Trump's Cabinet

[SpeedOfHeat]

4 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

both headlines in today's Drudge.  ......... <--grains of salt.

Very glad that you included the grains of salt.  Drudge has always exploited fear and hysteria as clickbait, but they’ve gone completely off the deep end in the last few years.  Their headlines got especially ridiculous during Covid and only keep getting more ridiculous.

Here’s a screenshot of Drudge on Nov 4th.  24 hours later, Trump won decisively and swept all the swing states.  “….uhh….whoops….ohh well, on to the next headlines.”  Today they’re stoking fear of nuclear war in Ukraine.  What a total clown show that page has become.

[Orbit]

Drudge is cringe now

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That would be ideal. It shouldn't exist.

Dept of Ed should be the very first entity completely shuttered. Send education to the states, zero fed involvement in education at any level (exception is mil academies). A lot of people on X are saying IRS is #1, but I think they’re missing the forest through the trees (not that I don’t think the IRS and our tax code doesn’t need a massive overhaul/gutting).

[Boomer6]

7 minutes ago, brabus said:

Dept of Ed should be the very first entity completely shuttered. Send education to the states, zero fed involvement in education at any level (exception is mil academies). A lot of people on X are saying IRS is #1, but I think they’re missing the forest through the trees (not that I don’t think the IRS and our tax code doesn’t need a massive overhaul/gutting).

Why do you think it should be shuttered?

[Smokin]

Because it is unconstitutional.  The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Education is never addressed in the Constitution, thus it is reserved to the states or to the people.  Either one of those, but not to the Federal government.

[nunya]

Federalism died a long time ago. Maybe it can be restored but I doubt it.

[Moose]

9 hours ago, Smokin said:

Because it is unconstitutional.  The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Education is never addressed in the Constitution, thus it is reserved to the states or to the people.  Either one of those, but not to the Federal government.

Does this mean you also think the Air Force, also unmentioned in the Constitution, should be shuttered?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the Dept. of Education. Just curious if you're thinking about the broader implications of this kind of reasoning.

[O Face]

It’s been a smashing success 

Edited 19 hours ago by O Face
.

[Smokin]

51 minutes ago, Moose said:

Does this mean you also think the Air Force, also unmentioned in the Constitution, should be shuttered?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the Dept. of Education. Just curious if you're thinking about the broader implications of this kind of reasoning.

The defense of America is clearly provided for in the enumerated clauses so the Air Force is obviously well within the Federal powers. 

And, yes, I'm fully thinking of the broader implications.  Just to toss out a number, I consider well over half of the Federal government and the things it does to be unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, Americans have come to expect an absurdly huge Federal government and the handouts that come with it.  Which is also why we are over a year of GDP in debt and some people can't build a house on their own land because someone once saw an endangered salamander there 30 years ago.

[brabus]

10 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Why do you think it should be shuttered?

In addition to Smokin’s comment, it has objectively worsened education year over year. Student performance has steadily declined since its inception. While doing the opposite of what any logical person would expect of such an organization, it has been at the forefront of political/social manipulation of generations of children, demonstrating it is not about academic success, but rather social engineering. That last part has increasingly become worse this century, but it started a long time ago.

[M2]

11 hours ago, brabus said:

A lot of people on X are saying IRS is #1... 

No, the ATF should be the first to go!

[Vito]

12 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Why do you think it should be shuttered?

It’s a huge, expensive bureaucracy, created in 1979, not 1824…….employs No Teachers and has little to no impact on Education on a local level except to dictate, interfere, and propose programs which spread whatever political and social ideologies that they deem important. Remember it employs zero teachers who teach. The Dept of Ed has been low hanging fruit for decades, and whenever Republicans try to dismantle it, Democrats begin airing commercials about So and so candidate is against education and your children. We went to the Moon and won 2 World Wars, and ushered in the tech age without the Dept of Education.

[Sua Sponte]

Gaetz pulled his AG nomination. Now he’s effectively unemployed. 

[M2]

2 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Gaetz pulled his AG nomination. Now he’s effectively unemployed. 

Now that Matt Gaetz has withdrawn from the AG nomination, there were several other names Trump may considered for the position:

1. Sen. Mike Lee: A Republican senator from Utah, known for his close work with the Trump administration and his support for challenging the 2020 election results.
2. John Ratcliffe: Former Director of National Intelligence and a staunch defender of Trump during the Mueller investigation.
3. Jeffrey Clark: A former assistant attorney general who was involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.
4. Judge Aileen Cannon: A U.S. District Judge appointed by Trump, known for her rulings in favor of Trump in the classified documents case.
5. Mike Davis: A former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and a vocal defender of Trump.
6. Mark Paoletta: A former Trump administration member and counsel to a House committee.

Each of these candidates has a strong connection to Trump and his policies.

[disgruntledemployee]

4 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Gaetz pulled his AG nomination. Now he’s effectively unemployed. 

Good.  Now he can be a blow hole on TV.

[uhhello]

17 minutes ago, M2 said:

Now that Matt Gaetz has withdrawn from the AG nomination, there were several other names Trump may considered for the position:

1. Sen. Mike Lee: A Republican senator from Utah, known for his close work with the Trump administration and his support for challenging the 2020 election results.
2. John Ratcliffe: Former Director of National Intelligence and a staunch defender of Trump during the Mueller investigation.
3. Jeffrey Clark: A former assistant attorney general who was involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.
4. Judge Aileen Cannon: A U.S. District Judge appointed by Trump, known for her rulings in favor of Trump in the classified documents case.
5. Mike Davis: A former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and a vocal defender of Trump.
6. Mark Paoletta: A former Trump administration member and counsel to a House committee.

Each of these candidates has a strong connection to Trump and his policies.

Is Hulk Hogan busy?  Is Sgt Slaughter still around?

Edited 15 hours ago by uhhello

[Moose]

3 hours ago, Smokin said:

The defense of America is clearly provided for in the enumerated clauses so the Air Force is obviously well within the Federal powers. 

And, yes, I'm fully thinking of the broader implications.  Just to toss out a number, I consider well over half of the Federal government and the things it does to be unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, Americans have come to expect an absurdly huge Federal government and the handouts that come with it.  Which is also why we are over a year of GDP in debt and some people can't build a house on their own land because someone once saw an endangered salamander there 30 years ago.

Got it. Hey, for what's worth, I happen to agree with you. DoE is probably not constitutional. It's debatable. But I don't think a constitutional justification is going to persuade. Americans need to have a debate on substance and understand how little it's doing for them, how expensive it is, and how much more the states could do with the resources it's using. The fact it's arguably an unconstitutional intrusion into state matters is a decent footnote. 

The substantive arguments flooding into the thread now are the ones that have a chance to prevail. Ultimately there needs to be a strong popular mandate because a lot of people have their interests tied to DoE, including powerful lobbies and corporations that won't just give up. They'll give up when it's in their interest or when they are defeated legislatively.

I happen to agree with you more generally that federal agencies are overgrown, we have too many federal laws, too many federal people, too much federal presence in day-to-day life. I don't even want to give a shit who is in a federal office and would love to go back to the quaint pre-WWII reality of most people not even being able to name the president. 

But unless we're going to have a constitutional convention and re-bake the cake, we have to figure out how to unbake this one. I think that'll take substantive arguments. Appeals to legality, while valid, are not persuasive.

Edited 15 hours ago by Moose

[uhhello]

51 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Gaetz pulled his AG nomination. Now he’s effectively unemployed. 

Apparently there is a possibility he can still resume his seat in the 119th 

 

It's unclear if Gaetz can return to Congress now, since he resigned from the current session but had already been voted into the next session for his district in Florida — or whether Trump will give him another spot in his administration.

[Lord Ratner]

25 minutes ago, Moose said:

Got it. Hey, for what's worth, I happen to agree with you. DoE is probably not constitutional. It's debatable. But I don't think a constitutional justification is going to persuade. Americans need to have a debate on substance and understand how little it's doing for them, how expensive it is, and how much more the states could do with the resources it's using. The fact it's arguably an unconstitutional intrusion into state matters is a decent footnote. 

The substantive arguments flooding into the thread now are the ones that have a chance to prevail. Ultimately there needs to be a strong popular mandate because a lot of people have their interests tied to DoE, including powerful lobbies and corporations that won't just give up. They'll give up when it's in their interest or when they are defeated legislatively.

I happen to agree with you more generally that federal agencies are overgrown, we have too many federal laws, too many federal people, too much federal presence in day-to-day life. I don't even want to give a shit who is in a federal office and would love to go back to the quaint pre-WWII reality of most people not even being able to name the president. 

But unless we're going to have a constitutional convention and re-bake the cake, we have to figure out how to unbake this one. I think that'll take substantive arguments. Appeals to legality, while valid, are not persuasive.

While I agree with your overall concept, and I believed it for a long time, it may not be entirely accurate. 

 

Constitutional arguments have one venue that turns out to be more effective and more powerful than many others. The Supreme Court.

 

The right answer might not be to appeal to the American people for objectives that are already covered by the Constitution. The better plan of action might be to simply act, and have a bulletproof case ready to go when it is inevitably elevated up to the Supreme Court. 

 

Part two, however, is to be ready for the aftermath. Roe v Wade is a good example. 50 years of appealing to the public accomplished absolutely nothing. But bringing the correct argument to the correct Supreme Court ended it overnight. Republicans were obviously not ready for the state battles that followed, but that's a republican problem, not a constitutional option. As this election showed in spades, those of us who believed abortion had been removed from the national debate were correct.

 

 

[M2]

Apparently, its going to be Pam Bondi...

[Lord Ratner]

37 minutes ago, M2 said:

Apparently, its going to be Pam Bondi...

I wonder, and this is just a crazy theory my captain and I came up with, but if they floated Matt Gaetz to see which Republicans would fall in line and which would protest.

 

Further, how many otherwise resistant Republicans told Trump's team behind closed doors "anyone but Gaetz," and are now going to be held to that promise?