bases_loaded;1828445 wrote:Having a man who "overcame"(that's how you use this word right? like it was an illness) being poor to become one of the best in his field overseeing a program that is probably filled with people that think subsidy is the only way to fix low income is a good thing. A leader by example who will no doubt never have the chance because he will be fought from day one by media and entrenched purveyors of handouts.

Good points.

Hopefully he doesn't believe project high rises were built for drug storage.

They're built for distribution right?

dwccrew;1828237 wrote:Draining that swamp right into our backyards.



If being productive in your mind is collapsing our financial and housing markets less than a decade ago, then yes, these were very productive people.

Liberal politicians forcing businesses (lenders) to do stupid things led to the housing collapse and financial debacle. But I digress.

sleeper;1828434 wrote:I mean, he is kinda draining the swamp. He's picking non-politicians from industry for most of the positions which is entirely different than how HRC would have built the team.

True, and big.

gut;1828429 wrote:I'm hoping he takes breaks from Twitter to do actual work

I am sure that his tweeting isnt going to take as long as 1,000 rounds of golf that Barry played while in office.

sleeper;1828434 wrote:I mean, he is kinda draining the swamp. He's picking non-politicians from industry for most of the positions which is entirely different than how HRC would have built the team.

You could probably name 10 of her cabinet members pretty easy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

majorspark;1828382 wrote:Perhaps you have not heard he is best buds with Vladimir Putin.

Don't why people would think it strange Trump would appoint someone with a relationship with Putin at this point.

Rex Tillerson as SECSTATE was apparently recommended by former SECDEF Bob Gates and endorsed by James Baker, Condi Rice, and former amb. Chris Hill.
Given that, the guy may not be a total fail and I guess the hearings will be interesting.
I just hope John Bolton stays far, far away from State.

Perry as Secretary of Energy, which is again, is really the Department of Nuclear Weapons, is an odd choice. But, we'll see how his hearings go and how he governs the aging nuclear weapons complex.

Has anybody on this forum ever listed facts and/or evidence why, exactly, Bolton would not be a good choice?

CenterBHSFan;1828519 wrote:Has anybody on this forum ever listed facts and/or evidence why, exactly, Bolton would not be a good choice?

He's a pretty hardcore neocon, who I believe is recently on record as saying that the Iraq invasion was "worth it," even with the benefit if hindsight. Stuff like that give ptown heartburn.

Overall, his record is pretty good...he'd be a decent undersecretary IMO.

CenterBHSFan;1828519 wrote:Has anybody on this forum ever listed facts and/or evidence why, exactly, Bolton would not be a good choice?

He is a noted neocon and his entire opinion on everything in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Iran has been proven false over the years.
If we have learned nothing from the Iraq experience, it means no Neocon should be anywhere near U.S. policymaking.

ptown_trojans_1;1828527 wrote:If we have learned nothing from the Iraq experience, it means no Neocon should be anywhere near U.S. policymaking.

I can't argue with that. At least, too much.

But I'd also say that some dingbat who has married well, read a few books and may or may not have done some dishonorable things while in the military should not have had the job either. But I guess it's a pick and choose thing.
EDIT:
In other words, it depends on which side of the aisle that you steadfastly cling to.

Why is that racist meeting with so many black people? Doesn't he know what a racist is?

gut;1828443 wrote:They are usually pretty different skill sets. Founders of companies aren't usually the ones to grow it and go public to become a F1000 company. The ones still there in those cases usually hired someone with the skillset and themselves assume the role of Chairman or President.

I agree with you completely that they are different skill sets. One has a propensity for doing something new. The other has the propensity for scaling current successes.

I'm not saying it's THE ideal, but I think I would take the former, given the mess.

gut;1828443 wrote:People are going to make the case that pretty much any F1000 exec is an "insider" because under constant assault from regulations, taxes, lawsuits and global competition you aren't going to find many F1000's that aren't active lobbyists and campaign contributors.

I think you're right here, as well. And honestly, I don't think the notion is wrong, either. The system has essentially made it far more difficult to succeed at that level without shaking hands in government ... though I would suggest that that's still part of the problem, and I don't think I like the idea of putting someone in charge in a system they've learned to game, whether or not that was the easiest way to be successful under its regulations.

And again, it's not that I inherently expect Trump's picks to be better than those of the past. I don't expect him to be all that different, but if he's not going to be, he shouldn't campaign as though he will be.

CenterBHSFan;1828519 wrote:Has anybody on this forum ever listed facts and/or evidence why, exactly, Bolton would not be a good choice?

His position on nation building has been wrong about 100% of the time. We can't afford this type of aproach anymore. Lets build our own nation first

O-Trap;1828558 wrote: And again, it's not that I inherently expect Trump's picks to be better than those of the past. I don't expect him to be all that different, but if he's not going to be, he shouldn't campaign as though he will be.

Better? No, but they are different. Better is subjective; different is putting people who are not career politicians into these positions. Trump is trying something different and that should be at least applauded even if the picks themselves are questionable.

R

Spock;1828576 wrote:His position on nation building has been wrong about 100% of the time. We can't afford this type of aproach anymore. Lets build our own nation first

Who the fuck is this guy, and what did he do with CC?

sleeper;1828590 wrote:Better? No, but they are different. Better is subjective; different is putting people who are not career politicians into these positions. Trump is trying something different and that should be at least applauded even if the picks themselves are questionable.

Well, better in the sense that it would have a notably positive effect on the nation isn't completely subjective, though certainly, I still concede some matter of subjectivity.

However, if we're going to applaud something different, purely because it's different, then perhaps those who voted for Trump should be applauded in the same way, since he didn't come into the election with any background as an elected official. That is certainly different.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle in the running to be press secretary.

ptown_trojans_1;1828527 wrote:...
If we have learned nothing from the Iraq experience, it means no Neocon should be anywhere near U.S. policymaking.

This is way too general of a statement for me to agree with.

The foundation of a necon is promoting democracy and the national interests in international affairs. I certainly don't want someone as SEC of State who doesn't promote U.S. interest.

The Iran sanctions Bill is now becoming law without Pres. Obama's signature.

Iran's nuclear chief has stated that Iran will take action accordingly.

Con_Alma;1828770 wrote:The Iran sanctions Bill is now becoming law without Pres. Obama's signature.

Iran's nuclear chief has stated that Iran will take action accordingly.

I'd like someone to explain what the point is of him not signing it and just letting it become law.

Con_Alma;1828767 wrote:Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle in the running to be press secretary.

Trump knows how to do this. Would most Americans rather watch Guilfoyle spin the news or Bob Gibbs lol.

iclfan2;1828771 wrote:I'd like someone to explain what the point is of him not signing it and just letting it become law.

Just guessing but probably something to do with trying to suggest that the United States did not breach its side of the Iran Deal?

BoatShoes;1828780 wrote:Trump knows how to do this. Would most Americans rather watch Guilfoyle spin the news or Bob Gibbs lol.

Still holding out hope for Milo. :laugh: