[garygreen]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309576-what-trumps-cabinet-picks-reveal

Trump, however, has gone further in rewarding his biggest donors.

Former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin, the president-elect’s choice for Treasury secretary, served as Trump’s top fundraiser and personally contributed $430,000 to Trump and to the Republican National Committee’s joint fundraising account.

Pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to head the Small Business Administration, gave $6 million to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC that backed Trump. She also gave $153,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and more than $400,000 to the RNC.

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, Trump’s choice for Commerce secretary, had a senior role on Trump’s fundraising team. He gave $200,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and $117,000 to the RNC.

Andy Puzder, the fast-food CEO chosen for Labor secretary, raised campaign cash for Trump and personally contributed $388,000 to the RNC and $150,000 to Trump’s joint fundraiser. He also gave $10,000 to Rebuilding America Now.

Another Trump Cabinet selection, Betsy DeVos, belongs to one of the top Republican donor families in the country. The Education secretary pick, however, was no booster of Trump’s. She gave $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump’s rival in the GOP primaries. She also wired the maximum amount to another of Trump’s primary rivals, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Trump is taking a political gamble by choosing major donors for such lofty posts.

hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/trump-transition-asks-energy-dept-which-employees-work-on-climate-change

Oh look, the purging has begun.

By 2020, Trump will have only Trump supporters working for the federal government. 

At least he'll have kept his promise to give them jobs, right?

[Tom Bishop]

hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sells out the country and trades bribes for favors.

Also, anyone who truly wanted to change the country for the better would have heavily promoted and backed Donald Trump, who built his campaign around ending corruption in American politics and getting jobs back to the country. It makes sense that someone that emotionally invested to contribute would be the bet for the job, not some random schmuck who didn't support Trump's campaign.

[George]

hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

Also, anyone who truly wanted to change the country for the better would have heavily promoted and backed Donald Trump, who built his campaign around ending corruption in American politics and getting jobs back to the country. It makes sense that someone that emotionally invested to contribute would be the bet for the job, not some random schmuck who didn't support Trump's campaign.

Rich people are better than poor people.

[garygreen]

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

so...you mean like filling out your cabinet nominations with your biggest donors?  that sort of exchange of money for favors?

it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't have any problem with pay-to-play politics so long as the people who do it share your politics.

[Tom Bishop]

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

so...you mean like filling out your cabinet nominations with your biggest donors?  that sort of exchange of money for favors?

it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't have any problem with pay-to-play politics so long as the people who do it share your politics.

The people who believed very strongly in the principles of the movement would have donated what they felt was appropriate for them. I donated to him. Am I ineligible to go into government now to help put those ideas into action?

The people who did NOT donate to his campaign probably did not feel strongly about the movement and are actually the worst to select from!

[Rama Set]

The problem Tom is that Trump complained loudly and often about Clinton giving political favor to Wall Street bankers, donaters and lobbyists. Then the first thing he does is exactly what he campaigned against. Hypocrisy and supporting the establishment is exactly what many Trump supporters were voting against and within months he betrays them.

[Tom Bishop]

The problem Tom is that Trump complained loudly and often about Clinton giving political favor to Wall Street bankers, donaters and lobbyists. Then the first thing he does is exactly what he campaigned against. Hypocrisy and supporting the establishment is exactly what many Trump supporters were voting against and within months he betrays them.

Your criticism is lacking. Hillary Clinton wasn't giving Corporate Executives and Wall Street Bankers low wage government jobs. She was selling out the United States Government and enacting policies that benefited their businesses.

Trump definitely is not selling out his government. Those people donated to him and campaigned for him because they felt strongly about his movement of ending corruption in government. If they wanted quid pro duo they would have backed Hillary.

Why would Trump pick someone to work under him who didn't back him? Of course the best people for the job would have backed him and advocated for him in the campaign. It would be stupid to pick someone who did not strongly believe in his movement.

[garygreen]

Your criticism is frankly stupid. Hillary Clinton wasn't giving Corporate Executives and Wall Street Bankers low wage government jobs. She was selling out the United States Government and enacting policies that benefited their businesses.

"low wage government jobs" lol.  dude no one gives a shit what salary the secretary of state makes.  this isn't about wages.  but you knew that already.

if bernie sanders had been elected and nominated a bunch of goldman sachs bankers, corporate executives, and million-dollar donors for cabinet positions, i would feel pretty fucking cheated.

i'm not even saying that these people are awful.  maybe they'll do a great job.  i dunno.  i'll try to reserve my judgement of them until they draft policy.  but to deny that that trump predicated most of his campaign on decrying exactly what he's doing now is absurdly selective memory.  his entire platform was based on the innuendo that because hillary deleted emails, she must be hiding something.  because she met with a foundation donor, she must be doing them favors.  because she got paid to speak at goldman sach's, she must be doing them favors.  because her husband is a creep, she must be a creep. 

you can pretend that that didn't happen all you want, but it did.  i don't really see why you and many other trump supporters suddenly refuse to believe that this particular human couldn't possibly be capable of the same thing.  like, you believe that literally just because he told you so.

i've been saying this since he won the primary: all that happened here is that trump said whatever you wanted to hear without ever offering you anything to believe other than his word.  and y'all took it for some reason.  idgi.

[Tom Bishop]

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

[trekky0623]

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should we have hired the janitor instead?

I'd be ok with a head of the Environmental Protection Agency that, you know, had some experience working with the environment. Or at least didn't want to shut down the very organization he'll be heading.

[George]

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-skip-2016-12

More quality trolling from Trump.

[Tom Bishop]

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should we have hired the janitor instead?

I'd be ok with a head of the Environmental Protection Agency that, you know, had some experience working with the environment. Or at least didn't want to shut down the very organization he'll be heading.

Slashing bad democratic environmental policies was part of the plan since Trump started his campaign. And the guy trump picked does have environmental policy experience.

Forbs praises the pick: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27

[Lord Dave]

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

Except being able to visit the Russian President and negotiate oil prices and drilling for your company when you leave your cabinet position is really, really great.

Forbs praises the pick: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best.


He picked a secretary of education that does not believe in public education.  This is contradictory to her job.  You can't work to improve public education if you don't believe in public education.  And if you believe that private education is superior then you're missing WHY private is superior.  It's not about competition, it's about being able to pick only those you want.  Your bell curve looks great when all you have are honor students.

[George]

That's not the editorial position of Forbes; it's just a blog that happens to be hosted by the website.  The contributors express a great variety of political and economic opinions.

(what Dave said)

[Tom Bishop]

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front lawn for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

[trekky0623]

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Well we sure as hell wouldn't be able to say "Tom Bishop expresses racial slurs," in the same way you said Forbes praises Trump's EPA pick.

[Lord Dave]

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Yes.  Yes it does, actually. 

[Tom Bishop]

Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Well we sure as hell wouldn't be able to say "Tom Bishop expresses racial slurs," in the same way you said Forbes praises Trump's EPA pick.

Why not? I'm the one putting that content on my front lawn.

[Luke 22:35-38]

lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

But he's black!!!!