The Trump Cabinet and key post thread (5 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Surely to be a clown show. We know that RFK certainly thinks he’s getting nominated for HHS, which includes FDA.

 

[faceman]

You guys are laughable!!! Each and every time, yall like to fall back on some false equivalency.
There is no way any rational person could have similar concerns about ANY Biden pick, if someone did, they would need to seek some sort of therapy.

I challenge you to share your concerns over Biden's picks for SECDEF, AG, and DNI, and then compare them to trumps picks for those same position.

The more and more you guys do this, the more you show the world that you guy are not serious people.

You can add RFK Jr. as well for HHS

 

[Booker]

It's not that they're evil sleeper agents, they're just grossly unqualified.

 

[TampaJoe]

It's not that they're evil sleeper agents, they're just grossly unqualified.

Yeah well elections do have consequences. The voters had a clear choice and they choose. If Biden/Harris had been as good as claimed, there would have been a different result.

So we will see.

 

[RobF]

So we are to assume that is what is happening here because you say so. Hence my facepalm.

Yes, Joe, you're supposed to think that because some random English guy on a forum said so. That's my argument.

(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic).

Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know the motivations of each and every nominee. Maybe they are all sleeper agents. Maybe they are all evil. I don’t pretend to know what goes on in the heads of other people. Maybe that’s naive.

If you read the post you were replying to, you would have noticed that I haven't "pretended to know the motivations of each and every nominee." The argument I just made to you is that pretending that you know the motivations of each and every nominee and that they're all pure and good, and cannot possibly be otherwise, is naive.

That is, "They cannot possibly actually be bad no matter the objective evidence to suggest otherwise," is no better - and actually worse - than "the evidence suggests these guys are at best incompetent and at worst malicious."

Needless to say, I would have made different choices than Trump but then again I would have made different choices than Biden as well. As I said earlier, I’m not prepared to assume that everyone of these appointees are the antichrist. If that’s naive to you then so be it. Call me naive.

No, I'm going to call you willfully obtuse this time. No-one is arguing that you should assume people are "the antichrist." I mean, no-one has even argued that they're "the antichrist" so I'm assuming you're exaggerating because you feel like your argument is too weak otherwise, but the argument is that, objectively, these are clearly bad nominees, in some instances with public stances that clearly have the potential to be highly damaging to the nation - RFK Jr's history and stance on vaccination being just one example - and you should actually recognise the reality of that. I mean, I can see it from a few thousand miles away. You should be able to see it from there.

To suggest that argument is about assuming things because people on a forum said so is to be willfully obtuse.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

If Biden/Harris had been as good as claimed, there would have been a different result.

I doubt it!

A political party that has no integrity has convinced voters that the country with the greatest economy in the world is worse than Venezuela’s. That very same party is led by a man that has defrauded over tens of thousands Americans, bankrupted multiple businesses and sexually assaulted multiple women.

So, nah, American voters have shown they want to be TOLD what to believe and they need to have someone to blame if this aren't going they way they want.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, Joe, you're supposed to think that because some random English guy on a forum said so. That's my argument.

(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic).

If you read the post you were replying to, you would have noticed that I haven't "pretended to know the motivations of each and every nominee." The argument I just made to you is that pretending that you know the motivations of each and every nominee and that they're all pure and good, and cannot possibly be otherwise, is naive.

That is, "They cannot possibly actually be bad no matter the objective evidence to suggest otherwise," is no better - and actually worse - than "the evidence suggests these guys are at best incompetent and at worst malicious."


No, I'm going to call you willfully obtuse this time. No-one is arguing that you should assume people are "the antichrist." I mean, no-one has even argued that they're "the antichrist" so I'm assuming you're exaggerating because you feel like your argument is too weak otherwise, but the argument is that, objectively, these are clearly bad nominees, in some instances with public stances that clearly have the potential to be highly damaging to the nation - RFK Jr's history and stance on vaccination being just one example - and you should actually recognise the reality of that. I mean, I can see it from a few thousand miles away. You should be able to see it from there.

To suggest that argument is about assuming things because people on a forum said so is to be willfully obtuse.

Actually RFK jr. has already proven how horrible he is when it comes to healthcare. That is not guess work

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s anti-vaccine activism has been linked to significant public health crises, notably the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa. In 2018, two infants in Samoa died due to improperly prepared MMR vaccines, leading to widespread fear and a suspension of the vaccination program. Kennedy's visit to Samoa and his dissemination of vaccine misinformation exacerbated this fear, contributing to a dramatic decline in vaccination rates—from approximately 74% in 2017 to as low as 31% in 2018. This decline in immunization coverage resulted in a severe measles outbreak in 2019, infecting over 5,700 individuals and causing 83 deaths, primarily among infants and young children.

https://www.protectourcare.org/expe...s-outbreak-caused-by-rfk-jr-s-disaster-visit/

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

You can add RFK Jr. as well for HHS

Yay, I didn't want to go through the entire list of unqualified appointments because there are too many to name.

 

[Dragon]

I doubt it!

A political party that has no integrity has convinced voters that the country with the greatest economy in the world is worse than Venezuela’s. That very same party is led by a man that has defrauded over tens of thousands Americans, bankrupted multiple businesses and sexually assaulted multiple women.

So, nah, American voters have shown they want to be TOLD what to believe and they need to have someone to blame if this aren't going they way they want.

It’s the same old story: hate sells better than anything else. Convince people that others are less worthy or inherently evil, and you ignite a dangerous cycle. When individuals feel entitled to privileges based on race or gender, and they see those they deem 'beneath' them taking jobs, university spots, or achieving greater success, resentment grows. Then, when a demagogue comes along, telling them they’re special and that those they despise are criminals or unworthy, it’s all too easy to fall for the propaganda. It reinforces their sense of superiority and validates their prejudices.

 

[TampaJoe]

Yes, Joe, you're supposed to think that because some random English guy on a forum said so. That's my argument.

(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic).

If you read the post you were replying to, you would have noticed that I haven't "pretended to know the motivations of each and every nominee." The argument I just made to you is that pretending that you know the motivations of each and every nominee and that they're all pure and good, and cannot possibly be otherwise, is naive.

That is, "They cannot possibly actually be bad no matter the objective evidence to suggest otherwise," is no better - and actually worse - than "the evidence suggests these guys are at best incompetent and at worst malicious."


No, I'm going to call you willfully obtuse this time. No-one is arguing that you should assume people are "the antichrist." I mean, no-one has even argued that they're "the antichrist" so I'm assuming you're exaggerating because you feel like your argument is too weak otherwise, but the argument is that, objectively, these are clearly bad nominees, in some instances with public stances that clearly have the potential to be highly damaging to the nation - RFK Jr's history and stance on vaccination being just one example - and you should actually recognise the reality of that. I mean, I can see it from a few thousand miles away. You should be able to see it from there.

To suggest that argument is about assuming things because people on a forum said so is to be willfully obtuse.

Well Rob if you had bothered to read the posts I was replying to you would see that folks were making all kinds of general claims about the motivations of these nominees. Further nowhere did I say they were all pure and good.

My point is simple. We has an election. The voters rejected Biden/Harris and selected Trump with all his baggage. He wasn’t my choice. But the choice was made.

I don’t worry about Trump becoming the next Hitler. I don’t worry about Trump turning the country over to Putin or Xi. I don’t fear all this hand wringing and pearl clutching about oligarchs and autocrats. I think our system of government is a little more resilient than that.

Are all these cabinet choices and appointees eminently qualified? Probably not. Some are. Some aren’t. I don’t think Noem can screw things up any worse than Mayorkas. I doubt Mayor Pete was all that qualified for Transportation. I was disappointed in Garland. I was thoroughly unimpressed by Blinken and believe Rubio will do much better. But I don’t question and never questioned their patriotism or their dedication to the country. Is there also an element of self interest involved. Sure. Nobody gets to that level without some measure of ambition and drive. These aren’t wall flowers.

 

[TampaJoe]

I doubt it!

A political party that has no integrity has convinced voters that the country with the greatest economy in the world is worse than Venezuela’s. That very same party is led by a man that has defrauded over tens of thousands Americans, bankrupted multiple businesses and sexually assaulted multiple women.

So, nah, American voters have shown they want to be TOLD what to believe and they need to have someone to blame if this aren't going they way they want.

Which party. Democrats or Republican?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Which party. Democrats or Republican?

You are proving my point with each post.

 

[TampaJoe]

I doubt it!

A political party that has no integrity has convinced voters that the country with the greatest economy in the world is worse than Venezuela’s. That very same party is led by a man that has defrauded over tens of thousands Americans, bankrupted multiple businesses and sexually assaulted multiple women.

So, nah, American voters have shown they want to be TOLD what to believe and they need to have someone to blame if this aren't going they way they want.

Which party. Democrats or Republican

You are proving my point with each post.

Happy to oblige.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Happy to oblige.

I know.

 

[TampaJoe]

I know.

Just returning the favor. Now run along and clutch some pearls.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Just returning the favor. Now run along and clutch some pearls.

No pearls to clutch and even if there were, my hands are going to be busy feeding my face with popcorn.

 

[RobF]

Well Rob if you had bothered to read the posts I was replying to you would see that folks were making all kinds of general claims about the motivations of these nominees. Further nowhere did I say they were all pure and good.

I, of course, did bother to read those posts, which is why I know none of them actually said that the nominees were "the antichrist" or "arch villains rooting against the country". So I assumed you were exaggerating, and my reply should be read in that context; that is, if you were replying to what people were actually saying and meaning, "it's never the case that people on the other side are grossly unqualified or incompetent or being put in place for unquestioning loyalty," then you would indeed be assuming that they're reasonably qualified, competent, and willing to challenge their leader. "Pure and good" should be read in that context. And assuming that is always the case, would, obviously, be naive. Especially when the evidence otherwise is pretty darn overwhelming in this instance.

But if you were actually literally saying they're not "the antichrist", that's nice, but has about as much relevance as if you'd jumped into the conversation and declared that none of the nominees were penguins.

My point is simple. We has an election. The voters rejected Biden/Harris and selected Trump with all his baggage. He wasn’t my choice. But the choice was made.

That's not a point. That's just an observation.

I don’t worry about Trump becoming the next Hitler. I don’t worry about Trump turning the country over to Putin or Xi. I don’t fear all this hand wringing and pearl clutching about oligarchs and autocrats. I think our system of government is a little more resilient than that.

Why do you feel like you can't make your point without exaggerating? There are plenty of serious concerns well short of "the next Hitler" or "turning the country over to Putin or Xi".

And then we're back to naive; oligarchies and autocracies are very much real, and to just assume that a "system of government" is immune to their existence no matter how influenced, or even corrupted, it could become, well, let's say that's a bit optimistic.

Are all these cabinet choices and appointees eminently qualified? Probably not. Some are. Some aren’t. I don’t think Noem can screw things up any worse than Mayorkas. I doubt Mayor Pete was all that qualified for Transportation. I was disappointed in Garland. I was thoroughly unimpressed by Blinken and believe Rubio will do much better. But I don’t question and never questioned their patriotism or their dedication to the country. Is there also an element of self interest involved. Sure. Nobody gets to that level without some measure of ambition and drive. These aren’t wall flowers.

And then you're back to false equivalence.

 

[TampaJoe]

No pearls to clutch and even if there were, my hands are going to be busy feeding my face with popcorn.

Enjoy.

 

[TampaJoe]

I, of course, did bother to read those posts, which is why I know none of them actually said that the nominees were "the antichrist" or "arch villains rooting against the country". So I assumed you were exaggerating, and my reply should be read in that context; that is, if you were replying to what people were actually saying and meaning, "it's never the case that people on the other side are grossly unqualified or incompetent or being put in place for unquestioning loyalty," then you would indeed be assuming that they're reasonably qualified, competent, and willing to challenge their leader. "Pure and good" should be read in that context. And assuming that is always the case, would, obviously, be naive. Especially when the evidence otherwise is pretty darn overwhelming in this instance.

But if you were actually literally saying they're not "the antichrist", that's nice, but has about as much relevance as if you'd jumped into the conversation and declared that none of the nominees were penguins.


That's not a point. That's just an observation.

Why do you feel like you can't make your point without exaggerating? There are plenty of serious concerns well short of "the next Hitler" or "turning the country over to Putin or Xi".

And then we're back to naive; oligarchies and autocracies are very much real, and to just assume that a "system of government" is immune to their existence no matter how influenced, or even corrupted, it could become, well, let's say that's a bit optimistic.


And then you're back to false equivalence.

Ahh false equivalencies. Heard that one before. Just an excuse not to address the equivalence. So run along Rob.