Containing Trump from within

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion & War Issues' started by AdamSmith, Jan 10, 2017.

  1. AdamSmith

    AdamSmith Count de Crisco

    Reading news reports of Sessions' hearing today, I start to catch a scent that the people around Trump managing the staffing of his admin -- Priebus, Pence, Trump's children and Jared -- are rather cleverly ring-fencing him with department heads who can control and manage him.

    Like: Sessions' numerous pointed replies today that, in effect, he will not just be the President's stooge ring true to me. Many unpleasant things about him, but he is an independent, indeed rather cussedly so, adult with no need to kowtow to Trump, or anybody.

    Likewise, Rex Tillerson is nobody's fool.


    This admin will not give us what HRC would have; but I am beginning to see how it may just turn out to be competent, and even then some.

    And Trump's after all centrist instincts, coupled with his showman and salesman talents, and his heart's desire to appeal to the biggest possible audience...

    ...Still plenty to worry about, but my existential despair is at least somewhat receding.

    And not, I think, just out of desperate magical thinking, as was necessary in the first days after the election.
  2. bigvalboy, Nvr2Thick and WilliamM like this.
  3. MassageGuy

    MassageGuy Lord

    quoththeraven, bigvalboy and pitman like this.
  4. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    The "mission" of a department can be redefined or reinterpreted. The nominees may be opposed to the the mission as currently defined or understood by liberals but in the "change" that is coming, the missions can be reinterpreted to conform to the new Trump appointed department heads.
  5. tyro

    tyro Salty Broad

    Mizz T likes the threads that show some thinkin'! :)
    PS The OP of this particular thread can PM the writer of this particular post anytime...ahem...
    AdamSmith and MikeBiDude like this.
  6. WilliamM

    WilliamM Regent

    Thanks, QTR. It's the first time in several days I agree 100% with a post in this forum.
  7. purplekow

    purplekow Regent

    Yeah one could easily misinterpret what the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to do. The title is so vague.
    OliverSaks, Lookin, Charlie and 4 others like this.
  8. mike carey

    mike carey Duke

    Well, coal is part of the environment, and it clearly needs to be protected.
  9. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

  10. AdamSmith

    AdamSmith Count de Crisco

    Likewise shale oil & gas. ;)
    Charlie, quoththeraven and mike carey like this.
  11. Last I knew, the EPA was supposed to protect the environment. The Department of Labor is supposed to protect working people, yet the nominee to head it runs a company frequently found in violation of the laws the department enforces. And whatever one's opinion on charter schools, the Education Department should not be solely focused on privatizing public education, which has been Betsy Devos' pet project.

    This relates back to a prior response of yours, but what makes incentives to develop alternative energy sources liberal ideology? I can understand criticizing the implementation of such programs, but you seem to be opposed to the concept. Why?
    honcho, pitman, AdamSmith and 2 others like this.
  12. honcho and WilliamM like this.
  13. In addition to other circumstances raising the question of whether Trump's foreign business entanglements will affect US foreign policy and whether other countries will treat his businesses better than they would otherwise to gain foreign policy advantages, Trump has a number of trademark applications pending in China.

    How do we know that the president won’t be influenced in his dealings with China by China’s actions on those applications?” he asked.

    Or that China was “not influenced in some way by the fact that they have been submitted by the president of the United States?” (quotes from Jay Wexler, constitutional law scholar at Boston University).
    WilliamM likes this.
  14. WilliamM

    WilliamM Regent

    The Robert Kennedy, Jr. selection is emblematic of the problem. Kennedy is sure he's right about the "vaccination safety and scientific integrity." A more experienced president-elect would never have appointed him as chairman of the commission. Even worse, Trump never admits a mistake.

    I doubt very much Trump ever wanted to be president; it was a way to improve his a primary occasionally and go back to his true mission in life: never paying his bills.
    pitman, deej, AdamSmith and 1 other person like this.
  15. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    The "implementation" speaks to the "objectives" as seen by the administration. As Richard Nixon said: "Watch what I do and not what I say" (I think that was Nixon).

    As a lawyer, you should be aware of the Obama record of being slapped down by the courts. At the Supreme Court, Obama's administration has set a recent record losing unanimous decisions (think about it: not only his own appointees voted against his administration's actions but staunch liberals like Justice Ginsberg). His "interpretations" of what the departments are supposed to do often went far beyond the Constitutional limits of their authority.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2017
    BSR likes this.
  16. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    Do not expect the "liberal" "supposed to do" to be the same as what we are going to see. It is a question of interpretation of the purpose of an agency. Your criticism is too broad. For example, soon-to-be Secretary DeVos will not be "solely" focused on privatizing public education; she may look at a list of different things to help education which may include for-profit schools but also, not-for-profit schools, vouchers, charter schools, etc. The department of education under President Obama has sometimes seemed like an arm of the teacher unions; the "change" coming might make the Department focused instead on the students and pragmatically what works.
    BSR likes this.
  17. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    What I am opposed to is government giving grants and loans based on politics. This distorts economics and often enriches the favored few. Think Solyndra, Fisk Motors, etc. The government has a bad record i picking winners and losers. When the government steps back and lets business and economics determine what happens, we see things develop like the i-phone which is one of the largest "change agents" seen in recent times; the young people lead their entire lives on those devices! While Al Gore invented the internet, it really developed because government stood back and let it grow unregulated; without it, we might not ever have met :( In one of his speeches, President Obama talked about the drop in gas prices but it was fracking that increased supply that brought down prices and the government did nothing to promote fracking (for better or worse). Lots of things happen to improve our lives without government "incentives."

    Just a little while ago, charter schools were attacked because real estate companies were taking advantage of government incentives to build in "Brownfields," restore historic buildings and create jobs. So I gather that government incentives are OK so long as they advance the liberal agenda but are to be opposed if used otherwise.

    I am not opposed to the concept of government "incentives" to promote things but too often, handing out those incentives get corrupted.
    BSR likes this.
  18. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    Robert Kennedy, Jr is an interesting case study and will make an interesting biography some day. He started out a darling of the liberal left. He had the Kennedy name and son of a beloved man. His environmental work made him a hero (except not wanting off shore wind farms that would spoil HIS views). There was much talk of him running for political office. Then something happened and he went off on conspiracy theories about JFK's killing and became an anti-vaccination spokesman. He has turned into an "untouchable" politically. Not sure personally what happened to him.
    WilliamM and BSR like this.
  19. Interesting. I'm going through exactly the opposite process.
  20. AdamSmith

    AdamSmith Count de Crisco

    Those are pretty clearly the departments that Trump is willing to throw under the bus to keep the more rabid parts of his constituency satisfied, doubtless with guidance from Bannon.

    The departments he's serious about -- State, etc. -- he appears to be staffing in the same manner as he, by most reports, went about staffing the Trump Organization (most of the time; not always, to be sure): seeking competent professionals who know how to get things done.