Donald Trump's Cabinet picks

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:50 am

The NYT provides a good breakdown of the positions and candidates being considered.

Treasury Secretary
Transportation Secretary
Health and Human Services Secretary
Commerce Secretary
Education Secretary
U.N. Ambassador
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
C.I.A. Director
Attorney General
National Security Adviser
White House Chief of Staff
Chief Strategist
Secretary of State
Defense Secretary
Director of National Intelligence
Interior Secretary
Agriculture Secretary
Labor Secretary
Energy Secretary
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security Secretary
E.P.A. Administrator
U.S. Trade Representative

While the Democrats promise to make things difficult during the approval process.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:01 am

Moliere wrote:While the Democrats promise to make things difficult during the approval process.

I look forward to his repeated Tweets about the injustice of the government, slander from Democrats, political rigging they conspire over, and worthlessness of their party. He'll threaten to open up the Constitutional laws and sue them all.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:45 pm

Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James N. Mattis to be secretary of defense, according to people familiar with the decision, nominating a former senior military officer who led operations across the Middle East to run the Pentagon less than four years after he hung up his uniform.

To take the job, Mattis will need Congress to pass new legislation to bypass a federal law stating that defense secretaries must not have been on active duty in the previous seven years. Congress has granted a similar exception just once, when Gen. George C. Marshall was appointed to the job in 1950.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:54 pm

How many generals do we think we're going to be looking at when all is said and done?

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:00 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:How many generals do we think we're going to be looking at when all is said and done?

Generals vs. Billionaires vs. former Wall St. executives
Trump voters should be proud of Trump's ability to drain the swamp.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:26 pm

He is draining the swamp. He's replacing it with a marsh, and all the alligators with crocodiles.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:47 pm

You know, all joking aside... he wouldn't be my first pick, but after reading quite a bit about him, General Mattis is a slightly heartening choice.

He's more hawkish than I would prefer, it'd be nice if someone were picked we didn't have to give special dispensation to to hold the job, and he has different views than I do on Iran especially, but by all accounts, left and right, he's intelligent, well educated, well read, a student of history, a strong strategic thinker, and willing to speak bluntly to people above him. Despite all his tough talk he also realized in Iraq there were obvious benefits to treating people with respect, even encouraging his men to put their lives on the line to protect civilians. Those sound like pretty good counter points to many of Trumps obvious failings.

The only question is when the real job of governing begins will Trump listen to the Bannon camp, or someone at least a little more grounded in reality like Mattis.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:13 pm

I don't have a problem with Mattis.

I do wonder what will happen when the toughest living Marine is asked to manage the handover of NATO bases to Putin.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:17 pm

Sepiche wrote:General Mattis is a slightly heartening choice.

As a SecDef, I am heartened by his anti-torture thoughts. I know that he is well-regarded, particularly within the Marine Corps. My concern, as noted above, is that I keep hearing military men offered up for various posts, and I think that's something that's worth taking a pause to consider. An important principle of our system of government is civilian control of the military. I'd like to make sure that continues. If the President himself wasn't the weak-willed, know-nothing douchenozzle we elected, I'd be less concerned. But a man whose positions are formed by the last person that uttered sentences into his ear holes? That's more concerning.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:17 pm

From what I've read he's in favor of retaining the Iran nuclear deal, and is openly critical of Trump's support of Russia, considering Russia a threat. Assuming he speaks his mind and doesn't get fired for it, he may at least plug some of the holes in Trump's presidency.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:32 pm

I've read that that Trump said "They say he's the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have" when he first announced that Mattis was getting the nod.

I guess he does look a little like George C. Scott...

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:48 pm

Mattis: Respectfully Senator, that is not advisable and if such a thing were to pass in the Senate I would have to rip out your eyeballs and piss down your eye sockets., respectfully.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 3:35 pm

Mattis' Benghazi

A former Army Special Forces officer is accusing retired Marine General James Mattis, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to be defense secretary, of "leaving my men to die" after they were hit by friendly fire in Afghanistan in 2001.
...
On December 5, 2001, as the wreckage of the twin towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan, a team of Army Green Berets accompanying Hamid Karzai, the future president of Afghanistan, was hit by a U.S. smart bomb in a case of friendly fire.

Two American soldiers died instantly and a third was badly wounded. He would later die. Dozens of Afghans also were killed, and the CIA officer who now runs the agency's spying arm protected Karzai with his body.

Mattis, then a brigadier general commanding a nearby group of Marines, refused repeated requests to send helicopters to rescue the Green Berets, people involved in the operation tell NBC News. The helicopters under Mattis' command at Camp Rhino were about 45 minutes away, according to the book.
...
"He was indecisive and betrayed his duty to us, leaving my men to die during the golden hour when he could have reached us," Jason Amerine, who led the Army special forces operation as a captain, said in a Facebook post Friday morning.

"Every element in Afghanistan tried to help us except the closest friendly unit, commanded by Mattis," added Amerine, who retired as a lieutenant colonel and made news in recent years as a prominent critic of the Obama administration's hostage policies.
...
Ultimately, an Air Force Special Forces unit based three hours away, in Pakistan, sent older helicopters to rescue Amerine and his men. Three more Afghans and a badly-wounded American, Brian Cody Prosser, died on the way to the hospital, according to the book. It is not known whether any of them could have been saved.

Mattis declined to be interviewed for the book, Blehm, its author, told NBC News. Other witnesses quoted Mattis saying that he didn't want to send a rescue mission into an uncertain situation.

According to witness accounts in the book, Mattis reportedly questioned why a rescue mission was needed and worried about whether the situation on the ground was secure.

Later, when a special forces Sergeant, David Lee, protested his decision, Mattis threw him out of his office, Blehm wrote.
...
In this case, another military unit had to act because Mattis did not, Blehm said.

"The Air Force Special Operations Command had the same exact information as Mattis. They launched immediately," he said.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:15 pm

Wait a goddamn second...the Secretary of the Treasury is the Executive Producer of Suicide Squad?!?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:18 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Wait a goddamn second...the Secretary of the Treasury is the Executive Producer of Suicide Squad?!?

Quite a few more than that. Are you not entertained?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:01 am

Ben Carson is in as HUD secretary.

Endorsing Trump is literally all it takes.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:31 am

Palin's criticizing Trump's deal with Carrier. Guess who will be getting coal in their stocking this year?

In any case, Trump will turn on people without a moment's notice. I doubt many of these picks will work out due to his instability.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:39 am

Holman wrote:Ben Carson is in as HUD secretary.

Endorsing Trump is literally all it takes.

What possible qualifications does Carson have for this job?

Goddamitsomuch.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:40 am

Lack of qualifications is not going to be disqualifying for this administration.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:58 am

Skinypupy wrote:
Holman wrote:Ben Carson is in as HUD secretary.

Endorsing Trump is literally all it takes.
What possible qualifications does Carson have for this job?

Goddamitsomuch.

His neurosurgeon skills will come in handy for Trump's inner city nerve stapling program.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:58 am

Chaz wrote:Lack of qualifications is not going to be disqualifying for this administration.

Hey, take it easy. From the article:

He has no expertise in housing policy, but he did spend part of his childhood in public housing,

I would also expect the Secretary of Education took a big yellow bus to school as a child and the Secretary of Agriculture went apple picking once.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:14 am

This is an administration of the forgotten blue class worker - who better to serve their needs than a bunch of Plutocrats and their sleepy neurosurgeon without any experience in housing, urban development, or running a large organization.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:57 am

Well, he's proven that he can pray his problems away. He can keep Rick Perry on speed dial for tips on how to organize days of prayer to address tough issues.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:18 am

I'm getting the feeling that Trump doesn't know any Republicans other than brand-name Fox News celebrities.

I mean, really, how can anyone defend the pick of Ben Carson for this position? There are some scary picks for other positions as well, but at least those the people are qualified in terms of their background and experience. Carson, meanwhile, is a neurosurgeon turned nutty right-wing media darling best known for thinking that the pyramids were built to store grain and that prison turns men gay.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:24 am

Captain Caveman wrote:best known for thinking that the pyramids were built to store grain

Wait...so his new HUD initiative to build pyramids in food-desert urban communities isn't true?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:27 am

Skinypupy wrote:
What possible qualifications does Carson have for this job?

Be careful. Qualifications are the Emperor's new clothes.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:36 am

NYT

“Ben Carson has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities,” Mr. Trump said in a statement Monday morning. “We have talked at length about my urban renewal agenda and our message of economic revival, very much including our inner cities.”
...
With no experience in government or running a large bureaucracy, Mr. Carson, 65, publicly waffled over whether to join the administration. He will oversee an agency with a $47 billion budget, bringing to the job a philosophical opposition to government programs that encourage what he calls “dependency” and engage in “social engineering.”
...
In an opinion article in 2015 for The Washington Times, Mr. Carson compared an Obama administration housing regulation to “the failure of school busing” because it would place affordable housing “primarily in wealthier neighborhoods with few current minority residents.”

The rule, known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, was years in the making and designed to end decades-old segregation by offering affluent areas incentives to build affordable housing. Critics, including Mr. Carson, called it government overreach.

Barbara Sard, a former official at the housing department during President Obama’s first term, said Mr. Carson’s view was a misunderstanding of the regulation and its origin in the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The rule also included development funds for poor neighborhoods.
...
In a recent television interview, Mr. Carson said that he was prepared to lead the agency because he grew up “in the inner city” and because as a physician in Baltimore he has “dealt with a lot of patients from that area.”
...
During his campaign, he expressed a sweeping opposition to many government programs devised to end poverty, which he said had replaced church-based and other community initiatives. “We the people have the responsibility to take care of the indigent in our society,” he said at a Republican town hall-style event in February. “It’s not the government’s job.”

So I guess we can expect HUD to turn into another wing of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:39 am

Captain Caveman wrote:I'm getting the feeling that Trump doesn't know any Republicans other than brand-name Fox News celebrities.

I mean, really, how can anyone defend the pick of Ben Carson for this position? There are some scary picks for other positions as well, but at least those the people are qualified in terms of their background and experience. Carson, meanwhile, is a neurosurgeon turned nutty right-wing media darling best known for thinking that the pyramids were built to store grain and that prison turns men gay.

I'd bet the farm that Trump's thinking went no farther than "We need a black guy, but one we can trust."

It's clear that he's not even looking for expertise. His standard is loyalty to Trump, and he doesn't trust anyone who didn't come out to support him early on.

There's only only qualification, and that's a willingness to declare with apparent conviction that Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being they've ever known in their life.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:43 am

So all that's left is to name Palin the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, right?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:45 am

Smoove_B wrote:So all that's left is to name Palin the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, right?

Secretary of the Interior or Ambassador to Russia.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:55 am

Isgrimnur wrote:NYT

“Ben Carson has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities,” Mr. Trump said in a statement Monday morning. “We have talked at length about my urban renewal agenda and our message of economic revival, very much including our inner cities.”

In the tradition for Trump's penchant for branding I respectfully submit that this policy be called - 'Favelas First'.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:17 pm

malchior wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:NYT

“Ben Carson has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities,” Mr. Trump said in a statement Monday morning. “We have talked at length about my urban renewal agenda and our message of economic revival, very much including our inner cities.”
In the tradition for Trump's penchant for branding I respectfully submit that this policy be called - 'Favelas First'.

Why Carson may be the perfect Trump HUD secretary.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:55 pm

Skinypupy wrote:
Holman wrote:Ben Carson is in as HUD secretary.

Endorsing Trump is literally all it takes.
What possible qualifications does Carson have for this job?

He's agreeable and compliant?

El Guapo wrote: Why Carson may be the perfect Trump HUD secretary.

I hadn't considered the corruption angle because I'm not the sort of person to whom that leaps to mind. But "agreeable and compliant" would be perfect qualifications in that regard.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:00 pm

Trump Is Considering Jon Huntsman For Secretary Of State

Yes, please?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:50 pm

Huntsman or Romney are perfectly solid candidates - which is why they probably won't get the nods. They aren't wacky enough to drain the swamp and Romney in particular already failed to MAGA - why bring a #loser on-board.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:09 pm

Turnabout is fair play...

Multiple Democratic senators told POLITICO in interviews last week that after watching Republicans sit on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court for nearly a year, they’re in no mood to fast-track Trump’s selections.

But it’s not just about exacting revenge.

Democrats argue that some of the president-elect’s more controversial Cabinet picks — such as Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Steven Mnuchin for treasury secretary — demand a thorough public airing.

“They’ve been rewarded for stealing a Supreme Court justice. We’re going to help them confirm their nominees, many of whom are disqualified?” fumed Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “It’s not obstruction, it’s not partisan, it’s just a duty to find out what they’d do in these jobs.”

The punchline:

Republicans are already chafing at the prospect of Democrats drawing out the confirmation process.

Hi-fucking-larious.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:58 pm

That article pissed me off - for a couple reasons. But the chief reason by far is this section:

Politico' wrote:That said, the days of mandated bipartisanship for critical nominations are over. Democrats ensured that when they changed Senate rules in 2013 to kill the 60-vote requirement for all nominations except the Supreme Court. Democrats then moved to approve dozens of lifetime judges, though Republicans required procedural votes to stall the nominations as long as they could.

Once Republicans took the Senate, McConnell responded in kind by tying Attorney General Loretta Lynch's nomination to an unrelated bill and then blocking Garland. The GOP counterattack will continue next year with Republicans able to approve Trump's picks on party-line votes and Democrats — thanks to their own decision to change the rules — able to do little more than run the clock.

The tit-for-tat between the parties looks like it's here to stay.

This practically portrays it as the Democrats are getting their comeuppance for changing nominations rules. As usual Politico totally left out the most important thing here - context. That is a stinking pile of bullshit that is practically Politico's trademark. If they want to really explain it as some tit for tat battle then they need to start with the root cause. Aka basic journalism - start at why. If they truly wanted to go down this road honestly then they needed to start at the total obstruction agenda by Republicans of almost every federal circuit judge's confirmation. And *then* the Democrats decided that their only option was to change the rules. Which caused the Republicans to dig in more and block Supreme Court nominations during the 18-month or so Presidential election period. Ultimately going down this road and excluding the beginning is pretty sloppy (and intellectually dishonest).

If they were honest - they'd put forth the true reason for Republican's blocking Supreme Court nominations started with a sequence where the Republican's were blocking lower circuit judges. And almost all business aside from repeals of Obamacare. But then they'd have to 'pick a side' instead of just reporting the facts in context.

;tldr Fuck Politico - they suck.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:13 pm

malchior wrote:Which caused the Republicans to dig in more and block Supreme Court nominations during the 18-month or so Presidential election period.

Even that's not really true. The Republicans blocked Garland because they could, and because it was manifestly in their best interest to do so - it was choosing the possibility of a conservative justice over the certainty of a liberal one.

But yes, Politico sucks. They're the embodiment of "horse race" journalism that covers everything in terms of a struggle between two roughly equal political parties, regardless of context.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:58 pm

Oh I agree - I'm just following their chain of logic. That they start in the middle so they can avoid reporting on actual 'blame' is pretty blatant and shitty.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:01 pm

I'm glad it's not just me. I've been trying to figure out if they are worthwhile source or not and I always feel like I'm not doing due diligence when I read them.