Any guesses on the cabinet?
-
@Mik said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
Seems problematic.
If the GOP holds the senate, what do you think his approval odds are?
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 22:05 last edited by jon-nyc@George-K said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
@Mik said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
Seems problematic.
If the GOP holds the senate, what do you think his approval odds are?
If it’s literally true they’re zero. Even in a dem senate it would be a problem.
I doubt it’s true though.
-
@George-K said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
@Mik said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
Seems problematic.
If the GOP holds the senate, what do you think his approval odds are?
If it’s literally true they’re zero. Even in a dem senate it would be a problem.
I doubt it’s true though.
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 22:18 last edited by George K@jon-nyc said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
If it’s literally true they’re zero. Even in a dem senate it would be a problem.
I doubt it’s true though.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Mayorkas
In 2015, a Department of Homeland Security inspector general (DHS IG) report criticized Mayorkas' oversight of the EB-5 investor visa program, which offered lawful permanent resident status (green cards) to foreign investors who invested a half-million dollars into businesses that created jobs in the U.S. The program's popularity greatly increased under Mayorkas's tenure. The DHS IG report, which was the culmination of an investigation beginning in 2013, focused on allegations that politically connected businesses were given special treatment under the program, focusing specifically on the Sahara casino and hotel in Las Vegas, backed by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and an electric car company led by Terry McAuliffe and involving Anthony Rodham. The report concluded that "The juxtaposition of Mr. Mayorkas' communication with external stakeholders on specific matters outside the normal procedures, coupled with favorable action that deviated from the regulatory scheme designed to ensure fairness and evenhandedness in adjudicating benefits, created an appearance of favoritism and special access." The "fast-tracking" of approvals for individuals involved in the casino program was controversial because it was made over the objections of USCIS analysts "who were suspicious about the source of the funds."
The inspector general's report found that Mayorkas's acts did not violate the law, but did create an appearance of favoritism. In House Homeland Security Committee testimony in May 2015, Mayorkas expressed regret that his intervention created an impression of favoritism, but said his involvement was motivated by a desire to ensure that the applications were handled in accordance with the law: "I did not let errors go unchecked, but instead helped ensure that those cases were decided correctly, nothing more and nothing less.
-
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 22:37 last edited by
Nothing in there about him selling them.
But he still may have trouble. It gives the GOP something to latch onto other than DACA.
-
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 22:37 last edited by
@LuFins-Dad said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/fullpage/500000-green-card-eb-visa-program-28662457
"Mayorkas declined requests for an interview for this report, and when ABC News caught up with him, he ignored the cameras and questions altogether."
BUT TRUMP WALKED OFF THE PODIUM WITHOUT ANSWERING QUESTIONS!!!!
-
Nothing in there about him selling them.
But he still may have trouble. It gives the GOP something to latch onto other than DACA.
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 22:46 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
But he still may have trouble. It gives the GOP something to latch onto other than DACA.
Yes. In politics there doesn't need to be much smoke for there to be fire. What is worrisome is that the fire will be fueled by a revenge factor, which of course has no place in politics, particularly national politics. "They did it to our guy, so now we're gonna do it to their guy!"
That's polarization for you. There is no more pulling together, no more working for the good of the whole. It's us versus those bastards!
-
@jon-nyc said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
But he still may have trouble. It gives the GOP something to latch onto other than DACA.
Yes. In politics there doesn't need to be much smoke for there to be fire. What is worrisome is that the fire will be fueled by a revenge factor, which of course has no place in politics, particularly national politics. "They did it to our guy, so now we're gonna do it to their guy!"
That's polarization for you. There is no more pulling together, no more working for the good of the whole. It's us versus those bastards!
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 22:48 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
It's us versus those bastards!
You misspelled "
deplorables" "chumps". -
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 22:55 last edited by
A little late to cry " it's us against those bastards". We had someone who was fighting the peoples' fight against the political class but apparently he got voted out and we've handed it all back to the corrupt ruling class again because he hurt some people's widdle feewings.....
-
A little late to cry " it's us against those bastards". We had someone who was fighting the peoples' fight against the political class but apparently he got voted out and we've handed it all back to the corrupt ruling class again because he hurt some people's widdle feewings.....
wrote on 25 Nov 2020, 23:10 last edited by@Larry said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
A little late to cry " it's us against those bastards". We had someone who was fighting the peoples' fight against the political class but apparently he got voted out and we've handed it all back to the corrupt ruling class again because he hurt some people's widdle feewings.....
That's about right
He's not unique, plenty of others will pick up the cause
-
wrote on 26 Nov 2020, 13:04 last edited by
Don't try to burn my house down and expect me to offer you some coffee.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2020, 02:49 last edited by
@George-K said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
John Kerry as "energy czar." Thank God!
Thank God he is being kept a few steps away at least from Foreign Policy. I don't think Kerry or Biden have ever been right on Foreign Policy matters yet.
-
wrote on 27 Nov 2020, 03:04 last edited by
Well it’s actually nothing like energy czar it’s more climate envoy so yeah it’s all about foreign policy.
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2020, 01:55 last edited by
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2020, 02:52 last edited by
Never heard of him. LOL What do you think of him?
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2020, 03:07 last edited by
Only vaguely knew the name.
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2020, 21:39 last edited by
New York Times: A Recently Retired General Should Not Be Secretary of Defense.
General Austin is a capable and respected former commander of Central Command, but a civilian — not a recently retired general — should lead the Pentagon.
As it is, Mr. Biden will need a Congressional waiver; the National Security Act of 1947 requires a prospective secretary to wait seven years after ending active duty as a commissioned officer and General Austin retired only in 2016. It would be only the third time a president has requested a waiver — President Harry Truman for George Marshall in 1950, and President Trump for James Mattis.
The legislators who negotiated the original security act believed only unique circumstances might dictate that a newly retired general or admiral should lead the Defense Department.
The Pentagon now needs to re-establish traditional national security processes and return to a sense of normalcy. President-elect Biden no doubt will want to streamline civilian oversight of war plans, increase transparency surrounding military operations and chart a new and perhaps very different vision for the defense budget.
But appointing another retired general to lead the Pentagon will not help return things to normal. Even if a retired general like Mr. Mattis was the right person for the Trump era, that era is over. A legislative exception granted at an exceptional moment should not become the new rule.
After four years of relative, if erratic, autonomy under Mr. Trump, military leaders may chafe when civilian national security leaders ask to check their homework. To some extent, that is healthy. Too much friction can also stop or slow progress, true, but a certain level is necessary for proper governance.
The need for experienced leadership in the Pentagon to manage this friction is vital. As even George Marshall realized, Mr. Biden would be wise to select a strong civilian who is up to the task.
President-elect Biden should not put Lloyd Austin, nor any other recently retired general or admiral, in the same position. General Austin is a fine public servant, and he may well continue his service to the nation out of uniform. But the Pentagon would be the wrong place for him to do it.
At least three Senators, including VietNam war vet Blumenthal are opposed.
Gonna be a tough hill to climb.
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2020, 21:40 last edited by
Yeah. He needs to go back to the drawing board.
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2020, 21:51 last edited by Larry 12 Aug 2020, 21:52
We must fight climate change!! And the only way to do it is to put John Kerry - a man who accused our soldiers of killing women and children... a guy who is such a snob he sounds exactly like Thurston B. Howell III from Gilligan's Island- to lead the charge by giving all our money to 3rd and 4th world nations until we are just as poor as them!! If we don't, the oceans will rise .0000000000002 inches and there will be no ice by the year 2000!!!!
-
wrote on 8 Dec 2020, 23:35 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Any guesses on the cabinet?:
Lloyd Austin SecDef?
Well, he'll fit in with all of Joe Biden's previous foreign policy judgments:
The Atlantic wrote in 2016 that Austin told the White House that ISIS was "a flash in the pan," prompting Obama to tell The New Yorker that the group—which came to control a swathe of territory in Iraq and Syria and has launched multiple terrorist attacks in the West—was terrorism's "jayvee team."
A spokesman for Austin told the magazine: "At no time has General Austin ever considered ISIL a 'flash in the pan' phenomenon," using an alternative acronym for the group which is still operational across the Middle East and Africa.
But a Congressional panel found in 2016 that Austin's CENTCOM tried to downplay the threat of the group, leading to "widespread dissatisfaction" among intelligence analysts.
The task force—set up by the Republican chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee—said: "Intelligence products approved by senior CENTCOM leaders typically provided a more positive depiction of U.S. antiterrorism efforts than was warranted by facts on the ground and were consistently more positive than analysis produced by other elements of the intelligence community."
"Throughout the first half of 2015, many Central Command press releases, statements and congressional testimonies were significantly more positive than actual events," the report said.
-
wrote on 9 Dec 2020, 23:49 last edited by
Jonah Goldberg's prediction:
I’ll cut to the chase with the punditry: Barring some scandal, Austin will almost surely get the waiver. Republicans will score some points: During the confirmation hearing, your pen will run out of ink on your bingo cards filling in the words “JV team.” But look, the Republicans will want one, maybe two human sacrifices during the confirmation process. And as a career military man, battle-tested, who would also be the first African-American secretary of defense, Austin is not the most attractive meal, politically speaking. Compared to that tough leather, Xavier Becerra and Neera Tanden might as well appear before Congress in a giant crockpot.
That’s why I think the JV team thing will ultimately be irrelevant. Biden will get his pick.
