Donald Trump's Cabinet picks

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:47 am

LordMortis wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:The idea that Mitch McConnell would suddenly be interested in following the rules or process of governing is hilarious. He's disgusting and I can only hope he wakes up every day and realizes all over again just how much of a pile of human garbage he really is.

^^^^^

Warren. She's the person I disagree with most that I still believe is our best leader in DC.

McConnell is a worm drunk on the power of mud.

I feel like most people underrate what an awful person McConnell is. I don't think anyone else has done more to impede the functioning of our democracy and (admittedly mostly inadvertently) pave the way for Trump than him.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:56 am

I was at the point last night after reading that article that I decided I'm going to hand write a letter Senator McConnell every week and let him know how much he disgusts me. I figure after a few months maybe he'll start seeing them and possibly at some point it will get under his skin. Maybe some day I'll be on Colbert or Conan talking about why I'm doing it and what I've learned. Maybe I can collect them all in a book and use the proceeds to donate to a cause that opposes him in Kentucky. I have no idea. To be clear, I'm not going to be disrespectful or threatening in anyway. I just want there to be a written record that a random person in the United States is following his political career and is sickened by his definition of public service. I already have the opening point for my initial letter. Did you know that despite having the lowest approval rating in the Senate, McConnell is the longest-serving U.S. Senator in Kentucky history? That's a note worthy accomplishment and one he should talk more about.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:03 am

Carpet_pissr wrote:The several times I have listened to her ranting, I've been turned off even though she should be aligned very well with my beliefs (which she is, so maybe it's delivery). Same with Franken actually. I get the sense of overreach and/or pettiness in their arguments, when the basis of the arguments (IMO) are sound enough to stand alone without focusing on minutiae, or displays of bringing down the hammer. That's very broad, I know, but I can't point to specific instances, just a feeling.

Maybe it's the establishment left (Reid, Pelosi and their ilk) that I am disappointed in, that Michael Moore(!) has been decrying lately, and says needs to be replaced. I blanch at agreeing with much of anything he says, but maybe he's gotten a bit wiser in his older age.

I'm the other way around. She is too brash for preference (at least she's not smarmy) but she has her facts straight and she doesn't stray from them. Franken tries to set people up with "A Has" by controlling the conversation. Warren doesn't care about the conversation. She just has a mass of the facts of history. She studies the subject she expected to govern over and she studies the relationships of the people involved and then provides a history of that relationship. If there are surprises and cornering, it's because the person being surprised and cornered, not because she's setting a linguistic or rhetorical or conceptual trap.

She's way too "progressive" for my ilk but I have confidence in both her ability and her heart and I while it's only a trust I have in her, so far I don't think she's acted like ideological democrat, though my faith in her was shaken a bit when started actively endorsing Clinton. I'm taking for granted that she did out of fear for the Trump presidency, which is actually what she implied in her endorsements.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:25 am

You can read CSK's full letter and statement here and decide whether it was irrelevant to Sessions' nomination and beneath the dignity of McConnell's senate.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:37 am

Talkingpoints is fake news. The reading impugned! Impugned!

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:46 am

I'm just curious what argument would ever pass muster for denying a senator a cabinet position if you can't point out flaws that would make them bad for the job?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:05 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:The several times I have listened to her ranting, I've been turned off even though she should be aligned very well with my beliefs (which she is, so maybe it's delivery). Same with Franken actually. I get the sense of overreach and/or pettiness in their arguments, when the basis of the arguments (IMO) are sound enough to stand alone without focusing on minutiae, or displays of bringing down the hammer. That's very broad, I know, but I can't point to specific instances, just a feeling.

Maybe it's the establishment left (Reid, Pelosi and their ilk) that I am disappointed in, that Michael Moore(!) has been decrying lately, and says needs to be replaced. I blanch at agreeing with much of anything he says, but maybe he's gotten a bit wiser in his older age.
I'm the other way around. She is too brash for preference (at least she's not smarmy) but she has her facts straight and she doesn't stray from them. Franken tries to set people up with "A Has" by controlling the conversation. Warren doesn't care about the conversation. She just has a mass of the facts of history. She studies the subject she expected to govern over and she studies the relationships of the people involved and then provides a history of that relationship. If there are surprises and cornering, it's because the person being surprised and cornered, not because she's setting a linguistic or rhetorical or conceptual trap.

She's way too "progressive" for my ilk but I have confidence in both her ability and her heart and I while it's only a trust I have in her, so far I don't think she's acted like ideological democrat, though my faith in her was shaken a bit when started actively endorsing Clinton. I'm taking for granted that she did out of fear for the Trump presidency, which is actually what she implied in her endorsements.

If your faith in her was shaken when she endorsed a center-left candidate after they won the nomination when the alternative was this crazy fascist, then you never actually had faith in her.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:47 pm

Rip wrote:
malchior wrote:Senate (read: Republican hypocrites) to Elizabeth Warren - don't read letters from dead people calling a racist a racist.

Interesting to note in my estimation they censured her for impugning his motives -- by talking about his actions and reputation from before he was a Senator. But this isn't about principles anymore - it is war.
Rule 19 is about maintaining a decorum in the Congress and not letting it devolve into personal attacks against each other. Totally justified. No different than if he was up there calling her Fauxcahontas.

Come on, Rip. That's not even close to the same thing. Please try to make your dissent more than a joke.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:53 pm

El Guapo wrote:If your faith in her was shaken when she endorsed a center-left candidate after they won the nomination when the alternative was this crazy fascist, then you never actually had faith in her.

My faith in her is not blind. I'm not good at having blind faith.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:59 pm

LordMortis wrote:
El Guapo wrote:If your faith in her was shaken when she endorsed a center-left candidate after they won the nomination when the alternative was this crazy fascist, then you never actually had faith in her.
My faith in her is not blind. I'm not good at having blind faith.

You disapprove of the fact that she didn't want Trump to be president? Because it was only going to be Clinton or Trump at that point. There was no third way forward.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:04 pm

Max Peck wrote:You disapprove of the fact that she didn't want Trump to be president? Because it was only going to be Clinton or Trump at that point. There was no third way forward.

Trump is president. There is no second way at this point. Does that mean I have to endorse him?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:12 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Max Peck wrote:You disapprove of the fact that she didn't want Trump to be president? Because it was only going to be Clinton or Trump at that point. There was no third way forward.
Trump is president. There is no second way at this point. Does that mean I have to endorse him?

No, the election is over. It wasn't when she made her endorsement. Endorsing Clinton then was the best option she had if she wanted to avoid the administration you're currently enjoying so much.

Raison d'edit: Because spelling and typing are hard...

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:21 pm

LordMortis wrote:
El Guapo wrote:If your faith in her was shaken when she endorsed a center-left candidate after they won the nomination when the alternative was this crazy fascist, then you never actually had faith in her.
My faith in her is not blind. I'm not good at having blind faith.

It's not about blind faith, or about following everything her (or any preferred candidate says). At the same time, you either trust someone's judgment or you don't. The last couple weeks have amply demonstrated what was apparent during the campaign - Trump is a crazy bigoted ignorant asshole. It's just weird to say essentially, "oh, I like her values, and where she comes out on most issues, but geez, she's asking me to vote for Clinton over a crazy bigoted ignorant asshole - that really makes me question her judgment."

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Sessions easily confirmed.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:38 pm

Rip wrote:Sessions easily confirmed as a bigoted jackass.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:42 pm

Fake NYT

near-party-line vote, 52 to 47 ... No Republicans broke ranks

Roll

Voted "yes"
D Joe Manchin III W.Va.
...
“Present” votes
R Jeff Sessions Ala.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:46 pm

Joe Manchin III

In an interview, Joe Manchin has said that he will support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. This is now the 2nd time in 10 days that Senator Manchin has broke with party leadership, the first being when he criticized Senator Harry Reid (NV) for criticizing Trump.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:03 pm

Rip wrote:Sessions easily confirmed.

52-47 is easily confirmed?

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:17 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Rip wrote:Sessions easily confirmed.

52-47 is easily confirmed?

The biggest landslide Cabinet vote in American history. Make America great!

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:41 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Rip wrote:Sessions easily confirmed.

52-47 is easily confirmed?

I'm pretty sure it's the largest margin for an AG nominee in the history of the Republic.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:50 pm

Bah..scooped.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:03 pm

Rip wrote:Sessions easily confirmed.

Not enough klan in the house yet for a landslide it seems. But be patient. One hood at a time.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:24 am

Manchin's kind of an ass, but realistically he's the best senator we can expect out of West Virginia in the short or medium term. Plus he's facing reelection in a tough state for a democrat in 2018, and Sessions was a given to be confirmed anyway, so I'm fine with his vote.

Hopefully he did so with acknowledgment that Sessions is an awful person, but who knows.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:25 pm

Our Senator, Tim Scott (SC), is African American and took time to defend Sessions and read statements from black Alabama Democrats supporting Sessions. It boggles the mind.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:27 pm

stessier wrote:Tim Scott (SC-R)

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:32 pm

I thought the R was given as he is from SC.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:52 pm

stessier wrote:Our Senator, Tim Scott (SC), is African American and took time to defend Sessions and read statements from black Alabama Democrats supporting Sessions. It boggles the mind.

He's truly an idiot, or worse, disingenuous. He also supported Devos supposedly because he thinks her model will benefit poor black communities like the one he grew up in.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:33 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:He also supported Devos supposedly because he thinks her model will benefit poor black communities like the one he grew up in.

Is it really so hard to believe that parents would want to send their kids somewhere other than the shitty public school they happen to live next to?

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:35 pm

Moliere wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:He also supported Devos supposedly because he thinks her model will benefit poor black communities like the one he grew up in.
Is it really so hard to believe that parents would want to send their kids somewhere other than the shitty public school they happen to live next to?

"Want to"? No. Be able to afford to? Yes.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:40 pm

Moliere wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:He also supported Devos supposedly because he thinks her model will benefit poor black communities like the one he grew up in.
Is it really so hard to believe that parents would want to send their kids somewhere other than the shitty public school they happen to live next to?

This is the problem with vouchers. So all the poor kids choose the neighborhood school. The parents move to a new school, or invent one, or create a corporate charter school for the newly enfranchized poor community that is poorly regulated and is the walmart of school, so not only is it shitty but it exploits people for profit.

Making schools even more of a class based competition is not a legit way to ensure universal quality education. It just ensures that it can be exploited in more individualized ways than the current system.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:41 pm

Double post

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:16 pm

If you have the opportunity to send your kids to a good private religious school, perhaps that helps you but it cannot help everyone.

My wife's uncle wrote a book about a remarkable Catholic High School in the segregated South that did amazing work teaching many black men and women who went on to do many great achievements. They were the exception, not the rule, and very aware that others in their community had been left behind.

The stated objective of school choice is to defund public schools by shifting money to religious and private schools which are able to discriminate. That means they can exclude students based on religion, academic ability, behavior, physical disability, medical condition, race, gender, etc. The result will be segregation and a disparity of opportunities -- often by class and race.

That is not only morally offensive to me, but I have two children with medical issues (insulin dependent diabetes). Under the American with Disabilities Act, the Chicago Public Schools MUST LEGALLY accommodate their health needs or risk Federal defunding. It's a struggle even with the law on my side, my legal background and an assertive wife to fight on their behalf. With DeVos, I not only have to worry about academics but her stated desire to leave the public schools without the resources to assist more costly kids. Private schools WILL NOT accept them--there's no profit in them.

I have no faith a Trump administration will keep or enforce the ADA--those regulations are expensive to real estate developers who are forced to put in ramps, bigger bathrooms, etc.

All the Republican proposals on Obamacare repeal, school vouchers, and deregulation are bullets aimed at my children and millions more like them.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:48 pm

Jill Stein, confirming for anyone who wasn't already aware, that she is a complete and total fucking loon:

FYI, Palin wannabe, all the Democrats voted against her.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:23 pm

Zarathud wrote:I have no faith a Trump administration will keep or enforce the ADA--those regulations are expensive to real estate developers who are forced to put in ramps, bigger bathrooms, etc.

I'd be nervous too. Speaker Bro told people last month that dreamers won't be deported. Well, apparently ICE rounded up a dreamer and sent her packing this morning in AZ, separating her from her 14 year old daughter.

Compassion? The idea that this happened is beyond comprehension.

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:26 pm

Well regulated charters are a boon to poor kids. Vouchers...mixed evidence. Poorly regulated charters...bad news.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:20 am

PLW wrote:Well regulated charters are a boon to poor kids. Vouchers...mixed evidence. Poorly regulated charters...bad news.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Some* poor kids.

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:26 am

Combustible Lemur wrote:
PLW wrote:Well regulated charters are a boon to poor kids. Vouchers...mixed evidence. Poorly regulated charters...bad news.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Some* poor kids.

Obviously they only help the kids they enroll. If I said "education helps poor kids" would you asterisk that, too, because it doesn't help all poor kids?

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:47 am

See my point above. Charters are limited by design to teach the profitable* kids, not all kids.

* profitable does not mean those who can be helped the most, but those who are cheapest to teach.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:12 am

PLW wrote:Well regulated charters are a boon to poor kids. Vouchers...mixed evidence. Poorly regulated charters...bad news.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

DeVos's Charter model is the unregulated one, based on her Michigan track record.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:24 am

Pyperkub wrote:
PLW wrote:Well regulated charters are a boon to poor kids. Vouchers...mixed evidence. Poorly regulated charters...bad news.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
DeVos's Charter model is the unregulated one, based on her Michigan track record.

This. She has worked very hard to keep them unregulated. If she had used the money she gave campaigns of those who supported her causes to provide better resources for the schools - building repair, teacher retention and recruitment, head start programs, etc the schools in general would be much much more successful. Instead she has been working hard to ruin them.