ptown_trojans_1;1824568 wrote:Two interesting stories I hope are not true, as they are not yet confirmed by Trump.
One is John Bolton for SECSTATE. Welp, I guess that means the Neocons are back! Party like it is 2003! Iraq part III here we come! He would be a complete joke and a disaster. He was a tool in the Bush administration and a crazy necon.

The second is Trump may want his kids to get a security clearance before the inauguration. I don't know the level, but still, this does raise an eyebrow about how the material will be disseminated. I do hope nothing goes out via email. What is the chain of custody? They are not going into the administration, it may set a bad policy going forward.
Also, how does this ensure that the blind trust stays blind?

So the story about his kids has been proven to be a lie.

QuakerOats;1824917 wrote:We don't need an education head because we don't need the federal Department of Education. Return it to the states, now.


And we don't need a First Lady dictating school lunch menus from Washington D.C., either.

Republican solution to everything is 'Return it to the states'.

Solves nothing.

sleeper;1824943 wrote:Republican solution to everything is 'Return it to the states'.

Solves nothing.

Saves billions (as in dollars, the stuff you like), and gets federal bureaucrats out of the lives of The People. Just the way it should be.

QuakerOats;1824990 wrote:Saves billions (as in dollars, the stuff you like), and gets federal bureaucrats out of the lives of The People. Just the way it should be.

Yeah but then you have states like Alabama, deeply ignorant religious whack jobs, having in their core curriculum the history of Creationism and why evolution is 'just a theory'.

Sorry, but I'm more comfortable with our federal government monitoring education than it being controlled by the trash who run the states.

sleeper;1824992 wrote:Yeah but then you have states like Alabama, deeply ignorant religious whack jobs, having in their core curriculum the history of Creationism and why evolution is 'just a theory'.

Sorry, but I'm more comfortable with our federal government monitoring education than it being controlled by the trash who run the states.

"monitoring" ........................ as in, dictating.

Just another federal disaster.

QuakerOats;1824999 wrote:"monitoring" ........................ as in, dictating.

Just another federal disaster.

Yes, dictating. I don't want trash in trash states teaching children Bible studies as if its true.

I'm certainly fine with people learning about religion however. Religion has a lot of history in it; it's the damaging parts like Creationism that are a huge joke to an industrialized nation in the information age.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/306444-mcconnell-senate-will-pass-iran-sanctions-in-lame-duck

Will the Pres actually sign a bill to extend sanctions on Iran????

sleeper;1824992 wrote:Yeah but then you have states like Alabama, deeply ignorant religious whack jobs, having in their core curriculum the history of Creationism and why evolution is 'just a theory'.

Sorry, but I'm more comfortable with our federal government monitoring education than it being controlled by the trash who run the states.

sleeper;1825003 wrote:Yes, dictating. I don't want trash in trash states teaching children Bible studies as if its true.

I'm certainly fine with people learning about religion however. Religion has a lot of history in it; it's the damaging parts like Creationism that are a huge joke to an industrialized nation in the information age.

When you allocate that power to the federal level, you allow the possibility of those sorts of people dictating that sort of education nationwide.

Just saying, you could relegate it to a small portion of the country, or you could risk the possibility that the same sort of people, at some point, dictate it at a national level.

sleeper;1825003 wrote:Yes, dictating. I don't want trash in trash states teaching children Bible studies as if its true.

I'm certainly fine with people learning about religion however. Religion has a lot of history in it; it's the damaging parts like Creationism that are a huge joke to an industrialized nation in the information age.

I don't want your opinion of what "trash" is, to emanate from D.C. forcing The People to educate their People in manners they do not agree with.

Stay the hell out of local/state education. Thanks.

Dismantle the federal Dept of Education ...........in January '17.

O-Trap;1825066 wrote:When you allocate that power to the federal level, you allow the possibility of those sorts of people dictating that sort of education nationwide.

Just saying, you could relegate it to a small portion of the country, or you could risk the possibility that the same sort of people, at some point, dictate it at a national level.

That's certainly a risk I'm willing to take. If we ever become a country that teaches Creationism over reality than we have bigger problems.

Con_Alma;1825042 wrote:http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/306444-mcconnell-senate-will-pass-iran-sanctions-in-lame-duck

Will the Pres actually sign a bill to extend sanctions on Iran????

Sure

sleeper;1825089 wrote:That's certainly a risk I'm willing to take. If we ever become a country that teaches Creationism over reality than we have bigger problems.

Relegating the educational power to the states would be a way of ensuring that is far less-likely, you know. Getting one semi-autonomous group to take that specific stance on an issue is easier than getting fifty-one semi-autonomous groups to do so.

When considering granting power at the federal level, I'd say it's always helpful to imagine yourself doing so with the worst-case overseers in position. So, for example, imagine Ray Comfort was appointed to SecEd. How comfortable would you be with the federal level having the ability to force curriculum, given that a good portion of the states would otherwise oppose the sort of biology curriculum that Comfort would mandate?

Trump considering naming Mitt Romney SECSTATE

jedbartlet02;1825133 wrote:Trump considering naming Mitt Romney SECSTATE

Interesting that Romney is even discussing it with him, after all the bluster and what not.

Mitt should be in charge of healthcare

An interesting note I think everyone on here would like.
I'm in Atlanta at the Society of American Military Engineers Conference. The Army Corps of Engineers has a huge presence here, so does the Navy, Air Force, and VA.
Regarding Military Construction (MILCON) and Civil Works, the Corps anticipates fully funding existing MILCON and part of a backlog of civil works. The early indications are the FY17 budget will go as planned and everything they ask for in FY18 should, should get through.
This was all largely speculation as it depends on who is SECDEF, but from all indications, the Corps thinks they will get what they want funding wise.
Also, I was talking to a lot of the District commanders and they were thinking regardless of how the Trump admin plays out, they feel whatever they submit to Congress will get funded.
So, looks like the Corps is banking on more DOD spending and infrastructure.

National Security Advisor spot has been offered to retired Lt. Gen. Flynn.

Con_Alma;1825162 wrote:National Security Advisor spot has been offered to retired Lt. Gen. Flynn.

Fired by Obama, correct?

Sessions for AG - Disaster. Very anti-marijuana. Reagan tried appointing him as a Federal judge in '86 but was rejected because he was too racist. Now he's the AG.

Wonderful.

sleeper;1825241 wrote:Fired by Obama, correct?

Sessions for AG - Disaster. Very anti-marijuana. Reagan tried appointing him as a Federal judge in '86 but was rejected because he was too racist. Now he's the AG.

Wonderful.

Yes.

Until the federal law changes he should be "anti-marijuana". I guess I would say it differently in that he should be pro enforcing the law.

Lefties love the federal government until it interferes with what they want (weed). Either be pro States rights or for a bigger federal government, but you don't get to pick and choose depending on how it fits in with your beliefs.

Also, no AG can be worse than Eric Holder, so I don't care who he puts there.

iclfan2;1825257 wrote:Lefties love the federal government until it interferes with what they want (weed). Either be pro States rights or for a bigger federal government, but you don't get to pick and choose depending on how it fits in with your beliefs.

Also, no AG can be worse than Eric Holder, so I don't care who he puts there.

Ehhh... I will disagree with that. When you're not quite republican, the libertarian party doesn't fully suit you and the democrat party is on full whack-out mode... you are not left with much except picking and choosing.

iclfan2;1825257 wrote:Lefties love the federal government until it interferes with what they want (weed). Either be pro States rights or for a bigger federal government, but you don't get to pick and choose depending on how it fits in with your beliefs.

Also, no AG can be worse than Eric Holder, so I don't care who he puts there.

Yeah because better than Eric Holder is the standard which we should have for AG.

sleeper;1825262 wrote:Yeah because better than Eric Holder is the standard which we should have for AG.

Better than Bush was the standard we held for our outgoing president.

I agree though, not a fan of the AG choice, but time will tell!

O-Trap;1825108 wrote:So, for example, imagine Ray Comfort was appointed to SecEd.

Who the hell is Ray Comfort?

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1825321 wrote:Who the hell is Ray Comfort?

http://bfy.tw/8qni