The Biden Cabinet and Transition Thread (4 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
    GrandAdmiral

    GrandAdmiral

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages
    4,073
    Reaction score
    5,913
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Offline
    Ok the rules:
    • Your post can only contain one department and guess.
    • You may post more than once for different departments.
    • Post can contain comments about previous guesses.
    • Guesses for one department can be used for other departments.
    • Minds can, of course, be changed.
    I will kick things off first...

    Secretary of State: Susan Rice

    Susan_Rice_official_photo.jpg


    This is as clear a choice as there can be. She has all of the credentials and rep to begin healing as relationships with our allies.
     
    insidejob said:


    Thoughts?
    Click to expand...

    I didn't like it when Mattis was selected and I don't like it still. The seven year law was passed for a reason, it's a real buffer between their actual military service. It removes the likelihood that they will be the civilian leader of the very same people that they either directly commanded or were commanded by.
     
    I’m less inclined to worry about this. Let him have the people he wants, and hold my judgement until we see the results, is the way I’m looking at it.
     
    insidejob said:


    Thoughts?
    Click to expand...


    My first thought was he must be pretty old, if already retired for 4 years. I would prefer some younger people (people not born in the boomer era), but thats just me. I don't know much about this 7 year thing, but 7 seems like a strange number. What is worrying me most though is people already in the twitter comments picking up on the "De-emphasize the military" bit. Similar to people getting bent out of shape about the "defund the police" stuff. Already saw more than a few comments about "WE MUST SHOW STRENGTH!! CHINA! blah blah" etc
     
    zztop said:
    My first thought was he must be pretty old, if already retired for 4 years. I would prefer some younger people (people not born in the boomer era), but thats just me. I don't know much about this 7 year thing, but 7 seems like a strange number. What is worrying me most though is people already in the twitter comments picking up on the "De-emphasize the military" bit. Similar to people getting bent out of shape about the "defund the police" stuff. Already saw more than a few comments about "WE MUST SHOW STRENGTH!! CHINA! blah blah" etc
    Click to expand...
    Apparently this Rosa Brooks person was all about Mattis getting the same waiver under Trump when he hadn't even been out of the military as long as Austin has this time around so her motives for even questioning this seem a little, umm, suspect (?). I don't really have strong feelings about it either way other than thinking that whoever takes the position better be ready to clean up whatever mess Trump leaves in his wake - but that goes for all of these positions, not just defense.
     
    zztop said:
    My first thought was he must be pretty old, if already retired for 4 years. I would prefer some younger people (people not born in the boomer era), but thats just me. I don't know much about this 7 year thing, but 7 seems like a strange number. What is worrying me most though is people already in the twitter comments picking up on the "De-emphasize the military" bit. Similar to people getting bent out of shape about the "defund the police" stuff. Already saw more than a few comments about "WE MUST SHOW STRENGTH!! CHINA! blah blah" etc
    Click to expand...
    It was originally ten years when the National Security Act was signed in 1947, but in that same year USC Title 10 changed it to seven. :idunno:
     
    It seems like the buffer is there for a reason to prevent command issues between Sec Def and others who potentially previously worked with or for him. I'm not sure, but is Biden not aware of the rule? Why not pick someone for whom that's an issue and Austin get his chance in 3 years when he qualifies?

    I get that Mattis didn't necessarily qualify either, but well, Trump. Fwiw, I don't really have an issue with it. Austin seems otherwise well qualified, so idk.
     
    DaveXA said:
    It seems like the buffer is there for a reason to prevent command issues between Sec Def and others who potentially previously worked with or for him. I'm not sure, but is Biden not aware of the rule? Why not pick someone for whom that's an issue and Austin get his chance in 3 years when he qualifies?

    I get that Mattis didn't necessarily qualify either, but well, Trump. Fwiw, I don't really have an issue with it. Austin seems otherwise well qualified, so idk.
    Click to expand...
    It's not about his qualifications, dude was CENTCOM Commander, it's about laws and resetting the norms. Here's the first example of trump precedent becoming a norm and it leaves me disappointed.

    That being said, I have ZERO doubt that congressional Republicans will raise a shirt fit about how laws are not meant to be broken, blah, blah, blah.
     
    If I had to guess, and this is a straight up BayouSAINTJoe guess, it's because Colin Powell turned him down. Being said, I like the pick but I understand the purpose of the 7 year rule and see why some have an issue w/ putting up the 2nd consecutive SECDEF who requires a waiver. We're trying to re-establish norms w/ the Biden administration and this doesn't help towards getting fully normallized again.
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    I Like Honore, I just don't think he would be interested in SECDEF. DHS maybe.
    Click to expand...

    Oh, I think he'd definitely take it if offered. But I'm not sure he's the best fit. I think there are others with better qualifications out there.

    As for the current potential pick, I tend to agree we're trying to reset norms and a Biden pick that continues something out of the norm that Trump did is a poor decision. I'd find someone who full qualifies without needing a waiver and take it from there.
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    I Like Honore, I just don't think he would be interested in SECDEF. DHS maybe.
    Click to expand...

    I like him too, but I don't know that SECDEF is the right role for him. The job requires someone that knows how to work the wheels of power and play the political game. Honore is more of a no-nonsense get it done type. I don't know that the federal bureaucracy is the right place for him.
     
    MT15 said:
    No, just no, you cannot just rewrite history to serve your own biases. They opened the investigation after Pence assured everyone publicly that sanctions had not been discussed by Flynn. They knew that was a lie. If Flynn hadn’t lied to Pence, and then subsequently lied to the FBI, he wouldn’t have been charged with anything. It was stated in articles at the time, the only problem was the lying.
    Click to expand...
    Please show us on the transcript where Flynn discussed sanctions.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom