Trump administration set to be America's richest ever (1 Viewer)

The_Burning_Bush

it is lit
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
4,280
Reaction score
1,697
Offline
When George W. Bush assembled his first Cabinet in 2001, news reports dubbed them a team of millionaires, and government watchdogs questioned whether they were out of touch with most Americans’ problems. Combined, that group had an inflation-adjusted net worth of about $250 million — which is roughly one-tenth the wealth of Donald Trump’s nominee for commerce secretary alone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dern-american-history/?utm_term=.a50823e380f2

But he's gonna drain the swamp, right? :9:
 

TechDawg09

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
5,767
Location
Dallas
Offline
Enrich the swamp!

This will be interesting, with most of his proposals set to benefit the super wealthy.
 

BigFrosty

VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Konohagakure
Offline
Drain the swamp is referring to established government officials who make financial careers out of politics. The ones who become politicians as an average Joe and leave millionaires. See Harry Reid.

I don't see anything wrong (yet), with bringing in top business talent and minds. It's actually the way the founding fathers envisioned government running. The top minds in the country would pause their business lives, to serve the public for 'terms'.

Let's not jump the shark though. Still very, very early.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,552
Reaction score
18,573
Offline
I'm not sure cutting out the middle man is "draining the swamp".
 

BigFrosty

VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Konohagakure
Offline
She should be, if she's not, then it's Trump's responsibility to reign her in. If she does terrible things, then blame will be placed accordingly.

1 group joined to serve the public and were super enriched while doing it. The other group made their money before, and, I suppose, the idea, is that they won't be beholden to special interests.

Look, I know this is utopia speak, but at the moment we're playing with ifs, ands, and buts.

I want to be clear, I'm a center-right Republican (not that it means much). I didn't vote for Trump, but I want to give him every chance to succeed and try to avoid hoopla, before any results are in. The same as I did with Obama.
 

BIGSAINTSFAN

Retired "USMC" Warrior
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
830
Reaction score
694
Location
Lexington, KY
Offline
If you guys haven't noticed by now that Trump is filling his cabinet with his RICH buddies, then you continue to wear the blinders you did when you voted. Not one position has gone to just the AVERAGE person. ( I am sure the AVERAGE person doesn't fit his idea of the smartest and wisest people. Where is the diversity of his cabinet?????? I am glad my life isn't dependent on anything that the likes of Trump will do as president.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
How can they be wise if they aren't rich and they'd have to be dumb not to love him, right?
 

BigFrosty

VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Konohagakure
Offline
Is the dress white and gold or blue and black?

Oye, we're getting in over my head and I can see the sharks circling. I'll respectfully bow out and see where the thread goes.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
Which is it, pure coin-flip perception difference with no underlying reality, or bowing to Oye's understanding? The second seems to be really undercut by including the first.
 

BigFrosty

VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Konohagakure
Offline
I'm confused by the first part, but I'll take a stab. I made my points to the best of my articulation, and he made his. I'm a centrist (registered repub), and not beholden to any party. It's not difficult to see both sides points, with an open mind. I don't see much reason to answer the rhetorical questions, as points have been noted, and don't feel I have the gusto, and/or desire to change his. I'm not really sure why lines have to be drawn in the sand. Also, thought it may be distracting to flood the thread with a 1 to 1 question/answer session, but then I'm probably just being too concerning. If it's really important to Oye that I answer his questions, then I can. I figure some others can chime in and we'll see where the thought processies go.
 

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,119
Age
41
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
I really don't know what you're asking, but I'll take a stab. I made my points to the best of my articulation, and he made his. It's not that difficult to to see both sides points with an open mind. I don't see much reason to answer the rhetorical questions, as points have been noted, and don't feel I have the gusto, and/or desire to change his. Also, not really sure why lines have to be drawn in the sand. If it's really important to Oye that I answer his questions, then I can.
I'm not sure there's a side to justify picks like DeVos. Her main qualifications are wealth, political connections, fundraising, and her lobbying efforts. She has no training or experience in education beyond her lobbying efforts. Educators across the political spectrum seem very displeased by her selection. She seems much closer to Michael Brown than to a top talent or mind.

Other picks, regardless of wealth, have shown a similar lack of knowledge, training, and experience in the departments they are supposed to manage. I don't care much about the wealth of person heading a federal department, but they should be regarded as an expert in their field. We should prioritize knowledge and experience over partisanship and political connections.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,813
Offline
I'm confused by the first part, but I'll take a stab. I made my points to the best of my articulation, and he made his. It's not difficult to see both sides points, with an open mind. I don't see much reason to answer the rhetorical questions, as points have been noted, and don't feel I have the gusto, and/or desire to change his. I'm not really sure why lines have to be drawn in the sand. Also, thought it may be distracting to flood the thread with a 1 to 1 question/answer session, but then I'm probably just being too concerning. If it's really important to Oye that I answer his questions, then I can. I figure some others can chime in and we'll see where the thought processies go.
Ah so the second part is the part to ignore, or that I mistook as meaning that it made sense to trust Oye's experience because it was over you head. You're mostly committed to the idea that it's all personal opinion or percepition like with the dress, and there's no underlying right or wrong possible. In that case I still don't know what the second part meant at all, or what you meant by it if I'm mis-taking it. Ok though since the first part is where your heart seems to be I guess it does not matter.

I just wasn't sure what you meant since the first statement seemed to sound like it was all fair game for anyone's opinion to be as good as any other without regard for evidence or fact, hence the reference to the viral dress image, where right and wrong don't exist it's everyone's view equal with no facts or reality. Then you followed up saying it was "over your head" which seemed to be saying "I'm just shooting the breeze, but Oye has the technical chops to give a more informed opinion" and you saw opposition based on that disymmetry as "sharks circling".

So maybe you can see why I was confused, the two seem totally opposite in intent.

I think you clarified though that the first is what you meant. You're opinion is equal to his, you just are bowing out because it's not worth battling over things where facts don't matter, since it's all personal view. No need to continue then.

Have to say I don't see it that way, but was mainly trying to figure out which of the two extremely different takes you were trying to get across.
 

BigFrosty

VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Konohagakure
Offline
nor am I. Never have been. Have only ever been registered with one of our two major parties, and it was Republican. Left them long ago and been Independent ever since, fwiw.
I was thinking about going independent, but I like being able to vote in the primaries.

not sure if this is alleging a lack of open-mindedness on my part or not, but if so, feel free to point out where I've been close-minded. Also, fwiw, I was vocally critical of Obama's appointment of Arne Duncan, even on these very boards.
I should have added "for me". In my younger days, I was very right, Tea Party right. As I get older, I've gone much more center. Getting out of the right echo chamber has helped a ton, along with forums like this to see opposing view points. Everyone just seems to get so uptight proving their points, then we lose the communication quality. And, honestly, hardcore debating stresses me out.

I'm not looking for you to change anything, of yours or mine.
Sure, I'll take a crack at the questions in a min.

bait you for the 'sharks'
One would have to admit, it can be a theme in political discussions.
 

BigFrosty

VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Konohagakure
Offline
I'm not sure there's a side to justify picks like DeVos. Her main qualifications are wealth, political connections, fundraising, and her lobbying efforts. She has no training or experience in education beyond her lobbying efforts. Educators across the political spectrum seem very displeased by her selection. She seems much closer to Michael Brown than to a top talent or mind.

Other picks, regardless of wealth, have shown a similar lack of knowledge, training, and experience in the departments they are supposed to manage. I don't care much about the wealth of person heading a federal department, but they should be regarded as an expert in their field. We should prioritize knowledge and experience over partisanship and political connections.
I really don't know much about her, but then again I didn't vote for Trump, so I'm really just wishing him the best and the best for our country. The negative fervor is concerning, and I feel like I really try to make an effort to absorb everyone's viewpoints.
 

Severum

10001110101
Staff member
Administrator
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
10,585
Reaction score
9,119
Age
41
Location
Bellingham, WA
Offline
I really don't know much about her, but then again I didn't vote for Trump, so I'm really just wishing him the best and the best for our country. The negative fervor is concerning, and I feel like I really try to make an effort to absorb everyone points of view.
I think all reasonable people hope for the best outcome. That doesn't mean we should stop scrutinizing government actions though. We have a political neophyte selecting people with little knowledge about the departments they are supposed to oversee. That should be troubling to anyone who wants the best for our country.
 

BigFrosty

VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
2,396
Reaction score
1,517
Location
Konohagakure
Offline
Ah so the second part is the part to ignore, or that I mistook as meaning that it made sense to trust Oye's experience because it was over you head. You're mostly committed to the idea that it's all personal opinion or percepition like with the dress, and there's no underlying right or wrong possible. In that case I still don't know what the second part meant at all, or what you meant by it if I'm mis-taking it. Ok though since the first part is where your heart seems to be I guess it does not matter.

I just wasn't sure what you meant since the first statement seemed to sound like it was all fair game for anyone's opinion to be as good as any other without regard for evidence or fact, hence the reference to the viral dress image, where right and wrong don't exist it's everyone's view equal with no facts or reality. Then you followed up saying it was "over your head" which seemed to be saying "I'm just shooting the breeze, but Oye has the technical chops to give a more informed opinion" and you saw opposition based on that disymmetry as "sharks circling".

So maybe you can see why I was confused, the two seem totally opposite in intent.

I think you clarified though that the first is what you meant. You're opinion is equal to his, you just are bowing out because it's not worth battling over things where facts don't matter, since it's all personal view. No need to continue then.

Have to say I don't see it that way, but was mainly trying to figure out which of the two extremely different takes you were trying to get across.
Yes, I think this is spot on. It's probably the eternal optimist in me. I certainly won't be on here defending trump all day, but like the dress, people will swear by what they see. I think it's important we do what we can to try to understand where the other sides are coming from.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom