|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 16 2016 08:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 08:43 Nakama wrote:
For someone not that much familiar with American culture and poltics like some of the posters in here seem to be , i would be really thankfull if anyone could explain me how on earth u can call HC or the DCP "Left". Or how it is possible to accuse someone to belong to the establishment and at the Same time to be left. if u interpret "left" like i do ( Marx etc.) it is a contradiction isnt it?
Besides Bernie they all seem to me like mid-right more then anything else. US left = Europe right. US right = Europe far-right US far-left = Europe left Roughly speaking, of course.
If only you didnt have to choose between those two evils and had someone truly left to vote for, america could have been great again  and be the democratic and moral lighthouse it once ( long long ago) was. And I dont mean this political corectness bullshit..
|
On November 16 2016 08:04 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 07:37 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 07:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 16 2016 06:31 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 05:07 Dan HH wrote:
Maybe without this programmed disgust towards protests and unions, Americans wouldn't have had to go straight for the nuclear option and elect Trump to be heard they didn't have to do that to be heard either. and firing around nukes tends to cause a lot of fallout. and despite bio's claims in the post after yours, they were in fact always heard. They do in fact have some representation, and their interests are and were looked after to a fair extent. I've yet to see any proof that that's not the case; rather than it being simply a lie they were told to get their votes to go one way or another. But no matter how much people look after your interests, some things just aren't possible. and you have to recognize the difference between being heard and acted for, and the situation getting actively better in a generalized sense. sometimes that's simply not possible. Biologymajor actually hit the nail on the head. I don't know in what world you think "they were always heard", but rural/working class white America has been completely ignored for the past generation. The only time that the Left ever talked about helping them was in general terms, e.g. "reducing healthcare/education/childcare costs for everyone", while at the same time constantly talking about issues that specific demographics (poor black communities, LGBTQ folk, etc.) face. The Right only ever went on about "religious freedom" and being incredibly pro-business. It's no wonder that this voting block finally had enough, and deservedly so. No one has even come close to attempting to address the crippling economic problems that rural white America faces. That's why, when one candidate finally did, they flocked to him, even if all of his ideas are bogus and won't work at all and the voters are clueless on these actual economic issues. The Left got everything they deserved in the election and, as pretty much everyone has said, this should galvanize them to move on from the entrenched Old Guard of the Democratic party to a newer generation. While xDaunt, Danglars, and Biologymajor tend to undermine themselves with sensationalist and disingenuous rhetoric, they've definitely been correct about the over-reaction the Left has had to the racism/xenophobia/homophobia of the right by focusing so much on minority communities to win office. PROOF or it didn't happen. you expect me to believe that an entire massive voting bloc was COMPLETELY ignored for an extended period of time and NOONE at any time did ANYTHING about it? Yes, the left might not talk about them as much, btu the right did; and the right surely did things to address it. Have they spent decades electing politicians who completely ignore their issues? or is it the case that they are simply in a bad place structurally and it's going to HURT no matter what? it's very easy to claim you were ignored even if you weren't. and it's very important to argue from a position of facts, because facts can at least have some potential universality. so I'd like stronger evidence/proof that it was in fact the case that they were ignored almost entirely; rather than a claim of a perception which could easily be wrong and manufactured. also, is it rural, or working class, or rural&working class people or what? those two groups aren't the same. re: howie trump's ideas are not helpful generally; he hasn't really added new ideas or solutions. if he could take old known solutions that are politicially hard to do and implement them that'd be good; but mostly he just picks things that will not in fact work. their economic situation is, in considerable part, a result of structural factors in the changing world for which there are no truly great answers, only damage mitigation. and yes the damage mitigation should be better. I don't know if you are going to be satisfied: There was a book over a decade ago "What's the Matter with Kansas." Talking about Kansas going red (republican) over social conservatism while being betrayed by the Democratic party on economic issues. At that point, via the leadership of the DLC, Democratic party had moved into the free trade and business friendly camp while paying lip service to eroding power of the working class. Michigan potentially flipping into the Trump camp is only the culmination of 20 years of continued neglect by the Democratic party at the national level. As it is not my assertion, I'm not going to respond to any more "PROOF OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN" demands.
And we have seen what Republicans did to Kansas (and to those who know the tax stuff Brownback did should pay attention to Trumps plan). The state is a disaster.
|
On November 16 2016 08:44 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 08:35 Nebuchad wrote:
Here's the thing: if the white rural community is not being heard and is trying to be heard, shouldn't we be able to point out anyway that it's choosing a terrible vessel to getting heard? There are two different conversations here. Do you think that anyone would care about them had Hillary been president?
Of course not. What they're aspiring to get is a Bernie figure, and they know that btw, given how they voted in the primaries. Provided that you don't get a Bernie figure, vote for the person who isn't going to make things worse in the meantime. One, things are not getting worse, which is good, two, it's easier to work in the idea that you need a left wing candidate in a context where the democrats get elected; when they don't get elected, they can work with "anyone but Trump is better for you" (that is of course assuming that Trump is failing them), and they can get their candidate in for four more years.
Looking at the map ahead, I don't really think the democrats are going to escape having to go more left, given that the younger generation is way more progressive. But they are going to be reluctant. As we can see, they're still trying to say they lost for other reasons than that this election, Comey and racism and whatever.
|
Younger people are always more progressive. They get less so with age and the nations natural progression leftwards in prosperity. Saying thats an advantage for the dems is like saying global warming is an advantage for the AC industry.
|
On November 16 2016 09:28 Sermokala wrote:
Younger people are always more progressive. They get less so with age and the nations natural progression leftwards in prosperity. Saying thats an advantage for the dems is like saying global warming is an advantage for the AC industry.
A younger generation that is progressive gets less progressive with age, and you don't really have to go progressive. A younger generation that is incredibly progressive gets less progressive with age, and there's still enough left for a change to have to happen. It's not surprising that Bernie beats Trump or Clinton with the young, but he beat both of them combined; that is a huge amount.
Like, the young in Switzerland are not getting Switzerland to become more left-wing, I know that much. For the US you can easily make that case.
|
I personally got way more radical as I aged. I was ready to vote center left when I was young, not today.
Imo age doesn't suffice, you need to take into account the moment.
|
(I don't really think Trump has much of a choice, seeing as his talent pool is really limited by who is already around him, but it's such an easy avenue of attack for his opponents)
|
On November 16 2016 09:28 Sermokala wrote:
Younger people are always more progressive. They get less so with age and the nations natural progression leftwards in prosperity. Saying thats an advantage for the dems is like saying global warming is an advantage for the AC industry.
I think this comes up about every 100 pages or so, but the idea that "younger people are more liberal and older people are more conservative" is a myth.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/
Relevant quote to sum things up:
On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood. [B]ut greater stability sets in at some early point, and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.”
stratos -> you failed to read my argument carefully, so I'm ignoring the bulk of your post.
The issue was not whether they were ignored by the Left; but whether they were ignored by EVERYONE including the right. My claim specifically included the right.
to counter my claim you have to assert that noone in the right was working for them much at all.
The discussion chain also was, at least to my eye, in part about whether they were being ignored by everyone (i.e. the entire political establishment, both parties), not just being ignored by the left.
The establishment Right's platform has been built on being extremely pro-business and socially conservative for decades. They've been incredibly anti-union and been pretty much silent on rural plight for a really long time. If you need proof, look to the fact that this demographic has been a Democratic bulwark in the upper Midwest for a long time. Clearly Republicans didn't speak to them very well either.
You know, those minorities (outside of white women, and a little bit of gay white men) feel like Democrats haven't been focusing on us either. That's what's so troubling about this new focus on white rural voters. All Democrats really gave us was lip service, apparently just enough to piss off white people, but far short of really changing the situation.
If Democrats focus even less on minority issues, what makes people think we're just going to sit politely and keep voting for them?
EDIT: BTW the media is just absolutely terrible, they covered every Trump protest from 90 angles, but practically nothing on the #NODAPL protests around the country.
If the communities actually feel that way, then do the same thing that working class whites just did and you bet your ass people will probably listen the next go-around.
|
It's way too early to pass any judgment. Plus, his keeping Bannon around is more telling than anything else.
|
On November 16 2016 09:46 xDaunt wrote:It's way too early to pass any judgment. Plus, his keeping Bannon is more telling than anything else.
Well, Nevuk's got it right, and I don't think there's any world in which Trump comes out of this term looking better than he went in. We're not even a week in (he hasn't even taken office yet) and he's breaking a slew of campaign promises. Combine that with his inability to "drain the swamp" (how was he actually going to do that?) and the undoubted failure that will come with trying to bring back working class jobs, and there will be no shortage of ways to attack him come 2020.
|
On November 16 2016 09:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 09:28 Sermokala wrote:
Younger people are always more progressive. They get less so with age and the nations natural progression leftwards in prosperity. Saying thats an advantage for the dems is like saying global warming is an advantage for the AC industry. I think this comes up about every 100 pages or so, but the idea that "younger people are more liberal and older people are more conservative" is a myth. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/Relevant quote to sum things up: Show nested quote +On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood. [B]ut greater stability sets in at some early point, and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.” Show nested quote +stratos -> you failed to read my argument carefully, so I'm ignoring the bulk of your post.
The issue was not whether they were ignored by the Left; but whether they were ignored by EVERYONE including the right. My claim specifically included the right.
to counter my claim you have to assert that noone in the right was working for them much at all.
The discussion chain also was, at least to my eye, in part about whether they were being ignored by everyone (i.e. the entire political establishment, both parties), not just being ignored by the left.
The establishment Right's platform has been built on being extremely pro-business and socially conservative for decades. They've been incredibly anti-union and been pretty much silent on rural plight for a really long time. If you need proof, look to the fact that this demographic has been a Democratic bulwark in the upper Midwest for a long time. Clearly Republicans didn't speak to them very well either. Show nested quote +You know, those minorities (outside of white women, and a little bit of gay white men) feel like Democrats haven't been focusing on us either. That's what's so troubling about this new focus on white rural voters. All Democrats really gave us was lip service, apparently just enough to piss off white people, but far short of really changing the situation.
If Democrats focus even less on minority issues, what makes people think we're just going to sit politely and keep voting for them?
EDIT: BTW the media is just absolutely terrible, they covered every Trump protest from 90 angles, but practically nothing on the #NODAPL protests around the country. If the communities actually feel that way, then do the same thing that working class whites just did and you bet your ass people will probably listen the next go-around.
I heard an interesting take on that phenomenon a few years ago. It stated that there's a pretty good case to be made that whoever is president when a person is 18 drastically reinforces their political ideology. A bad GOP president results in a generation of 18 year olds disliking the GOP for the rest of their life, a bad democratic president results in them disliking the democrats for the rest of their life, good ones result in the opposite. I think it was based on approval ratings. Cannot remember who articulated this view.
That was the broader conclusion, the more specific part of it was that Bush was going to be an anchor around the GOP neck for decades after the millenials started voting in higher numbers due to their unusually large population and his historically disliked presidency.
I'm not sure if that is why my generation is astoundingly further left than previous ones (like, the whole socialism being a dirty word literally stops applying to those younger than 30), but it can't hurt.
|
On November 16 2016 09:34 WhiteDog wrote:
I personally got way more radical as I aged. I was ready to vote center left when I was young, not today.
Imo age doesn't suffice, you need to take into account the moment.
In this specific instance there's also the fact that the Parti Socialiste is offering a set of policies that is way too centrist.
|
On November 16 2016 09:50 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 09:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 16 2016 09:28 Sermokala wrote:
Younger people are always more progressive. They get less so with age and the nations natural progression leftwards in prosperity. Saying thats an advantage for the dems is like saying global warming is an advantage for the AC industry. I think this comes up about every 100 pages or so, but the idea that "younger people are more liberal and older people are more conservative" is a myth. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/Relevant quote to sum things up: On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood. [B]ut greater stability sets in at some early point, and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.” stratos -> you failed to read my argument carefully, so I'm ignoring the bulk of your post.
The issue was not whether they were ignored by the Left; but whether they were ignored by EVERYONE including the right. My claim specifically included the right.
to counter my claim you have to assert that noone in the right was working for them much at all.
The discussion chain also was, at least to my eye, in part about whether they were being ignored by everyone (i.e. the entire political establishment, both parties), not just being ignored by the left.
The establishment Right's platform has been built on being extremely pro-business and socially conservative for decades. They've been incredibly anti-union and been pretty much silent on rural plight for a really long time. If you need proof, look to the fact that this demographic has been a Democratic bulwark in the upper Midwest for a long time. Clearly Republicans didn't speak to them very well either. You know, those minorities (outside of white women, and a little bit of gay white men) feel like Democrats haven't been focusing on us either. That's what's so troubling about this new focus on white rural voters. All Democrats really gave us was lip service, apparently just enough to piss off white people, but far short of really changing the situation.
If Democrats focus even less on minority issues, what makes people think we're just going to sit politely and keep voting for them?
EDIT: BTW the media is just absolutely terrible, they covered every Trump protest from 90 angles, but practically nothing on the #NODAPL protests around the country. If the communities actually feel that way, then do the same thing that working class whites just did and you bet your ass people will probably listen the next go-around. I heard an interesting take on that phenomenon a few years ago. It stated that there's a pretty good case to be made that whoever is president when a person is 18 drastically reinforces their political ideology. A bad GOP president results in a generation of 18 year olds disliking the GOP for the rest of their life, a bad democratic president results in them disliking the democrats for the rest of their life, good ones result in the opposite. I think it was based on approval ratings. Cannot remember who articulated this view. That was the broader conclusion, the more specific part of it was that Bush was going to be an anchor around the GOP neck for decades after the millenials started voting in higher numbers due to their unusually large population and his historically disliked presidency. I'm not sure if that is why my generation is astoundingly further left than previous ones (like, the whole socialism being a dirty word literally stops applying to those younger than 30), but it can't hurt.
Well socialism isn't a dirty word to us because we didn't live through the mid-20th century where it was us vs. Communism (which was frequently lumped in with Socialism). Millenials hear "socialism" and think Scandinavia. Baby Boomers hear "socialism" and think Commies. failed states, and an oppressive government.
|
On November 16 2016 09:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 09:50 Nevuk wrote:On November 16 2016 09:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 16 2016 09:28 Sermokala wrote:
Younger people are always more progressive. They get less so with age and the nations natural progression leftwards in prosperity. Saying thats an advantage for the dems is like saying global warming is an advantage for the AC industry. I think this comes up about every 100 pages or so, but the idea that "younger people are more liberal and older people are more conservative" is a myth. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/Relevant quote to sum things up: On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood. [B]ut greater stability sets in at some early point, and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.” stratos -> you failed to read my argument carefully, so I'm ignoring the bulk of your post.
The issue was not whether they were ignored by the Left; but whether they were ignored by EVERYONE including the right. My claim specifically included the right.
to counter my claim you have to assert that noone in the right was working for them much at all.
The discussion chain also was, at least to my eye, in part about whether they were being ignored by everyone (i.e. the entire political establishment, both parties), not just being ignored by the left.
The establishment Right's platform has been built on being extremely pro-business and socially conservative for decades. They've been incredibly anti-union and been pretty much silent on rural plight for a really long time. If you need proof, look to the fact that this demographic has been a Democratic bulwark in the upper Midwest for a long time. Clearly Republicans didn't speak to them very well either. You know, those minorities (outside of white women, and a little bit of gay white men) feel like Democrats haven't been focusing on us either. That's what's so troubling about this new focus on white rural voters. All Democrats really gave us was lip service, apparently just enough to piss off white people, but far short of really changing the situation.
If Democrats focus even less on minority issues, what makes people think we're just going to sit politely and keep voting for them?
EDIT: BTW the media is just absolutely terrible, they covered every Trump protest from 90 angles, but practically nothing on the #NODAPL protests around the country. If the communities actually feel that way, then do the same thing that working class whites just did and you bet your ass people will probably listen the next go-around. I heard an interesting take on that phenomenon a few years ago. It stated that there's a pretty good case to be made that whoever is president when a person is 18 drastically reinforces their political ideology. A bad GOP president results in a generation of 18 year olds disliking the GOP for the rest of their life, a bad democratic president results in them disliking the democrats for the rest of their life, good ones result in the opposite. I think it was based on approval ratings. Cannot remember who articulated this view. That was the broader conclusion, the more specific part of it was that Bush was going to be an anchor around the GOP neck for decades after the millenials started voting in higher numbers due to their unusually large population and his historically disliked presidency. I'm not sure if that is why my generation is astoundingly further left than previous ones (like, the whole socialism being a dirty word literally stops applying to those younger than 30), but it can't hurt. Well socialism isn't a dirty word to us because we didn't live through the mid-20th century where it was us vs. Communism (which was frequently lumped in with Socialism). Millenials hear "socialism" and think Scandinavia. Baby Boomers hear "socialism" and think Commies. failed states, and an oppressive government.
For XIXth and XXth century socialists, communism is an old idea, as old as humanity itself, while socialism is rather new and appeared with the industrial revolution : the two are entirely different. Only Marx kinda melted socialism in communism (communism is what happen if you respect the teaching of "scientific socialism") but, since his writing had such a huge influence, everybody basically agrees with him nowadays.
|
On November 16 2016 09:46 xDaunt wrote:It's way too early to pass any judgment. Plus, his keeping Bannon around is more telling than anything else.
I don't see in any way why it's too early to pass judgement. Things are being actively done (and even when it was just words on the campaign trail it was still judge-able).
Even if someone Trump gets a clean slate he's pretty much muddied it up already by how disastrous this transition has been.
(I'm all for diplomacy as much as possible, but it's funny and not talking to the DoD is pretty crazy if the story is accurate).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well he has to speak to the guy who got him into power, right?
In all seriousness, word on the grapevine is that Trump wants to focus on ISIS more than on Assad - and that basically lets Russia continue on its way in Syria.
In all likelihood Trump will mostly get enough neocons on his team to make some rather impressive military stupidity be visible in his presidency. It will be funny though, trying to reconcile Trump with the Republicans.
|
isis is mostly done for in iraq anyways, one hopes that the history cubes will not give the man who called for a sneak attack credit for that part
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Trump so far has been ok on the dictatorships and Arab monarchs as long as they keep the extremism. I'd have to wonder about the Saudi Arabia and Qatar dilemma though.
|
If this was in Europe this is usually what happens when Governments fall and new elections happen...
WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump’s transition team is nearing a state of stasis, causing concern among both Democrats and Republicans in Washington that his White House will be woefully ill-prepared once he is inaugurated.
The primary cause, according to multiple sources, is the revamped leadership structure at Trump’s transition offices ― the demotion of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie from the top post and his replacement with Vice President-elect Mike Pence.
On Tuesday morning, for example, the Obama administration alerted the press that it had not yet received a memorandum of understanding signed by Pence, which would legally allow the old and new administrations to begin discussions on how to hand off critical government functions. That document still hadn’t arrived by 4:30 p.m., and only later in the evening did a White House official confirm it had been received. The official noted that the language signed by Pence was identical to a memo signed by Christie, making the holdup all the more peculiar.
The disarray has left agencies virtually frozen, unable to communicate with the people tasked with replacing them and their staff. Trump transition team officials were a no-show at the Pentagon, the Washington Examiner reported. Same goes for the Department of Energy, responsible for keeping the nation’s nuclear weapons safe, where officials had expected members of the Trump transition team on Monday. Ditto for the Department of Transportation. Over at the Justice Department, officials also are still waiting to hear from the Trump team.
“The Department began planning for this transition well before the election and we are fully prepared to assist the incoming transition team,” Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said in a statement. “As the President has said, we are committed to a smooth and successful transition, including the seamless continuation of the department’s essential law enforcement and national security functions which are performed each and every day by its career staff.”
The transition dysfunction extends beyond failure to promptly execute a memorandum of understanding. According to several sources close to the Trump transition team and inside the Obama administration, the president elect and his staff have had difficulty finding able-minded Republicans willing to take on critical posts. One Democratic source, who like others would only discuss sensitive talks on condition of anonymity, said transition officials had been informally asking Obama political appointees to recommend Republicans to take over their jobs.
Other administration officials said conversations had not gotten to that point of desperation quite yet. But they acknowledged the pace of getting people in line for critical posts was moving painfully slowly.
The problem is twofold: Trump and his staff are not creatures of the establishment and are naturally skeptical of those who are. At the same time, many Republican lawyers and government officials who would have jumped at the opportunity to work in a GOP administration are balking at employment under Trump and his cabinet picks.
According to one Trump insider, this is particularly true for potential national security and intelligence officials.
Source
|
On November 16 2016 11:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If this was in Europe this is usually what happens when Governments fall and new elections happen... Show nested quote +WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump’s transition team is nearing a state of stasis, causing concern among both Democrats and Republicans in Washington that his White House will be woefully ill-prepared once he is inaugurated.
The primary cause, according to multiple sources, is the revamped leadership structure at Trump’s transition offices ― the demotion of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie from the top post and his replacement with Vice President-elect Mike Pence.
On Tuesday morning, for example, the Obama administration alerted the press that it had not yet received a memorandum of understanding signed by Pence, which would legally allow the old and new administrations to begin discussions on how to hand off critical government functions. That document still hadn’t arrived by 4:30 p.m., and only later in the evening did a White House official confirm it had been received. The official noted that the language signed by Pence was identical to a memo signed by Christie, making the holdup all the more peculiar.
The disarray has left agencies virtually frozen, unable to communicate with the people tasked with replacing them and their staff. Trump transition team officials were a no-show at the Pentagon, the Washington Examiner reported. Same goes for the Department of Energy, responsible for keeping the nation’s nuclear weapons safe, where officials had expected members of the Trump transition team on Monday. Ditto for the Department of Transportation. Over at the Justice Department, officials also are still waiting to hear from the Trump team.
“The Department began planning for this transition well before the election and we are fully prepared to assist the incoming transition team,” Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said in a statement. “As the President has said, we are committed to a smooth and successful transition, including the seamless continuation of the department’s essential law enforcement and national security functions which are performed each and every day by its career staff.”
The transition dysfunction extends beyond failure to promptly execute a memorandum of understanding. According to several sources close to the Trump transition team and inside the Obama administration, the president elect and his staff have had difficulty finding able-minded Republicans willing to take on critical posts. One Democratic source, who like others would only discuss sensitive talks on condition of anonymity, said transition officials had been informally asking Obama political appointees to recommend Republicans to take over their jobs.
Other administration officials said conversations had not gotten to that point of desperation quite yet. But they acknowledged the pace of getting people in line for critical posts was moving painfully slowly.
The problem is twofold: Trump and his staff are not creatures of the establishment and are naturally skeptical of those who are. At the same time, many Republican lawyers and government officials who would have jumped at the opportunity to work in a GOP administration are balking at employment under Trump and his cabinet picks.
According to one Trump insider, this is particularly true for potential national security and intelligence officials. Source
We are barely a week out from the election and already firing up the hysteria machine, eh? This is much ado about nothing. Trump will be ready to go come Inauguration Day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
