-
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Kirwan
You guys are no fun. My troll didn't work.Regardless, GREAT day tomorrow.
It is indeed. It's pizza night.
you fucking sick fluffybunny!
wait, this isn't the conspiracy thread, as you were
-
@mariner4life said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Kirwan
You guys are no fun. My troll didn't work.Regardless, GREAT day tomorrow.
It is indeed. It's pizza night.
you fucking sick fluffybunny!
wait, this isn't the conspiracy thread, as you were
Pizza Hut is the plan, but I wasn't advocating for stuffed crust...
-
What a load of shit, everybody knows Friday is Fish & Chips night.
-
Rick Perry is hilarious, I loved this bit -
In a report getting attention on social media, the Times said that Perry accepted the nomination to be Energy secretary "believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state."
"In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal" the Times continued.
But Michael McKenna, who at one point was part of Trump’s transition team for the Energy Department, told the newspaper Perry is educating himself.
Steve Mnuchin forgets $100m in assets he has on his disclosure form. And that he is a director of a company in the Caymans...
#draintheswamp...
Also Trump has had to ask 50 Obama folks to stay on because he hasn't replaced them, so that "I'm a businessman, I get stuff done!" thing has not gone as well as you'd expect.
While Wilbur Ross has had to fes up to having an illegal immigrant working in his house. So everything is going smoothly all round...
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
Rick Perry is hilarious, I loved this bit -
In a report getting attention on social media, the Times said that Perry accepted the nomination to be Energy secretary "believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state."
"In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal" the Times continued.
Fake news.
The only person quoted in the article said the NYT mischaracterised his comments.
Also most of the hearings today were questioning Perry on a policy document he wrote about the department back in 2011.
That document talked about the history of the department and whether the various roles would be better suited in other agencies.. much of it talked about the nuclear programs the NYT specifically said he "knew almost nothing about".
The Democrats weren't worried about a lack of knowledge, they were questioning him on very specific policies they disagreed with.Mischaracterise a quote, give an article a ridiculous angle, other media report on it, it gets spread on twitter.. then it becomes 'truth' to one set of partisans
I'm surprised the NYT allowed this to be published this given the recent media embarrassments. But maybe it served it's purpose..
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-18/the-empty-trump-administration
We're two days away from having a new president. But we're apparently a lot longer than that from having a Trump administration with even a minimally functional ability to govern.
Politico's Michael Crowley has a nice piece explaining the missing National Security Council staffers, and the dangers that could cause if there's an early crisis. Hundreds of briefing papers have been created by Obama's NSC and sent to Team Trump, but the New York Times reports that no one knows if they've been reviewed.
Yet the NSC is ahead of the curve for this administration. Look at the big four departments. There's no Trump appointee for any of the top State Department jobs below secretary nominee Rex Tillerson. No Trump appointee for any of the top Department of Defense jobs below retired general James Mattis. Treasury? Same story. Justice? It is one of two departments (along with, bizarrely, Commerce) where Trump has selected a deputy secretary. But no solicitor general, no one at civil rights, no one in the civil division, no one for the national security division.
And the same is true in department after department. Not to mention agencies without anyone at all nominated by the president-elect.
Overall, out of 690 positions requiring Senate confirmation tracked by the Washington Post and Partnership for Public Service, Trump has come up with only 28 people so far.
The Atlantic's Russell Berman had a good story two weeks ago about how far behind Trump was. Since then? If anything, it's getting worse -- he's added only two of those 28 since Jan. 5. As Berman reported, the Partnership for Public Service suggested a president should have "100 Senate-confirmed appointees in place on or around Inauguration Day." At this pace, he won't have 100 nominees by the end of February, let alone having them confirmed and hard at work.
The likely consequences?
First of all, the government actually does things, and without all the jobs filled it's not apt to do them very well. Even if there's no catastrophic failure, lack of leadership will, as should be no surprise, yield inertia and low morale, leading to steadily worse performance. ++
When it comes to policy, Trump will be only a vague presence in the executive branch during the months when presidents normally have the best chance to get things done. It's not news to anyone that bureaucrats are skilled in resisting the preferences of presidents. But an entrenched bureaucracy against a secretary (and in most cases, a secretary with little government experience or little policy expertise or both) and a bunch of empty desks? That's no contest. Congress and interest groups may still have plenty of clout inside the departments and agencies, but Trump, at least until he has some people there, will have little.
It's possible Trump, or the people around him, intend to just bypass the executive branch and attempt to run the nation, including its foreign policy, out of the White House. It's possible, to some extent, but that rarely ends well.
It's also possible Trump just wants to outsource policy beneath his main agenda to interest groups, the way he's apparently accepted a list of potential Supreme Court nominees from the Heritage Foundation, or to Congress. That's a dangerous step for a president, because even if he has no personal objections to the policy outcomes, neither interest groups nor Congress is apt to look after the best interests of the president.
If I had to guess, however, I'd say that the failure to get his administration up and running on time isn't a deliberate choice by Trump; he just has no idea what he's doing, and hasn't surrounded himself with people well-equipped to translate his impulses and his campaign commitments into a full-fledged government. This isn't exactly a surprise. Recall that the Trump Organization has never had a large bureaucracy and that his campaign didn't staff up the way campaigns normally do, so he doesn't really have any relevant management experience. And, of course, he's never demonstrated any significant knowledge in how the government actually works. The results are likely to be damaging to his presidency, and to the nation.
++ *I have nothing but respect for federal civil servants, but it's worth mentioning that the combination of loose supervision, the low morale that comes (in several agencies) from having a president and a political appointee who don't believe in the mission of the agency, and the example of the ethics practices of the incoming president himself are just about the best formula for corruption I can imagine. *
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Mischaracterise a quote, give an article a ridiculous angle, other media report on it, it gets spread on twitter.. then it becomes 'truth' to one set of partisans
Direct quote from Perry -
“My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking,” Perry said. “In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
He flat out says its only now, after being briefed, he has a fucking clue what the DOE does.... So he wrote a policy document with recommendations re the department without actually knowing what the department does. A policy Documentr that then framed his decision to run on a platform of scrapping that department.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
He flat out says its only now, after being briefed, he has a fucking clue what the DOE does....
No he said he changed his mind. Now, unsurprisingly, his opinion matches with the incoming administration.
The NYT could have run a serious article with multiple sources discussing the challenges Perry faces. There's plenty of meat there for a good article. But they didn't.
The NYT article had one source who says his views were misrepresented and they omitted key quotes from him.
It's click bait, with a sensation lede, for gullible partisans.Good to see some of the journalists who were spreading this deleted their tweets and apologised.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
He directly says he changed his mind after being briefed what the department does.
Thats some very poor paraphrasing.
He said his opinion is different than five years ago. After the briefing, he claims to now have regret for his old policy
Nothing unusual here. He has to explain why he now supports the incoming administration policy and he has to try and sound sincere.
I think he is lying. Politics as usual etc etcUnder his old plan Nuclear etc was going to go under the dept of defence and the crony capitalist elements were going to be eliminated. But now Trump, most republicans and all democrats want to keep the crony capitalist elements (regret = $)
But thats getting into the weeds. The important point is you fell for a fake news story after complaining about everyone else not being as discerning as you
-
Its not fake news. Its news that the GOP are shouting is fake news. Thats not the same -
IE NYT reported it. And are standing by it. And have a direct sourced quote. Conservatives are going "thats not what he meant!"
This is prettty much standard bnow from Trump & his supporters, after peddling nothing by fake news & reporting it as gospel, they are now shouting fake news at anything they disagree with & hoping it sticks. Everything CNN rteport is fake news apparently.
In this case you have a top news site, with multiple sources and a direct quote standing by their story & its "fake" because there are several tweets from GOP people saying so...
-
here is the live stream...
http://rsbn.tv/watch-the-inauguration-of-donald-j-trump-as-45th-potus-live-stream/
US Politics