|
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 December 01 2016 02:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'll withhold judgment on whether Trump's administration is corrupt until he's actually in office and doing things. We're only 3 weeks past the election, and y'all are already jumping to all sorts of stupidly premature conclusions. Did you learn nothing from the campaign?
Well I learnt that Trump was saying anything to please his super radicalized base, and that people who voted for him didn't care one bit if it was clearly all bullshit or if he would piss on them the next second.
Both are verified. The dude campaigns against wall street, the establishment and corrupt hillary, immediately hires a bunch of lobbyists and a goldman treasurer and creates a situation that could be the next entry in the OED for "conflict of interest", and his supporters clearly don't see the problem. On the opposite they should be "fairly happy".
That's absolutely amazing. That's a politician's dream: have people who believe anything you tell them and don't care if you literally shit on them.
|
On December 01 2016 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 02:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'll withhold judgment on whether Trump's administration is corrupt until he's actually in office and doing things. We're only 3 weeks past the election, and y'all are already jumping to all sorts of stupidly premature conclusions. Did you learn nothing from the campaign? The problem for a lot of people harping on the conflicts is that they know that all there will be is "the appearance" because there will be no practical way to get hard evidence. Annnnd they just spent the last year arguing that "the appearance" of impropriety, does not corruption make. Unfortunately for them, it's not quite as easy for them to slough off as it is for Republicans who spent that same year asserting the opposite.
You can't even have an appearance of impropriety until the guy is actually in office.
|
I wonder just how much goodwill the Democrats have blown through by how they treated Sanders in the primary. I saw Barney Frank saying that Scalia was in favor of "fag burning" even if he wasn't in favor of flag burning recently, and my first thought was "way to stay classy," mostly because I remember his vocal denouncements of the Sanders wing of the party, rather than giving him any leeway merely because I do agree with his underlying point.
My instant reaction is to ignore any politician who vocally supported Clinton over Sanders in the primary, and I'm slightly leery of her defenders in the general election.
|
On December 01 2016 02:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'll withhold judgment on whether Trump's administration is corrupt until he's actually in office and doing things. We're only 3 weeks past the election, and y'all are already jumping to all sorts of stupidly premature conclusions. Did you learn nothing from the campaign?
From the campaign where yelling 'corrupt!' with no evidence or further elaboration worked? I'd say they did learn.
edit: misquoted intitially
|
On December 01 2016 02:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'll withhold judgment on whether Trump's administration is corrupt until he's actually in office and doing things. We're only 3 weeks past the election, and y'all are already jumping to all sorts of stupidly premature conclusions. Did you learn nothing from the campaign?
But the conflicts of interest are already there. Even as PEOTUS he's using the office of president to get building permits approved and sell apartments to his secret service escorts for exorbitant fees. He's not even in office and that's already corruption. You were all about the CF making Hillary unfit for office, now you're cool with it if elected officials let foreign powers curry favor by playing ball with their non-government connections?
|
On December 01 2016 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 02:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'll withhold judgment on whether Trump's administration is corrupt until he's actually in office and doing things. We're only 3 weeks past the election, and y'all are already jumping to all sorts of stupidly premature conclusions. Did you learn nothing from the campaign? The problem for a lot of people harping on the conflicts is that they know that all there will be is "the appearance" because there will be no practical way to get hard evidence. Annnnd they just spent the last year arguing that "the appearance" of impropriety, does not corruption make. Unfortunately for them, it's not quite as easy for them to slough off as it is for Republicans who spent that same year asserting the opposite.
I wouldn't have reacted if Hillary had had a Goldman Sachs treasurer. I react because Trump based his whole campaign about draining the swamp and getting rid of the establishment. Which considering his team is really a big fat joke.
Also if Hillary was a billionaire and her first phone call as president elect to Macri had been about her private business in Argentina, i swear you i would have reacted. But good to see that none of that is a problem to the sincere left wing guy who yelled "crooked Hillary" for a year because of some email server crap and a foundation on which there were nothing.
|
There's nothing wrong with someone from GS or has a finance background being treasury secretary in and of itself. I'd prefer that over farmers running the fed, for example.
|
On December 01 2016 02:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
There's nothing wrong with someone from GS or has a finance background being treasury secretary in and of itself. I'd prefer that over farmers running the fed, for example.
Let say that when your whole campaign has been about protecting the little guy from the rust belt against predatory elites, hiring a dude from a bank that is the symbol of corrupt finance is a bit funny.
If Romney had won and done the same i would have not liked it but would have thought that fair enough, it's consistent. But at the end of the most populistic campaign of american history, well...
|
Interesting people fixate on the GS stuff when Trump's Secretary of Education is as big-money establishment Republican bankrolling as you can get.
At least she has wacky voucher anti-union views, I guess?
|
On December 01 2016 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:29 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 17:48 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. What could possibly have made you think that there were 3 bullets in his gun? We were talking about how Trump was always and still remains a dice roll on good policies and following through. The difference was that Clinton was a known quantity, a bad decision-maker provably over and over again. So I'd rather not pick the loaded gun playing general election roulette. That was my standpoint, but perhaps you're pure sarcasm here. On November 30 2016 22:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. On November 30 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:Courtesy of Samizdat, take a look at this wonderful picture. It says things about Trump's cabinet search that words simply cannot lol. ![[image loading]](http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/trumpromney_112916getty_0.jpg?itok=-Epz8JNo) Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. Wait there are people that think Flynn and Sessions are good? I don't want either of them anywhere near a government office. I broadly agree with their political positions and think they'll fight for their beliefs about how government should be run. Particularly the state of the justice department, the civil rights division, and the thrust of what it's been doing under Holder & Lynch. We had a lot of discussion about Sessions' controversial racial talk, but remember he was appointed by Reagan as US Attorney Southern District AL and had twelve years experience there. One big issue backdrop for this appointment is sanctuary cities violating federal law and deportation of criminal aliens that's been sketchy under the Obama administration. A second issue would be overseeing the conduct of DOJ investigations into police departments accused of discriminatory policing. So I'm enthusiastic about those three picks, and disgusted by Chao/Mnunchin, as well as unhappy about the names proposed thus far for the SoS position. Like LegalLord pointed out, the other option was Clinton naming people to these positions, which would mean nobody I prefer in any admin position. Conservatives don't have a lot of pressure to exert because Trump was elected on largely un-conservative policy positions, so we'll have to see how it plays out with Tea Party congressmen opposing spending proposals and if they can extract policy concessions in return. Conservatives should be fairly happy with what Trump has done so far with his picks. Some of these appointments have been very conservative and will likely lead to a furthering of many conservative interests.
Conservatives will fight at every turn because of the early signs of steep concessions in his campaign agenda. He still has opportunity to make a good SoS nomination, and several others. I can even see "fairly happy" if you hold him to very low standards. We're seeing a pattern emerging that goes against his first-100 days speech and other campaign promises. Very limited talk on wall, hardly mentions it anymore. Education secretary appointment is very pro-common core according to my talks with some sector professors, one of which who was under consideration. Two very establishment appointees to DoT/TreasSec. HHS nominee Price doesn't look like anyone committed to dismantling Obamacare; his budget documents in the House Budget Committee completely skirts the issue while claiming to get rid of all of Obamacare. Unless Trump will do heavy pushing on the legislative and implementation side, Price looks to be the guy that doesn't make that his agenda, period.
The media has no credibility to hold him to campaign promises from primaries and the general. They're busy playing their part in Cabinet Apprentice and doing the things that cost them trust during the campaign season. It is up to conservatives to push even after he threw bones on DOJ, EPA (transition head), NSA, CIA.
|
On December 01 2016 03:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 17:48 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. What could possibly have made you think that there were 3 bullets in his gun? We were talking about how Trump was always and still remains a dice roll on good policies and following through. The difference was that Clinton was a known quantity, a bad decision-maker provably over and over again. So I'd rather not pick the loaded gun playing general election roulette. That was my standpoint, but perhaps you're pure sarcasm here. On November 30 2016 22:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. On November 30 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:Courtesy of Samizdat, take a look at this wonderful picture. It says things about Trump's cabinet search that words simply cannot lol. Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. Wait there are people that think Flynn and Sessions are good? I don't want either of them anywhere near a government office. I broadly agree with their political positions and think they'll fight for their beliefs about how government should be run. Particularly the state of the justice department, the civil rights division, and the thrust of what it's been doing under Holder & Lynch. We had a lot of discussion about Sessions' controversial racial talk, but remember he was appointed by Reagan as US Attorney Southern District AL and had twelve years experience there. One big issue backdrop for this appointment is sanctuary cities violating federal law and deportation of criminal aliens that's been sketchy under the Obama administration. A second issue would be overseeing the conduct of DOJ investigations into police departments accused of discriminatory policing. So I'm enthusiastic about those three picks, and disgusted by Chao/Mnunchin, as well as unhappy about the names proposed thus far for the SoS position. Like LegalLord pointed out, the other option was Clinton naming people to these positions, which would mean nobody I prefer in any admin position. Conservatives don't have a lot of pressure to exert because Trump was elected on largely un-conservative policy positions, so we'll have to see how it plays out with Tea Party congressmen opposing spending proposals and if they can extract policy concessions in return. Conservatives should be fairly happy with what Trump has done so far with his picks. Some of these appointments have been very conservative and will likely lead to a furthering of many conservative interests. Conservatives will fight at every turn because of the early signs of steep concessions in his campaign agenda. He still has opportunity to make a good SoS nomination, and several others. I can even see "fairly happy" if you hold him to very low standards. We're seeing a pattern emerging that goes against his first-100 days speech and other campaign promises. Very limited talk on wall, hardly mentions it anymore. Education secretary appointment is very pro-common core according to my talks with some sector professors, one of which who was under consideration. Two very establishment appointees to DoT/TreasSec. HHS nominee Price doesn't look like anyone committed to dismantling Obamacare; his budget documents in the House Budget Committee completely skirts the issue while claiming to get rid of all of Obamacare. Unless Trump will do heavy pushing on the legislative and implementation side, Price looks to be the guy that doesn't make that his agenda, period. The media has no credibility to hold him to campaign promises from primaries and the general. They're busy playing their part in Cabinet Apprentice and doing the things that cost them trust during the campaign season. It is up to conservatives to push even after he threw bones on DOJ, EPA (transition head), NSA, CIA.
You're fooling yourself if you think you voted for policy and governance. You voted for very general hope and change. Trump doesn't know a thing about the positions he's filling - you think he's willing to learn now, after what he demonstrated during the campaign?
When it comes to Donald Trump governing, you should probably take what you can get.
|
On December 01 2016 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 02:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
There's nothing wrong with someone from GS or has a finance background being treasury secretary in and of itself. I'd prefer that over farmers running the fed, for example. Let say that when your whole campaign has been about protecting the little guy from the rust belt against predatory elites, hiring a dude from a bank that is the symbol of corrupt finance is a bit funny. If Romney had won and done the same i would have not liked it but would have thought that fair enough, it's consistent. But at the end of the most populistic campaign of american history, well...
I am fairly neutral, maybe even somewhat in favor, of someone with industry experience being chosen as a political appointee. A well-balanced resume is a good thing. I don't really care about the optics around "evil Wall Street".
|
On December 01 2016 03:07 Danglars wrote:
Very limited talk on wall, hardly mentions it anymore. Education secretary appointment is very pro-common core according to my talks with some sector professors, one of which who was under consideration. Two very establishment appointees to DoT/TreasSec. HHS nominee Price doesn't look like anyone committed to dismantling Obamacare; his budget documents in the House Budget Committee completely skirts the issue while claiming to get rid of all of Obamacare. Unless Trump will do heavy pushing on the legislative and implementation side, Price looks to be the guy that doesn't make that his agenda, period.
Someone needs to do their homework.
Also Price is a leading Obamacare critic. He has a couple of the more detailed (but still incredibly boneheaded) replacement ideas. The best description I read was that "it's a wet sloppy blowjob for the insurance industry".
|
Trump and Fox News are saying Trump's announcement that he won't both run his business and be president is something notable. What this tells you is that Trump actually considered doing that, despite saying in the campaign he would turn things over to his children (who are also political advisors). Which of course does not eliminate the conflict of interest.
President-elect Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday he is leaving his multi-million dollar businesses to focus on being president – a change from comments he’s made in the past about being able to juggle both.
"I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to make America great again," he said in a series of early morning tweets. "While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as president, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses."
Trump said legal documents were being drafted that would take him “completely out of business operations” and added that the presidency is “a far more important task!”
Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller told Fox News he spoke with the president-elect about the move.
“One of the things he made clear, both on Twitter and in our conversation… he is so focused on taking over as president,” Miller said on “Fox & Friends.” “He is completely getting out of the business, handing it over to the family and he’ll be fighting for the American people around the clock.”
Fox News
|
I still can't get over the fact that practically no one actually understands what Common Core is nor why it's flawed. But yes, blame the feds, toot that horn y'all 
|
On December 01 2016 03:32 farvacola wrote:I still can't get over the fact that practically no one actually understands what Common Core is nor why it's flawed. But yes, blame the feds, toot that horn y'all
I'm only mildly familiar myself, but i'd be happy to go over policy if you want. not clear whether you wanted to discuss it or were merely commenting.
|
I'm merely hinting at the fact that states wield a massive amount of control over how Common Core is implemented. Accordingly, all this "I'M FOR/AGAINST COMMON CORE!" rhetoric coming from a place of federal government criticism is rather misguided.
An actual policy discussion would be fine, though I think it'd be relatively easy to estimate where the interested parties fall.
|
"Drain the swamp" and "the best people" continue to be at odds such that you can manipulate them to have a way to heckle any appointment he ever makes without caring about the specific individual or finding examples of alternatives he should be hiring. But that's a bit lazy. If you think he ran on an inconsistent platform, then it makes more sense to criticize him at that level. Or by looking at all his appointments as a whole.
|
On December 01 2016 04:01 oBlade wrote:
"Drain the swamp" and "the best people" continue to be at odds such that you can manipulate them to have a way to heckle any appointment he ever makes without caring about the specific individual or finding examples of alternatives he should be hiring. But that's a bit lazy. If you think he ran on an inconsistent platform, then it makes more sense to criticize him at that level. Or by looking at all his appointments as a whole.
So if Trump makes competing claims that can't possibly both be true it's his critics that are at fault and not Trump for blatantly misleading people? Part of why people point out these criticisms is to drive home the point that Trump ran on an inconsistent platform.
|
On December 01 2016 03:27 Doodsmack wrote:Trump and Fox News are saying Trump's announcement that he won't both run his business and be president is something notable. What this tells you is that Trump actually considered doing that, despite saying in the campaign he would turn things over to his children (who are also political advisors). Which of course does not eliminate the conflict of interest. Show nested quote +President-elect Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday he is leaving his multi-million dollar businesses to focus on being president – a change from comments he’s made in the past about being able to juggle both.
"I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to make America great again," he said in a series of early morning tweets. "While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as president, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses."
Trump said legal documents were being drafted that would take him “completely out of business operations” and added that the presidency is “a far more important task!”
Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller told Fox News he spoke with the president-elect about the move.
“One of the things he made clear, both on Twitter and in our conversation… he is so focused on taking over as president,” Miller said on “Fox & Friends.” “He is completely getting out of the business, handing it over to the family and he’ll be fighting for the American people around the clock.” Fox News
It's just an attempt at moving the goalposts. It used to be assumed that you'd put your assets in a blind trust, and even then there was still the fear that even without direct contact with the people in charge of your stuff, you'd still be able to know, or at a minimum guess what they're up to and make decisions that would favor them.
Now he's trying to make out like it's some big concession that he isn't still an active employee of a private business which pays him a great deal more than the government does.
Is it true that none of this violates any laws? That seems hard to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
