[Winstonm]

One of the best gotchas of recent memory: The satire site, The Onion, has won the bid to purchase Inforwars, the website that Alex Jones owned until he lost a lawsuit and had to pay a 1.5 billion dollar judgement to the families of the victims of Sandy Hook.

https://apnews.com/a...87dcd937b3588e9

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2024-November-13, 16:09, said:

With the appointment of Matt Gaetz to Attorney-General, satire is now officially dead.
What next? MTG for NIH?

It's not enough that Trump has talked about putting RFKJr in charge of healthcare?

I think we'd be better off if the brain worm were appointed.

[kenberg]

I gather that some Republicans are not entirely happy with the selection of Gaetz, RFK Jr and some others. But hey, no problem we can bypass Senate hearings with interim appointments. That way Republican senators can say "Well. gee, what could I do?"

Here we are, no surprise.

I am pessimistic. DT will install his loyalists, aka stooges, and they will do as he says. But I think that's it for cooperation, nothing else. Nobody with any sense trusts Trump at all. There will be those who do as he says without question, and there will be the rest of us who stay as far away from him as possible. Foreign leaders, for example, will fall into the second category.

When I was growing up, my father installed weatherstripping, the guy across the stree drove a truck, a friend's father was a plumber, my uncle worked in the iron mines. If I thought these people's lives would improve during a Trump presidency that would be a comfort. But I don't think that their lives will improve. Short term perhaps, but very short term.

I do not usually think of myself as a pessimist. But... Here we are. Nothing about Trump is a surprise. Not anymore.

[mycroft]

But the Heritage Foundation and the "corporate conservative Republicans" still think they'll get to run the country from behind the scenes, with "Politics Apprentice" out front giving a show (snow?) to the punters.

Frankly, I think that is one of the few serious political mistakes McConnell made (and, as a serious lefty, what I would have given for him to have been a Mike Johnson instead! I admire his skill as I hate what he did with it) in the last term. He thought he could run the country while the Executive distracted "the base". He - well, I wouldn't say exactly "failed" - but didn't succeed.

I can't imagine people without the political savvy, connections, or "history" he had pulling it off. But they'll try. And, as I said, "try" will be bad enough, especially when added to the chaos inherent in "Politics Apprentice".

[barmar]

Am I the only one who thinks that this rogues list he's proposing as his cabinet is a kind of "loyalty test" for Senate Republicans? Is there a single nominee who is even close to qualified for their positions? If any of them get confirmed, it will prove that Trump really can get practically anything he wants passed.

[thepossum]

 barmar, on 2024-November-15, 14:10, said:

Am I the only one who thinks that this rogues list he's proposing as his cabinet is a kind of "loyalty test" for Senate Republicans? Is there a single nominee who is even close to qualified for their positions? If any of them get confirmed, it will prove that Trump really can get practically anything he wants passed.

I just came here, as an outsider of course, to ask something very much along similar lines
Quite a challenge to the Senate

[PassedOut]

 barmar, on 2024-November-15, 14:10, said:

Am I the only one who thinks that this rogues list he's proposing as his cabinet is a kind of "loyalty test" for Senate Republicans? Is there a single nominee who is even close to qualified for their positions? If any of them get confirmed, it will prove that Trump really can get practically anything he wants passed.

No wonder this recess appointment strategy is such a big deal for him. I wonder how many senators will submit to Trump, and which ones. Graham, of course.

[akwoo]

I think many people are missing one of the points of Trump's cabinet appointments.

The core of the support for Trump consists of people who think that the world right now is too complicated.

The point of appointing non-experts is to simplify government and society - if the dumbasses that he has appointed can't run the show, then the show is too complicated and should be simplified, even if simplification makes lives materially worse.

[kenberg]

akwoo, on 2024-November-17, 19:19, said:

I think many people are missing one of the points of Trump's cabinet appointments.

The core of the support for Trump consists of people who think that the world right now is too complicated.

The point of appointing non-experts is to simplify government and society - if the dumbasses that he has appointed can't run the show, then the show is too complicated and should be simplified, even if simplification makes lives materially worse.

I think, and I am sure there is broad agreement, that many things are unnecessarily complicated. That is still very far from saying that I would like Trump to be in charge of the simplification. I do not want Trump in charge of anything whatsoever. Hardly a surprise to anyone. Of course I am not in charge of saying who will be in charge.

I plan to cope.

[pilowsky]

akwoo, on 2024-November-17, 19:19, said:

I think many people are missing one of the points of Trump's cabinet appointments.

The core of the support for Trump consists of people who think that the world right now is too complicated.

The point of appointing non-experts is to simplify government and society - if the dumbasses that he has appointed can't run the show, then the show is too complicated and should be simplified, even if simplification makes lives materially worse.

You're right. If you have any time left over from playing bridge is there any chance you could build me a nuclear submarine?
The people doing it at the moment are insisting its complicated and they're taking too long.

[mycroft]

Even in "this is my belief, I have no knowledge except my feelings", this is wild speculation. But it fits with the actions of the last decade.

I think the cabinet appointments boil down to fudai vs tozama daimyo- those Republicans who pledged fealty to Trump before the battle of Segikahara election. More particularly in this case, those who never wavered from their fealty to Trump during the Jan 5, 2021-Nov 5 2024 period. Interesting how the ones that are just dangerously bad, not clown-show bad, never said anything *in public* at all...

Someone mentioned how many of the prime appointments were part of the (very small) demonstrations outside the NYC courthouse during the falsification of business records trial. I have not checked, but yeah.

I think he also likes sowing chaos (although he probably calls it 'making news'). But if you've ever gone public with concerns about your capo, you're not making consigliere. [yes, that's a loaded comparison. I hate to say it, but my alternatives are even more loaded. Which alternative to use depends on whether you believe it's intended, or only expected, that his successor will also be named Trump.]

I haven't seen Lindsey Graham mentioned anywhere, which I would expect if my WAG is close to accurate. Maybe he's too fawning even for The Once and Future?

[shyams]

I am going to make a guess that Marco Rubio will be the easiest of Trump's cabinet to be confirmed; perhaps with numerous Dem Senators happy to confirm him.

I haven't bothered to check but he seems to be the only of Trump's nominees favoured by the press (e.g. by MSNBC).

Is it because he was a harsh critic of Trump in past years? Or could it be that he's a neocon and is loved by the Military Industrial Complex?

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-November-20, 02:08, said:

Is it because he was a harsh critic of Trump in past years? Or could it be that he's a neocon and is loved by the Military Industrial Complex?

Well, to start with, there aren't credible accusations that he's a rapist
That puts him a few steps ahead of the new attorney general.

And he hasn't paid out a whole bunch of money to settle sexual assault allegations.
That puts him well head of the new Secretary of Defense

And none of the US allies have stated that they'll cut off intelligence sharing with the US if he's appointed
That's a whole lot different than the new DNI

And lets not even get started on RFK junior

I think that Rubio is scum. I sure the hell don't want him as Secretary of State.
But the questions here are one's around policy disagreements.

The rest of these folks have personal issues that should disqualify them for any position of responsibility.

[mycroft]

But - none of them did anything bad to *people* (just women, who as we all know, only matter when they're pregnant - and even then, it's really the person she's incubating that's important).

Or, in the case of the W(eaponizer)NI, "not people, just Ukranians and Syrians" (and, I assume, citizens of other former Soviet federations or their clients).

And, as I said before, this is the latest battle in the 21st century war over "who gets to be considered 'people'" (and what is allowed to happen to not-people).

In case it isn't *screamingly* obvious from this post and my history, I *absolutely do not share* these opinions. There are no untermenschen. I am not better simply because I am white, male, straight and comfortably well off (if I am "better" at all).

[shyams]

hrothgar, on 2024-November-20, 09:35, said:

Well, to start with, there aren't credible accusations that he's a rapist
That puts him a few steps ahead of the new attorney general.

And he hasn't paid out a whole bunch of money to settle sexual assault allegations.
That puts him well head of the new Secretary of Defense

And none of the US allies have stated that they'll cut off intelligence sharing with the US if he's appointed
That's a whole lot different than the new DNI

And lets not even get started on RFK junior

I think that Rubio is scum. I sure the hell don't want him as Secretary of State.
But the questions here are one's around policy disagreements.

The rest of these folks have personal issues that should disqualify them for any position of responsibility.

The Secretary of State is the person who influences which wars to pursue, which foreign govt. to overthrow, which candidate should win in a foreign democracy's election. This is key in the next four years; the Donald has shown no desire or competence in this area.

Rubio has often been pro-war and has supported most military and non-military interventions of USA around the world. Trump may (in rare cases) overrule a military invasion but he's very unlikely to take interest in non-military interventions. This suggests that Rubio the interventionist will get what he wants.

* My post was about NEOCON Rubio and how the elected classes will happily vote for him in the hope that he will continue to help the M-I-C.
* My post talked about no other nominee, nor did it indicate a grade for Rubio vs. the avg grade of others put forth by Trump for confirmation.

* Your post is all about your inspection of 'chastity belts' of some Trump nominees to imply that Rubio is more tolerable than others because your inspection revealed no warts.
* Why do you think your post is a response to my post?

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-November-21, 00:35, said:

* My post was about NEOCON Rubio and how the elected classes will happily vote for him in the hope that he will continue to help the M-I-C.
* My post talked about no other nominee, nor did it indicate a grade for Rubio vs. the avg grade of others put forth by Trump for confirmation.

Here's a direct quote from your original posting you ignorant *****wit

"I am going to make a guess that Marco Rubio will be the easiest of Trump's cabinet to be confirmed; perhaps with numerous Dem Senators happy to confirm him."

You made a direct comparison between the ease of Rubio's nomination and that of other cabinet secretaries

I understand that you're really stupid, but with all "due respect"

If you don't pay any attention to the posts that you make, why should anyone else take them at all seriously?

[shyams]

The theme in most of your posts about Trump nominees is what I would from now on refer to as "chastity belt examination". After thrashing other nominees, your Rubio comment was like "he's scum, but his policies are okay / debatable".

I recall that some time ago, I wrote something like Biden was one of the worst Presidents in foreign policy. To which you retorted with a variant of "Orange Man Bad, Biden good". In reality,
A> Biden's latest foreign policy misadventure (ATACMS) is flashing-red level stupid; it has triggered alarm about whether a nuclear war may erupt soon. Some experts might be doom-mongering but there is little doubt that the Biden admin is driving the world closer to such a doomsday.

B> When Rubio is confirmed, he might play ball with Trump's boast about solving Russia-Ukraine "in 24 hrs" but, outside of that, he will surely continue to take the US Foreign Policy down the same dangerous path as Blinken.

I am sure that your State Deptt. will remain one of the dark spots in terms of foreign policy under Trump administration. Rubio is a terrible choice, not because "he's scum" as per your "chastity metric" (I don't know & I don't care) but because he's a warmonger.

[Winstonm]

It appears the stench of Gaetz is too great for even the GOP to endure. Anyone got air freshener?

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-November-21, 10:45, said:

your Rubio comment was like "he's scum, but his policies are okay / debatable".

I said no such thing

My precise quote was "the questions here are one's around policy disagreements"

The reason that I said this is that political tradition in the United States is to grant Presidents broad discretionary authority in appointing officials who will represent and carry out the President's policies. Disagreements about policy are almost never sufficient grounds to reject a nominee.

And that is why the distinction between questions of policy different ala Rubio and issues of basic competence and tendencies towards sexual assault and rape are salient.

RFK Jr is an interesting corner case since this is one of the (few) examples I can think of where questions of policy might prove significant.

Its interesting to note that Matt Gaetz just withdrew his nomination.
Because of, you know, the whole rape issue...

[barmar]

I agree that Rubio will probably be easiest to confirm. Not because of any particular policy issues, but simply because he's a "mainstream Republican". He's a career politician, he's been a Senator for 14 years, and has been a non-joke Presidential candidate. He's arguably one of the most qualified of all these crazy nominations.

The only way anyone could sail through the process more smoothly would be if Trump nominates Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell.