It is hard to believe that Trump can not find more bright capable women and minorities to fill these posts. Maybe all those folks are correct that say he thinks women and minority people are not as capable or smart...
Thoughts?
Politico White Men Dominate
WP Binder of White Men
VOX All White Men
FoxNews Michelle Rhee
Thoughts?
Politico White Men Dominate
WP Binder of White Men
VOX All White Men
FoxNews Michelle Rhee
31 comments:
People are reluctant to join Trump's administration for the same reasons they were reluctant to join his campaign. They don't respect him and they are afraid to be associated with him. Trump is corrupt, and corruption is catching, and I think that's a concern also.
--Hiram
"trump is Corrupt"... Let me think... Almost 50% of voters think he was the best candidate. Please provide some proof of said "corruption". And I think the correct title is President-Elect Trump.
It is hopeful that the selection is being limited to mostly white men because the Women and Minority Conservatives are afraid to be associated with him... Somehow I doubt it though...
However I did like the Trump Romney skit on SNL... (ie at end of the clip)
Almost 50% of voters think he was the best candidate
But pretty much all of them think he is corrupt. Trump himself has often talked about how he used money to buy political influence. The Trump Foundation is clearly nothing more than a money laundering scheme.
Trump's appointments so far have been pretty much from the bottom of the barrel. I don't think any other politician in America would have appointed Jeff Session as AG. Clearly Donald is struggling even with his base in terms of appointments.
--Hiram
All the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scolds have magically vanished now that PEOTUS Trump is holding business meetings with Indian investors or having the leader of his "blind trust" meet with the Prime Minister of Japan. All the private e-mail server scolds are nowhere to be found when Trumps is having calls with world leaders on unsecured phone lines.
Hiram and Sean,
I do not doubt that there is a fair chance that at sometime Trump may be impeached for improper behavior. However as you said about Clinton... She is not guilty until some official body says so. No matter how much smoke surrounded her...
"Corrupt: 1.having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:"
"pretty much all of them think he is corrupt"
Hiram, Given the definition above, what do you base this opinion on?
It does seem that you hold Trump voters in very low regard...
Personally I am hoping that Trump finds a few more minorities and/or women to hire.
Given the definition above, what do you base this opinion on?
Just offhand, I would point to the 25 million dollar fraud case Donald just settled. s
--Hiram
That does seem like a good example except for 2 things:
1. They settled with a "no wrong doing" statement. (ie just putting it behind them)
2. The true Trump supporters seem to truly believe he did nothing wrong.
Now I personally agree with you that he is "corrupt" by this definition.
"Corrupt: having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:"
Though I have to wonder how many of our public officials are NOT corrupt then? We know that Hillary also met that criteria. It is a sad state of affairs.
"I do not doubt that there is a fair chance that at sometime Trump may be impeached for improper behavior."
I don't foresee this happening.
"However as you said about Clinton... She is not guilty until some official body says so. No matter how much smoke surrounded her..."
Republicans complained about the mere appearance of conflict with the Clinton Foundation -- so much so that the idea of Chelsea running it if Hillary had won the election was deemed to be unacceptable. You need to hold Trump to the same standard you expected of the Clintons -- or admit that the whole kerfuffle over the Foundation was political gamesmanship.
I must have missed the forward looking concerns regarding the Clinton Foundation. Most of what I heard about were concerns regarding what the Clinton's had done during the previous ~8 years... (ie pay to play)
And of course there is Chelsea's Blessed Life. Influence peddling anyone?
"Most of what I heard about were concerns regarding what the Clinton's had done during the previous ~8 years... (ie pay to play)"
And no evidence of pay to play was ever found.
"And of course there is Chelsea's Blessed Life. Influence peddling anyone?"
The daughter of a former President marrying a Wall Street guy and getting a job with NBC? Why, I never!
Why is so difficult to just hold Trump to the same standard you expected of the Clintons? Stop trying to change the subject. Live up to your own values.
I think I am being consistent. It looks like Jenna Bush has less than half the net worth of Chelsea even though she was born into a wealthy family. Chelsea's family was apparently pretty well broke when Bill left office, and somehow they have done an excellent job of parlaying their fame and governmental contacts into a huge amount of wealth.
I think that Trump is living up to the Clinton's standards. And I think that standard is too low. Hopefully he will do better as President. though I don't hold out too much hope.
Another day, another "Trump using the Presidency to enrich himself" story.
"For a number of years, Trump and his Argentine partners have been trying to build a major office building in Buenos Aires. The project has been held up by a series of complications tied to financing, importation of building materials and various permitting requirements.
According to a report out of Argentina, when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with the permitting issues that are currently holding up the project."
TPM: Cashing In BIgly in Argentina
Upon further review, it appears the sourcing behind the Argentinian report is suspect.
Personally, I am more interested in getting back to why Trump's folder seems to be mostly full of old ornery white men...
"I am more interested in getting back to why Trump's folder seems to be mostly full of old ornery white men..."
Did you sleep through the campaign?
I think a lot depends on which you value-- competence or diversity. I think we have had enough of promoting people to office based on superficial things like "the first black President" rather than substance, like having been director of an agency or Congressional committee involved with the Department you will oversee. I could care less about "diversity" if they are all competent in their jobs. Remember Affirmative Action? The idea that, given two people of EQUAL qualifications, you gave the job to the minority? Find me that minority person with equal qualifications, and then we can argue about Trump's choices.
Sean,
I wish I could have but there were so many moaning and gnashing their teeth that I kept getting awakened.
I was actually more interested in Jerry's response than your... "I told you so" By the way, you will likely get to say that a lot over the next 4 years... Though it is somewhat pointless unless it helps you feel better. Then please go ahead, I am here for you.
The only problem with Hillary not getting elected is that we will never know how bad things would have gotten!!! Folks like yourself will keep a nostalgic view of how perfect it would have been under her kind generous and wise rule...
Of course folks like Jerry and myself will just thank heavens that the USA dodged that bullet.
Now Jerry, don't be naïve. I am certain there are equally capable personnel who are women and/or have a different skin color.
I think Hiram's theory is more credible than yours. It is possible that most women, minorities and possibly normal folk want to steer a wide path around the Trump carnival... Having a cabinet post for 4 years at the expense of ruining a career may not be worth it for many.
I know I would never ever sign up to work for Trump...
Not sure which theory of Hiram's you are referencing, but if it's the "bottom of the barrel" theory I'm not buying it. Most of my conservative sources are praising his appointments as being really good, if not brilliant. Therefore, your theory that there are "equally capable" people with "diversity" attached is automatically suspect. If Trump is appointing based on merit and qualifications from people known to him (and outside of his businesses, which are quite "diverse") it's bound to be somewhat weighted towards people from his circle.
One thing you should know is that many of the positions have been put out for open application online, and "equally qualified" minorities I can guarantee will get their chance. I think your theory about giving up 4 or more years of a lucrative career just to take on an ugly, thankless job in government may be the biggest obstacle to recruiting the best and brightest.
Usually most times there is a huge line of people wanting these jobs, however I am thinking most people think Trump will be lucky if he makes it 4 years. And that he is likely to screw it up in some way... Who except the old and out casts would want to apply?
Hopefully they are wrong for the sake of all of us...
The reality though is that Hillary lost because their voters did not show up. Maybe they thought Hillary was a sure thing so they stayed home. Or perhaps they really disliked Hillary that much.
My point is that based on the history of over reach by the ruling party, it is likely the the GOP will screw this up. Unfortunate but true.
I think it is incorrect to talk about "overreach by the ruling party" based on insufficient data. Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years before 1994, and had the Presidency for much of that time. Republicans have had total control of government for only 2 years since 1980. Now, we can certainly talk about Democrat overreach, and it is what got us into this mess. But I don't think we can talk about Republican overreach even now, because Trump is not a Republican and Republican overreach is almost an oxymoron. Republicans supposedly favor SMALLER government, so if they are successful they will be lowering the "reach" of government control.
Quite possible they will "screw it up" by not being bold enough, or that Democrats will successfully obstruct the many good things Republicans could accomplish, or that, regardless of how much good Republicans manage, the leftist media will paint it as failure anyway. They've already begun writing about the terrible carnage that will follow an Obamacare repeal, while completely ignoring the devastation already created. "9.3 earthquake strikes, Trump fails to prevent."
Oh, and I think the "old and outcast" may be some of the best candidates for these jobs. They don't have a career to interrupt, have enough years to develop some wisdom and expertise, and may be at that stage in life where real "public service" seems like a higher calling, rather than raw political ambition. And with Trump closing off the lucrative revolving door, we'll see more of these altruistic individuals stepping up (or being invited).
"And with Trump closing off the lucrative revolving door, we'll see more of these altruistic individuals stepping up (or being invited)."
Trump's lobbying ban is fine, but it doesn't really do anything to close the revolving door. For instance, former Democratic Senator Chris Dodd is now the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, which is the lobbying association for the big studios. But Dodd himself isn't actually registered as a lobbyist even though he spends lots of time hobnobbing with politicians.
I guess time will tell the intent of these "old and outcast" folks. Why does a well off 65+ year old man want a very challenging public service job?
Possibilities:
- Want to serve and/or save the people/country
- Obsessed if power, influence and/or money.
- Pride and arrogance (ie legacy building)
- Other?
I can tell you that I will never by in contention for those positions at that age... :-)
By your choice or someone else's? :-)
I think those are all valid reasons and perhaps typical of the types of people who would seek and do well in these jobs.
So, let's recap what has happened over the last few days in Trump-world:
* The Trump Foundation admitted self-dealing in its latest IRS filings
* Trump paid a $25M settlement in a fraud case
* The Trump campaign was fined $1.3M for accepting illegal campaign contributions
* Trump admitted he may have asked a British politician to try and kill a wind farm development that he felt would have impacted the value of one of his golf courses
* Trump says he doesn't think Steve Bannon is associated with the alt-right, despite the fact that Bannon himself said in July that Breitbart was a "platform for the alt-right"
* Trump says he doesn't think Steve Bannon is associated with American Nazism, despite the fact that Bannon himself said in July that Breitbart was a "platform for American Nazism"
FIFY
Joel
Well, we do have Krugman saying Trump will run "the most corrupt administration in history." I think he is premature, since Obama still has two months left. And Trump hasn't started. Methinks he is projecting.
Post a Comment