On Trump

[GO-NAD!]

About as bad as "
Trump picks Kristi Noem to serve as his Homeland Security secretary "

Better hide your dogs...

 

[TankTop5]

If this is the reason they voted for Trump, I would suggest that they expand the list of criteria on which they base their voting preferences.

Actually, there is a more likely reason for electing him:

Misinformation Decided the US Election | by J. Bradford DeLong - Project Syndicate

J. Bradford DeLong asks why Donald Trump’s supporters overwhelmingly held a distorted view of the country’s situation.

www.project-syndicate.org

My statement was a bit tongue in cheek.

Anyway many in this group are sounding a bit like an echo chamber of all the reasons America voted for Trump parroting the the recycled tropes of why America actually voted against Kamala.

Trump made a bunch of crazy campaign promises and unlike other candidates it appears he’s actually going to follow through on them. Rather than throw mud at individuals (I’m not speaking to you directly) the conversation should pivot to those policies not individuals. I think everyone is tired of distraction politics and it’s time to focus on issues and policies.

 

[Dude#1279435]

My statement was a bit tongue in cheek.

Anyway many in this group are sounding a bit like an echo chamber of all the reasons America voted for Trump parroting the the recycled tropes of why America actually voted against Kamala.

Trump made a bunch of crazy campaign promises and unlike other candidates it appears he’s actually going to follow through on them. Rather than throw mud at individuals (I’m not speaking to you directly) the conversation should pivot to those policies not individuals. I think everyone is tired of distraction politics and it’s time to focus on issues and policies.

But if you're appointing people into positions without experience it's difficult to call it distraction. Or if your intent is to escalate it doesn't seem to me you can say 'lets just focus on the issues'. I would not exactly describe Republicans and the WWW as issues-oriented.

Edit: it doesn't really work in the Trump era IMO. If you said it during the Bush's or Reagan's era, people that behave relatively normal, than I think you can make the case on distraction. Because they would have to make up more stuff since there's nothing in their behavior that can really be used against them.

 

[Trell]

This has got to be the most inept and strangest cabinet that has ever been put together.

There's even a word for it: kakistocracy

 

[GO-NAD!]

My statement was a bit tongue in cheek.

I get it.

Anyway many in this group are sounding a bit like an echo chamber of all the reasons America voted for Trump parroting the the recycled tropes of why America actually voted against Kamala.

There are some entrenched stances, certainly.

Trump made a bunch of crazy campaign promises and unlike other candidates it appears he’s actually going to follow through on them. Rather than throw mud at individuals (I’m not speaking to you directly) the conversation should pivot to those policies not individuals. I think everyone is tired of distraction politics and it’s time to focus on issues and policies.

I get it, but it can be difficult to separate individuals from their policies - especially when some of these policies are so radical.

 

[highfigh]

Better hide your dogs...

Or, buy a dog that can REALLY protect itself. Against anything or anyone.

 

[TankTop5]

I get it.

There are some entrenched stances, certainly.

I get it, but it can be difficult to separate individuals from their policies - especially when some of these policies are so radical.

The point of these appointees is to further Trumps policies, that’s the point. The individuals getting these appointments have opinions and positions that line up with Trumps in these appointments so they are qualified by that metric. The other specific reason they are being appointed is that they are not part of the longtime Washington bureaucracy even if they’ve help public office. I think this is a lot of what Trump supporters want. This is why I think the discussion needs to shift toward policies and not dirt on individuals, Trump is going to run the entire show like it or not so joining the echo chamber isn’t fruitful.

I have said many times the one thing I did like about Trump I. The past is he pissed in everyone’s Cheerio’s equally and he’s about to do it again.

 

[Trell]

The point of these appointees is to further Trumps policies, that’s the point. The individuals getting these appointments have opinions and positions that line up with Trumps in these appointments so they are qualified by that metric. The other specific reason they are being appointed is that they are not part of the longtime Washington bureaucracy even if they’ve help public office. I think this is a lot of what Trump supporters want. This is why I think the discussion needs to shift toward policies and not dirt on individuals, Trump is going to run the entire show like it or not so joining the echo chamber isn’t fruitful.

I have said many times the one thing I did like about Trump I. The past is he pissed in everyone’s Cheerio’s equally and he’s about to do it again.

They're chosen by Trump first and foremost because of loyalty to him and will do whatever he demands as the last thing he wants is an individual with personal integrity and a spine. Trump wants to reduce this risk given his first presidency.

Some of these candidates appears to be qualified for their positions and looks like normal Republicans (whatever that means today), but others like Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard: Good grief!

As for dirt: What do you think the background check for political nominees in Senate confirmations hearings is for?

 

[Mikado463]

The point of these appointees is to further Trumps policies, that’s the point. The individuals getting these appointments have opinions and positions that line up with Trumps in these appointments so they are qualified by that metric. The other specific reason they are being appointed is that they are not part of the longtime Washington bureaucracy even if they’ve help public office. I think this is a lot of what Trump supporters want. This is why I think the discussion needs to shift toward policies and not dirt on individuals, Trump is going to run the entire show like it or not so joining the echo chamber isn’t fruitful.

I have said many times the one thing I did like about Trump I. The past is he pissed in everyone’s Cheerio’s equally and he’s about to do it again.

Translation........he hopes to really 'drain the swamp' this time around. I do have serious reservations of the Gaetz pick for AG ? Perhaps he's testing the waters to see who in Congress wants to challenge him ? If so, then I hope so, for checks and balances are needed, even within ones own party.

 

[Trell]

Translation........he hopes to really 'drain the swamp' this time around. I do have serious reservations of the Gaetz pick for AG ? Perhaps he's testing the waters to see who in Congress wants to challenge him ? If so, then I hope so, for checks and balances are needed, even within ones own party.

But Trump and Company is the effing swamp.

 

[Mikado463]

But Trump and Company is the effing swamp.

LOL, I got news for 'ya, it goes well beyond Trump and BOTH parties !

 

[highfigh]

Translation........he hopes to really 'drain the swamp' this time around. I do have serious reservations of the Gaetz pick for AG ? Perhaps he's testing the waters to see who in Congress wants to challenge him ? If so, then I hope so, for checks and balances are needed, even within ones own party.

A swamp can be drained by adding fresh, replacing the sludge with different sludge or filling it with something solid. Pick the solid......

 

[GO-NAD!]

The point of these appointees is to further Trumps policies, that’s the point. The individuals getting these appointments have opinions and positions that line up with Trumps in these appointments so they are qualified by that metric. The other specific reason they are being appointed is that they are not part of the longtime Washington bureaucracy even if they’ve help public office. I think this is a lot of what Trump supporters want. This is why I think the discussion needs to shift toward policies and not dirt on individuals, Trump is going to run the entire show like it or not so joining the echo chamber isn’t fruitful.

I have said many times the one thing I did like about Trump I. The past is he pissed in everyone’s Cheerio’s equally and he’s about to do it again.

Oh, so now that there are some rather questionable characters nominated for Defence, AG and DNI, we should all pivot towards policy? While Trump is allowed to nominate loyal individuals who will toe the party line, that doesn't mean he can't nominate people with relevant competencies and aren't carrying some interesting baggage.

Gaetz - What to know about Matt Gaetz, Trump's attorney general pick | AP News
His only experience with prosecution is to be subject of investigation.

https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lautz4k7ic2z

Gabbard - Who is Trump intelligence pick Tulsi Gabbard, accused of repeating Russian talking points?
No relevant experience and a compromised background. The 'Five Eyes' may become the 'Four-and-a-half Eyes', if the other four allies become reticent in sharing intelligence with her.
Hesgeth - ‘Who the f--k is this guy?’: Defense world reacts to Trump’s surprise Pentagon pick - POLITICO A former "Hey, YOU!" Captain*, with no relevant experience.

*In the Navy, we referred to Army Captains derisively as a "Hey, YOU!" Captain. A Navy Captain is equivalent to an Army Colonel.

You can wish for discussions to concentrate on policy, but you can't ask everyone to ignore the dirt. They come as a package. Regardless, they may be in for a rough ride during confirmation hearings. Time will tell.