrasse Tyson had to say on the matter:
Expect, of course, most Republicans in congress and in Trump’s cabinet.
Well, I’ve read it. You?
Ran out of edit time, correction:
“So educated Republicans know the value of innovations in science and technology for the thriving of an economy and business and industry. They know this. If you put something that is not science in a science classroom, pass it off as science, then you are undermining an entire enterprise that was responsible for creating the wealth that we have come to take for granted in this country. So we’re already fading economically. If this, if that trend continues, some Republican is going to wake up and say, “Look guys, we got to split these two. We have to. Otherwise, we will doom ourselves to poverty.” And so I see it as a self-correcting, I don’t know when it’ll happen, but they know.”
Except, of course, most Republicans in congress and in Trump’s cabinet.
Donald Trump is expected to nominate ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state, two sources close to the transition process told NBC News on Saturday.
So fairly definite now, instead of just being the frontrunner.