The Trump Cabinet and key post thread (6 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

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

 

[RobF]

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

You haven't shown an actual equivalence to address. You said:

1) You "don't think Noem can screw things up any worse than Mayorkas", but you haven't offered any reasoning or evidence for thinking so. Literally the only content you've provided there is your own thoughts.
2) That "I doubt Mayor Pete was all that qualified for Transportation." Again, just your own thoughts, and no comparison at all to Sean Duffy. Additionally, literally no-one has said anything about Sean Duffy in this thread. He's only mentioned at all as saying that EVs should "pay for use of our roads".
3) "I was disappointed in Garland." Again, no reasoning or evidence, and no comparison to Pam Bondi (or even Trump's original pick, Matt Gaetz). There has, of course, been actual criticism of Bondi in this thread and reasoning presented to show that Bondi is an objectively worse pick than Merrick Garland. You've offered nothing.
4) And, "I was thoroughly unimpressed by Blinken and believe Rubio will do much better." Again, no reasoning or evidence. But also no recognition of the fact that the comments on Rubio in this thread have been along the lines of "Rubio is fine. Don't like him, but he will treat the job with respect" and "at least it’s a fairly serious minded person".

So the notion that your vague, personal, thoughts, doubts, and feelings of disappointment and being unimpressed somehow make Trump's nominees, including all the other ones that have actually been heavily criticised in this thread and that you avoided there, somehow equivalent to previous nominees, is false. Hence, you're back to false equivalence.

Following that up with hollow attempts at patronisation doesn't help that either. But perhaps you don't have anything else to offer. Which is understandable; there isn't enough lipstick in the world for this particular pig.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

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

Can you not see it?

 

[TampaJoe]

You haven't shown an actual equivalence to address. You said:

1) You "don't think Noem can screw things up any worse than Mayorkas", but you haven't offered any reasoning or evidence for thinking so. Literally the only content you've provided there is your own thoughts.
2) That "I doubt Mayor Pete was all that qualified for Transportation." Again, just your own thoughts, and no comparison at all to Sean Duffy. Additionally, literally no-one has said anything about Sean Duffy in this thread. He's only mentioned at all as saying that EVs should "pay for use of our roads".
3) "I was disappointed in Garland." Again, no reasoning or evidence, and no comparison to Pam Bondi (or even Trump's original pick, Matt Gaetz). There has, of course, been actual criticism of Bondi in this thread and reasoning presented to show that Bondi is an objectively worse pick than Merrick Garland. You've offered nothing.
4) And, "I was thoroughly unimpressed by Blinken and believe Rubio will do much better." Again, no reasoning or evidence. But also no recognition of the fact that the comments on Rubio in this thread have been along the lines of "Rubio is fine. Don't like him, but he will treat the job with respect" and "at least it’s a fairly serious minded person".

So the notion that your vague, personal, thoughts, doubts, and feelings of disappointment and being unimpressed somehow make Trump's nominees, including all the other ones that have actually been heavily criticised in this thread and that you avoided there, somehow equivalent to previous nominees, is false. Hence, you're back to false equivalence.

Following that up with hollow attempts at patronisation doesn't help that either. But perhaps you don't have anything else to offer. Which is understandable; there isn't enough lipstick in the world for this particular pig.

These are my opinions Rob. You are welcome to yours and I am welcome to mine. The voters are welcome to theirs. I have no issue with your opinion of the current cabinet nominees. Think what you want. I think we will be alright. We survived the Biden administration and we will survive another Trump administration.

 

[RobF]

These are my opinions Rob. You are welcome to yours and I am welcome to mine. The voters are welcome to theirs. I have no issue with your opinion of the current cabinet nominees. Think what you want. I think we will be alright. We survived the Biden administration and we will survive another Trump administration.

So all you want to do is shout your opinions into the void and not actually discuss them - which involves substantiating them with reason and evidence?

Seems a bit pointless?

 

[TampaJoe]

So all you want to do is shout your opinions into the void and not actually discuss them - which involves substantiating them with reason and evidence?

Seems a bit pointless?

I’m happy to discuss. What are your concerns?

 

[RobF]

I’m happy to discuss. What are your concerns?

You could start by substantiating your opinions that I just quoted with some reasoning and evidence, explaining why you think that makes them an actual equivalence to previous nominees?

 

[Dragon]

I’m happy to discuss. What are your concerns?

It’s difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone who only shares opinions without offering reasons or facts to support them. That’s not a discussion; it’s just one-way shouting. True discussion involves listening, engaging, and backing up your claims with facts and reasoning. You’re doing none of that.

 

[TampaJoe]

You could start by substantiating your opinions that I just quoted with some reasoning and evidence, explaining why you think that makes them an actual equivalence to previous nominees?

So let’s pick one and you tell me what concerns you.

 

[bird]

I guess this can go here…

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/17/ohio-senate-seat-dewine-husted-ramaswamy-00198974

Thank God he didn’t pick Ramasmarmy. Unfortunately, that means Ramasmarmy might still be involved with DOGE.

 

[RobF]

So let’s pick one and you tell me what concerns you.

That's not how this works. You've already heard concerns and responded with opinions. The next step is you substantiating those opinions with reasoning and evidence. Then you've contributed something that can be responded to. That's how this works.

I don't know why you think it would work by you responding to people's substantiated concerns with at best "I disagree," and, "I was disappointed in Garland," refusing to expand on that, and then bizarrely demanding a repeat of concerns instead of, if you just wanted to pick one instead of claiming the whole lot are equivalent, offering some reasoning or evidence as to why you think Garland is an equivalently bad pick to Bondi, for example.

Why would anyone think you'd offer reasoning or evidence a second time around when you refused to do so the first time?

 

[TampaJoe]

That's not how this works. You've already heard concerns and responded with opinions. The next step is you substantiating those opinions with reasoning and evidence. Then you've contributed something that can be responded to. That's how this works.

I don't know why you think it would work by you responding to people's substantiated concerns with at best "I disagree," and, "I was disappointed in Garland," refusing to expand on that, and then bizarrely demanding a repeat of concerns instead of, if you just wanted to pick one instead of claiming the whole lot are equivalent, offering some reasoning or evidence as to why you think Garland is an equivalently bad pick to Bondi, for example.

Why would anyone think you'd offer reasoning or evidence a second time around when you refused to do so the first time?

Up to you.

 

[bird]

Since Ramasmarmy is involved with DOGE this is appropriate…

Vivek Ramaswamy Is a Fraud—and Always Has Been

Both parties are already led by scandal-plagued octogenarians. The last thing we need is a millennial conman pretending to be a presidential candidate.

www.newsweek.com

Even though it is from his presidential run it underscores what Ramasmarmy is.

 

[MT15]

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

You are the one strewing straw men everywhere. Saying we said things we didn’t say.

 

[fooferdoggie]

So let’s pick one and you tell me what concerns you.

We have asked you that and you never answered.