Widgets Magazine
Page 1 of 46 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 1570

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Trump's nominees and appointees

    Going to try to get to each one of them individually since I believe very few (if any) are qualified or appropriate for the positions, but I'll just start with this.

    Does any Republican politician care about doing the right thing or ethics or morals anymore? First off, trying to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics committee is despicable and yeah, unethical. Now, the proper forms not being filled out for his nominees are “little procedural complaints.”, according to McConnell (even though he was of the complete opposite view back in 2009). And all the conflicts of interest that currently exist and will exist in the future are apparently just nothing to be concerned about - "He further told Senate Democrats to “grow up and get past” their concerns about ethics and conflicts of interest." - even though it's unprecedented to have this many people have this many conflicts of interest in the cabinet and White House, America is about to get screwed massively by the incoming administration, wonder if there is any way to actually stop this runaway neoliberal, income-inequality-loving, all-for-the-rich freight train that's going to be barrelling down the tracks...

  2. #2

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Well when you bring up applicants for the jobs who have never done anything in their lives vs ones who made successful businesses flourish there's bound to be temporary conflicts of interests, It's like a spider leaving one web to travel to another. It takes time to untangle. Continued ethics issues will be apparent and will be dealt with. The system isn't broken.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by stick47 View Post
    Well when you bring up applicants for the jobs who have never done anything in their lives vs ones who made successful businesses flourish there's bound to be temporary conflicts of interests, It's like a spider leaving one web to travel to another. It takes time to untangle. Continued ethics issues will be apparent and will be dealt with. The system isn't broken.
    Fewer of them on the cabinet than Bush had and we know how that worked out. Worst president ever.

    Obama 2 business execs out of 20 on the cabinet. Trump 7. Bush 12.

    http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-n...-bush-cabinet/

  4. #4

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by stick47 View Post
    Well when you bring up applicants for the jobs who have never done anything in their lives vs ones who made successful businesses flourish there's bound to be temporary conflicts of interests, It's like a spider leaving one web to travel to another. It takes time to untangle. Continued ethics issues will be apparent and will be dealt with. The system isn't broken.
    So Mattis and Kelly have "never done anything anything in their lives"? What a bizarre statement.

    As to the original post, actually, most of these appointments are probably just fine, because many are coming from other government roles and have a significant amount of ethic and finafikings already available. Sessions is well known, and any ethical issues are well known. Same for even Pruitt, or Mattis, who only recently retired (2013, I think) but I've read that he maintains a clearance, so there's already personal and financial filings available for him. I'm sure the issue isn't as large as some would have us believe.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Don't know how you misconstrued my statement. (?) I was referring to some of Obamas picks who had never been in business.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Why Sessions should not be confirmed. This is one of many articles, but sums it up quite nicely in a few points. Yes, the man has done some good in a county or two, I've read, but does it balance out decades of "not good"?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...0fe6818?935wmi

    If Jefferson B. Sessions were confirmed by the Senate in 2017, we would have have an attorney general who, as a senator:

    Applauded the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1865.
    Voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
    Voted yes on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
    Opposed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
    Opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
    Voted to ease restrictions on wiretapping of cell-phones.
    Voted to abolish a program that helps businesses owned by women and minorities compete for federally funded transportation projects.
    Opposed comprehensive immigration reform and nearly every immigration bill that has come before the Senate over the past two decades, including voting against a Senate resolution affirming that the United States must not bar people from the country because of their religion.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Why Sessions should not be confirmed. This is one of many articles, but sums it up quite nicely in a few points. Yes, the man has done some good in a county or two, I've read, but does it balance out decades of "not good"?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...0fe6818?935wmi

    If Jefferson B. Sessions were confirmed by the Senate in 2017, we would have have an attorney general who, as a senator:

    Applauded the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, which gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1865.
    Voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
    Voted yes on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
    Opposed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
    Opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
    Voted to ease restrictions on wiretapping of cell-phones.
    Voted to abolish a program that helps businesses owned by women and minorities compete for federally funded transportation projects.
    Opposed comprehensive immigration reform and nearly every immigration bill that has come before the Senate over the past two decades, including voting against a Senate resolution affirming that the United States must not bar people from the country because of their religion.
    While I'm sure most of this is taken out of context or just opinion, if you read in the comments of that story, there was a nice rebuttal to point 1 (apparently the most important):

    It's amazing to me how people continue to accept face-value characterizations of Shelby County v. Holder as having gutted the VRA, when in fact the entire basis of the suit was that the DoJ was failing to serve the people of Shelby County by failing to uphold the provisions of the VRA.

    Shelby County is just south of Birmingham. As the city government of Birmingham became so corrupt that it was failing its citizens, they, including every socio-demographic group, fled "over the mountain" to the locales in Shelby county that were better serving their citizens. As the population exploded, the polling place at Fire Station One on Highway 280 became inadequate, with a danger from heavy Hwy280 traffic and no parking. Shelby County officials, in an effort to actually serve their constituents, petitioned the DoJ for TEN YEARS to move the polling place to a recently built school which had plenty of space, parking, and traffic signals to protect drivers turning onto and off of Hwy280. But the Federal Government never granted the petition nor did it even investigate the merits of the petition. So, finally, Shelby County sued the Federal Government for relief. The Supreme Court did not change one single aspect of Section 5 of the VRA, the teeth of the law, but did strike down Section 4 which put locales like Shelby County in the position they find themselves in. It (the Court) also ordered Congress to go back and reconsider the changed conditions in said places. If that's gutting the VRA then we should gut a lot more Federal statutes if the Federal Government is not going to lift a finger to serve the people.
    Point 2. Here are Sessions own words. Now, he may be playing partisan, but do you really think it out of the realm of possibility that Democrats wouldn't do the same:

    “I favor the Violence Against Women Act and have supported it at various points over the years, but there are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, who opposed the latest version last month in the Judiciary Committee. “You think that’s possible? You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?”
    Point 3: He is a congressman...

    Point 4: So did nearly every Republican Senator, should Trump have nominated Collins from Maine?

    Point 5: There are legit reasons to oppose legislation you know. Because he was against this legislation does NOT mean that he is default for hate crimes. Which is exactly what this is trying to imply.

    Point 6: So is Obama, as he extended their use...and Holder I assume.

    The last two I'm sure are their to make implications that he is a racist woman hater, so I'm not even going there.

    Oh, and stop reading Huffington Post.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Oh, and stop reading Huffington Post.
    Rich from the gentleman citing the comment section for sources. Are you making $5,000/day working from home, too?

  9. #9

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by checkthat View Post
    Rich from the gentleman citing the comment section for sources. Are you making $5,000/day working from home, too?
    Merely pointing out that little effort had to be done to correct himself. Again, head...sand... proceed.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    While I'm sure most of this is taken out of context or just opinion, if you read in the comments of that story, there was a nice rebuttal to point 1 (apparently the most important):



    Point 2. Here are Sessions own words. Now, he may be playing partisan, but do you really think it out of the realm of possibility that Democrats wouldn't do the same:



    Point 3: He is a congressman...

    Point 4: So did nearly every Republican Senator, should Trump have nominated Collins from Maine?

    Point 5: There are legit reasons to oppose legislation you know. Because he was against this legislation does NOT mean that he is default for hate crimes. Which is exactly what this is trying to imply.

    Point 6: So is Obama, as he extended their use...and Holder I assume.

    The last two I'm sure are their to make implications that he is a racist woman hater, so I'm not even going there.

    Oh, and stop reading Huffington Post.
    Y'know, checkthat makes much more valid points than you do, and yes, they're against Sessions, so I'm biased, but if you would've come up with more specific instances/points with quotes from Sessions or actual voting positions, I might give you more credence. And nothing in this is about Obama, strictly about Trump's nominees and their actions/history.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Y'know, checkthat makes much more valid points than you do, and yes, they're against Sessions, so I'm biased, but if you would've come up with more specific instances/points with quotes from Sessions or actual voting positions, I might give you more credence. And nothing in this is about Obama, strictly about Trump's nominees and their actions/history.
    Stick your head in the sand. Excellent strategy.

    Look, enough with the sky is falling. Sessions is a Senator who hold positions that differ from your (obviously). To invoke woman hating racism is entirely uncalled for (which I am not surprised...again...Huffington Post).

  12. #12

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Stick your head in the sand. Excellent strategy.

    Look, enough with the sky is falling. Sessions is a Senator who hold positions that differ from your (obviously). To invoke woman hating racism is entirely uncalled for (which I am not surprised...again...Huffington Post).
    Are you surprised? When reality doesn't support your viewpoints, jump to undefendable accusations of racism and bigotry. It's the go to play of the left. When you don't have facts, go for feels. It's hard to disprove a negative.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Counterpoints -

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/09/opinio...nnett-walters/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.228ac491d342

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...y-general.html

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...essions-233393

    http://www.heritage.org/research/com...torney-general

    My personal complaint is his support of private prisons. But the accusations of racism and bigotry are absurd and even those who participated in the slander in the 80's have expressed regret. He's more than qualified and capable.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Senator Sessions is a staunch supporter of civil asset forfeiture. He is also vehemently against the LGBT community:

    • Sessions has repeatedly supported laws that criminalize LGBT activity, using discriminatory laws to harrass LGBT Alabamans in the 1970s and blasting the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which ended the criminalization of sodomy.

    • Sessions supported "don’t ask, don’t tell" and believed it was "pretty effective." On marriage, Sessions cosponsored and voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying he would seek "again and again" to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting marriage equality.

    • Of the 2015 Obergefell ruling legalizing marriage equality, Sessions said it "goes beyond what I consider to be the realm of reality."

    • Sessions has repeatedly opposed hate-crimes protections for LGBTQ Americans — even trying to kill the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

    • Sessions has actively attempted to block some of the most effective methods of preventing HIV and other STIs — specifically safer-sex education.

    • Sessions once tried to terminate the National Endowment for the Arts based on its financial support for a lesbian filmmaker.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by checkthat View Post
    Senator Sessions is a staunch supporter of civil asset forfeiture. He is also vehemently against the LGBT community:

    • Sessions has repeatedly supported laws that criminalize LGBT activity, using discriminatory laws to harrass LGBT Alabamans in the 1970s and blasting the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which ended the criminalization of sodomy.

    • Sessions supported "don’t ask, don’t tell" and believed it was "pretty effective." On marriage, Sessions cosponsored and voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment, saying he would seek "again and again" to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting marriage equality.

    • Of the 2015 Obergefell ruling legalizing marriage equality, Sessions said it "goes beyond what I consider to be the realm of reality."

    • Sessions has repeatedly opposed hate-crimes protections for LGBTQ Americans — even trying to kill the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

    • Sessions has actively attempted to block some of the most effective methods of preventing HIV and other STIs — specifically safer-sex education.

    • Sessions once tried to terminate the National Endowment for the Arts based on its financial support for a lesbian filmmaker.
    Checkthats "points" which are all differences of opinion and inuendo to paint him as a racist, homophobic art hater. Hardly reasons that would disqualify someone from the office. Unless checkthat's approval is now considered.

    And, again with the Hate Crimes act. Do you just not believe the commentor or does it just not agree with you either.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Counterpoints -

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/09/opinio...nnett-walters/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.228ac491d342

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...y-general.html

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...essions-233393

    http://www.heritage.org/research/com...torney-general

    My personal complaint is his support of private prisons. But the accusations of racism and bigotry are absurd and even those who participated in the slander in the 80's have expressed regret. He's more than qualified and capable.
    Bennett and Walters - Session's tough on crime, yeah, great, that's what got us into this unholy mess in the first place, sorry, bringing back waterboarding (he doesn't oppose it) for drug dealers will surely work *this* time.

    Larry Thompson - Great, Sessions prosecuted one guy for a civil-rights crime, yay, bet lots of attorneys have done that. I'll give Sessions points for the crack sentencing disparity fix, though.

    Spakovsky - Sounds like a wonderful referral letter for a colleague/employee, not much substance of what he's actually done/not done, whatever.

    Rice - pretty much ditto, great, he helped get Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal, but nothing else of substance in her article.

    Last one's a duplicate of the third one.

    I do not know the extent of the "slander in the 80s", but his remarks today, as well as his voting record, speak for themselves, and it's the same reliable Republican stuff that will *not* make this country better or move forward, it's all regressive, backwards crap.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Why Tillerson should not be confirmed. Spent 40 years at Exxon and that's his entire world-view. Yes, he's adept at lots of things by the nature of his job, but pretty much the entire point of that company is to sell fossil fuels and make billions of dollars, which is in complete opposition to trying to ameliorate climate change, and he's apparently under investigation for defrauding people for decades about the harm caused by fossil fuels to the climate. He has also had close ties with Russia (managed their Exxon account, apparently). He has *no* public service experience, which a SoS has *never* had. So he'd be in charge of the department that "leads the nation in foreign policy issues" and is a big driver of climate change action, and he basically doesn't know squat about one and is a denier of the other. He has said he'll put his investments in Exxon in a trust if he's confirmed, so that's something, I guess.

    https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/...subsrc=website

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.fa5eb0ea94d0

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ible-idea.html

  18. #18

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Really, nothing about Obama? Did you call out mkjeeves for invoking Bush upthread, or are you selective? Obama is at least the current president so is relative, not the guy who's been retired for 8 years...

  19. #19

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Really, nothing about Obama? Did you call out mkjeeves for invoking Bush upthread, or are you selective? Obama is at least the current president so is relative, not the guy who's been retired for 8 years...
    I was merely pointing out the selective outrage. Sessions supported a position that was confirmed by the president. Again, while I may not agree, it is hardly a reason that disqualifies him from serving.

    Better strategy would be to say I disagree with Sessions on these points, I think there is a better candidate out there. Not this whole, he is disqualified from this because of a, b & c. It's ridiculous.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I was merely pointing out the selective outrage. Sessions supported a position that was confirmed by the president. Again, while I may not agree, it is hardly a reason that disqualifies him from serving.

    Better strategy would be to say I disagree with Sessions on these points, I think there is a better candidate out there. Not this whole, he is disqualified from this because of a, b & c. It's ridiculous.
    Agreed.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Really, nothing about Obama? Did you call out mkjeeves for invoking Bush upthread, ...
    No, I did not.

  22. #22

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    And watching the hate coming Tim Scott's way is quit entertaining from the party of inclusion and diversity.

  23. #23

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Now, if one could bring to light a situation where Sessions showed a blatent disregard for the law

    Or maybe said things like a previous occupant of the office (qualified I assume):

    "Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, it does not guarantee judicial process."
    In reference to presidential ordered killings.

    Hell, he should fit right in as the previous AGs have been "guilty" of all the same disqualifying things when it comes to national security.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    So, I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty, that Sessions has got to be at least slightly more qualified than the honorable dufus from Connecticut.

    http://theslot.jezebel.com/watch-sen...-if-1791045270

  25. #25

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Here's an article that sums up Sessions' past actions and what he said at the hearings, which should be what is paid attention to, not endorsements or feelings.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...his_heart.html

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why I am still a Trump supporter..
    By SoonerQueen in forum Politics
    Replies: 333
    Last Post: 01-17-2019, 01:52 PM
  2. Donald Trump
    By Outhunder in forum Politics
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: 10-01-2015, 12:08 PM
  3. 2015 ULI Impact Award nominees
    By Pete in forum General Real Estate Topics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2015, 06:33 AM
  4. 2015 R&R Hall of Fame nominees
    By kelroy55 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-16-2014, 04:13 PM
  5. Political Appointees as Ambassadors
    By ThomPaine in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 02:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO