Jump to content

Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

chasfh

By chasfh
in Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

chasfh Grand Master

chasfh

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't think Ttump's going to allow Hegseth and Patel to go through nominations. They're going to be recess appointments.

Granted, he won't do recess appointments for literally everybody. At least I don't think so—he may be beyond giving any s***s about that. But I can see him allowing low-stakes appointments go through the process for appearances' sake, people like Doug Collins for Veterans, Doug Burgum for Interior, even L'il Marco for Secretary of State.

But the guys he really wants in there at all costs, the guys he wants to go in and just hollow out and effectively disable core government functions from within? I don't see him allowing them to go through confirmation hearings. Hegseth and Patel are two of those guys. RFK, Tulsi, Linda McMahon, and maybe Brendan Carr are a few others.

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • romad1

    1775

  • chasfh

    1168

  • pfife

    1052

  • CMRivdogs

    975

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Dan Gilmore
Dan Gilmore

Five more days for me. Almost 67 and hoping SS plus some investments cover me. Both my parents lived well into their nineties.

oblong
oblong
pfife
pfife

Posted Images

romad1 Grand Master

romad1

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I don't think Ttump's going to allow Hegseth and Patel to go through nominations. They're going to be recess appointments.

Granted, he won't do recess appointments for literally everybody. At least I don't think so—he may be beyond giving any s***s about that. But I can see him allowing low-stakes appointments go through the process for appearances' sake, people like Doug Collins for Veterans, Doug Burgum for Interior, even L'il Marco for Secretary of State.

But the guys he really wants in there at all costs, the guys he wants to go in and just hollow out and effectively disable core government functions from within? I don't see him allowing them to go through confirmation hearings. Hegseth and Patel are two of those guys. RFK, Tulsi, Linda McMahon, and maybe Brendan Carr are a few others.

I don't think the Senate can allow the guy in charge of the largest and most powerful military in the World to be a recess appointment.  

I think the Senate will have to fight these garbage nominations done probably just to placate his lunatic base.

chasfh Grand Master

chasfh

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I don't think the Senate can allow the guy in charge of the largest and most powerful military in the World to be a recess appointment. 

You mean the Republican Senate that's utterly beholden to the leader of their party? That Senate?

chasfh Grand Master

chasfh

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Nah, but it does show that it’s possible to reject a Trump appointment 

I assume it's all a delicate negotiation, at least delicate for Senate Republicans, anyway.

Trump doesn't need Gaetz to use Justice to run roughshod over Democrats, Hollywood, the media, and, eventually, everyday dissenters on message boards like you and me—he can do that through Pam Bondi just as effectively. But in a negotiation, if Trump gives them Gaetz, they have to give him Tulsi and Hesgeth and Patel and RFK. Trump holds practically all the cards, so he can design the trade exactly as he sees fit, and the result will still give him everything he was going to get in the first place.

In any event, I still don't think Trump will ll subject his most odious appointments to Senate confirmation. It would create far less static to just appoint them in recess, or as merely acting directors, than to put them through the confirmation process and give Democrats and the few apostate Republicans a televised platform to appeal to the people every day for days on end. Appoint them as temps or in recess, weather a one-day news cycle, then spike the football and get to work.

romad1 Grand Master

romad1

Posted
Posted

I'm glad the South Korean people stood up to the coup.  I hope the lessons learned is that in a democracy the armed forces should not get involved in domestic politics.  Just like the national security community warned before January 6th.

  • Like 1
chasfh Grand Master

chasfh

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 hours ago, romad1 said:

I'm glad the South Korean people stood up to the coup.  I hope the lessons learned is that in a democracy the armed forces should not get involved in domestic politics.  Just like the national security community warned before January 6th.

That is one potential bright spot in this whole thing: the American people of today, unlike the German people of 90 years ago, or the Russian people of forever, are not used to having government bring the hammer down on their everyday lives, so if the MAGovernment overreaches, they may not be able to overcome the people rising up to oppose them, and there’s a chance they might have to cave.

The wild card is whether forces are trained specifically to put down such uprisings, which I assume is the certainty of when and not if; and how effectively they can conscript and deputize armed civilian red hats to help keep both their suspect neighbors and the liberals in nearby cities in check, teaching a few lessons along the way, which is a true wild card.

Tiger337 Grand Master

Tiger337

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Americans are also very well armed. Not the left of course, they would crumble under any kind of govt crack down.

20% of Democrats own a gun.  That's about 20 million people.  That's more than enough to provide powerful resistance.  It's not like there is going to be millions of people fighting a war on the streets.  The United States military could crush the left and right if so inclined, but I don't think that is a likely scenario.  

Tigeraholic1 Grand Master

Tigeraholic1

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

20% of Democrats own a gun.  That's about 20 million people.  That's more than enough to provide powerful resistance.  It's not like there is going to be millions of people fighting a war on the streets.  The United States military could crush the left and right if so inclined, but I don't think that is a likely scenario.  

I feel the same but cities like chicago would go first. Only the criminals are allowed to own firearms. Small towns would last the longest. 

Tiger337 Grand Master

Tiger337

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I feel the same but cities like chicago would go first. Only the criminals are allowed to own firearms. Small towns would last the longest. 

Small towns would last the longest, guns or not.  

  • Thanks 1
chasfh Grand Master

chasfh

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't think there could be a successful red hat invasion of Chicago. We have are too many people here, over three million. How many red hat vigilantes would it take to subdue the entire city? A hundred thousand? A quarter million? Half a million? How would they coordinate half a million vigilante red hats for an invasion of Chicago? Telegram? Discord? How do they train? How do they battle plan? They may have most of the guns but I don't think they're genius enough to overrun and ghettoize an entire city a la Warsaw. I think this one will have to remain relegated to your fantasy scenario.

I think it would have to take Hegseth's army to have a chance of pulling something like that off, although I think it's more likely they simply bomb us into smithereens like Gaza than try to conquer us like Nanking.

  • Confused 1
chasfh Grand Master

chasfh

Posted
  • Author
Posted

image.png.17227be8598714cab98b3fc634a39db1.png

You're the one who mentioned "cities like Chicago" going first. What else could you have meant? Surely you don't mean criminal gangs suddenly overunning the city and terrorizing white people en masse? Because that is also happening only in your dreams.

  • Confused 1
Tigeraholic1 Grand Master

Tigeraholic1

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, chasfh said:

image.png.17227be8598714cab98b3fc634a39db1.png

You're the one who mentioned "cities like Chicago" going first. What else could you have meant? Surely you don't mean criminal gangs suddenly overunning the city and terrorizing white people en masse? Because that is also happening only in your dreams.

Looks like Big Shoulders has had enough. Bet you won’t even watch the video though.

 

romad1 Grand Master

romad1

Posted
Posted

South Korea having a largely conscripted army is possible mitigation.  The trinity of war is harder to break if the line is blurred between the citizens and the armed forces.  

Also, and a larger part of this is that SK has a real national security challenge up north and this was probably seen as a terrible leader doing Trump games to stay in power.

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      288
    • Most Online
      625
    Dr. Bob
    Newest Member
    Dr. Bob
    Joined

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...