Trump Administration

[bpj]

Lol.

[bpj]

This is why nobody cares what they have to say about Trump's nominations-

[Donn Beach]

It's the checks and balances of the American democracy.

Why is that amusing? It's how the constitution was written, it was considered critical to controlling the power of any single branch of the government

[D-train]

This is hilarious. I am sure once Trump sees this he will withdraw half of his Cabinet picks, nominate a Trans for a key position, cancel his deportation plan and vow to make climate issues his number 1 priority.

[auroraave]

Sorry it took me so long to reply, auroraave. Leftwingtalkingpoints.com was down this morning, and as you know, I have no original thoughts.

You said, "the problem with your post is you are going to say this about anyone Trump appoints - it's simply your baseline position." No. I didn't say it about Rubio, Kennedy, or Noem. Or Burgum or Zeldin.

And I'll tell you why you shouldn't only hire loyalists: As a leader, you need people with subject matter expertise AND the backbone to tell you when there might be something else you should consider. As a leader, it's your call, but you want to know when you might be wrong. That's true if you are running the Mariners or President of the United States.

I agree with you - he absolutely needs independent, critical thinkers to challenge him and advise him - so I stand corrected. However, I would not confuse loyalist with 'yes-men' who will go along with anything he says. They have to align with the agenda, but that can be achieved through different ways. I saw an interview a while back where a former cabinet member said will take a position on something but will listen to advisors and is open to other ideas. That resonates with me - be open minded. I believe he is hiring staunch loyalists because he was sabotaged his first term - all of his choices seem to be loyalists, and non-swamp creatures - so there will be no back stabbing, a lesson he learned and discussed on the Rogan podcast, and no one beholden to the crushing corporate donor class, like Phizer, Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. They owe them nothing.

Linda McMahon for education secretary is a head scratcher to me, but maybe she is smart. She did have a failed senate run, so maybe she might be good, I do not know, but Trump also said he was shuttering the Dept and putting the education burden back to the states, so maybe the strategy is her ability to handle that transition. She gonna suplex that entire department into submission

I don't see you as left wing - you come across as pretty moderate, IMO. What confuses me is you admitting the undeniably terrible dem policies - then voting for them, and saying you think the Biden's economic policy is good - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that just makes no sense to me. I don't understand how that math makes sense to you.

[Donn Beach]

Again, it's not up to trump to hire. He presents names to congress that can be accepted or rejected. That's the point, each branch of government has a certain amount of control over the others. Congress can pass laws, the president can veto them, the court can find them unconstitutional. Nobody is in complete control, the founding fathers were careful to try and set it up that way. A majority doesn't necessarily put someone in complete control. Though power has been shifting to the presidency with the use of executive orders or whatever. That actually was accelerated by Obama. Trump now is in position to reap benefits from the broadening executive power under the Obama administration

[auroraave]

Again, it's not up to trump to hire. He presents names to congress that can be accepted or rejected. That's the point, each branch of government has a certain amount of control over the others. Congress can pass laws, the president can veto them, the court can find them unconstitutional. Nobody is in complete control, the founding fathers were careful to try and set it up that way. A majority doesn't necessarily put someone in complete control. Though power has been shifting to the presidency with the use of executive orders or whatever. That actually was accelerated by Obama. Trump now is in position to reap benefits from the broadening executive power under the Obama administration

Not only is Trump going to (attempt to) downsize the federal government, he is also giving power back to the states where it really belongs - education, abortion, etc. I believe he sees government needing a business model mentality - reduce waste, reduce bureaucracy, increase efficiency, increase decision making a the local level, not from DC. That resonates big time with me, and it's hard to argue against that logic. The feds have managed to garner WAY to much power, it needs to go back to the states. The feds need to concentrate on infrastructure, security, foreign policy, not shit like abortion. We have 50 states, not one. I agree Trump should not have TOO much power - NO one should. We've literally just witnessed 4 years of the Dems uber control and absolute abuse of power because of it - and I absolutely do not want to see that from Trump or his admin - or ANYONE. Power needs to be fair and balances and the last four years have been the opposite of that - and that is a 'uuuuge reason, IMO, why Trump won in a landslide - people recognized that - especially with the blatant censorship of speech and covid info and the blatant weaponizing of the Justice Dept. That needs to STOP.

The balance of power does NOT need to swing from the far left to the far right, it needs to fall back to the middle - where 90% of us live and breathe.

[douche]

As a leader, you need people with subject matter expertise AND the backbone to tell you when there might be something else you should consider.

100%

Reminds me of Succession when Logan Roy asks his staff for honest input. The 'YES' men were punished, the one person (his female assistant) who said she had concerns, was left alone.

[douche]

Lol.

view_this.jpeg (127.33 KiB) Viewed 16 times