The F*ck#ng Cabinet Appointments (US)

Putting this in Hell so participants can have at it.

With Ke##edy being nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services, I imagine that Department will be in full revolt.

Likewise, with G@etz, the alleged sex trafficker and drug partier being nominated for DOJ, I wonder how any reputable prosecutor can work under him.

And with Noem head of Homeland Security, how can its people feel about a leader that cannot set foot on parts of the lands she is supposed to protect?

I am sure the list will go on.

Which brings up an idea: what if the employees of whole departments go on strike? The whole government will come crashing down (Shades of Mark 13 her) would it not?

I remember when the Air Controllers went on strike under Reagan, he fired them.

Can tRump do that, would he do that?

Stay tuned.

«134

Comments

  • Trump's nominee for SecDef, Pete Hegseth, is a veteran who has multiple crusader-cult tattoos and believes women shouldn't be in combat.
  • F*ck#ng -- Ke##edy -- Getz -- but then "Noem"(?) and "Reagan"(?) -- only to be capped by tRump?! Seriously?

    Surely, @Gramps49, you don't really want to have hellish conversation about these people. You just want to troll me/us by mistyping their names.

    Ballsy after the precious little snit you picked in All Saints. I'll give you that. Ballsy indeed.
  • Crikey! I meant “G@etz.”
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    The_Riv wrote: »
    F*ck#ng -- Ke##edy -- Getz -- but then "Noem"(?) and "Reagan"(?) -- only to be capped by tRump?! Seriously?

    Surely, @Gramps49, you don't really want to have hellish conversation about these people. You just want to troll me/us by mistyping their names.

    Hell is the place for fucking with names.

    Trolling is what Trump is doing with these appointments. I'm not sure whether that's all it is, or whether it's a loyalty test for the new senate. I seem to recall in his first term Trump was fond of forcing people to abase themselves in public or defy him.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Is there a prominent flat earther that can be put in charge of NASA? Surely the Felon in Chief can find someone determined to let California burn and Florida get washed away to take over protecting the environment, his credentials on environmental protection would make him suitable for that and he must have some pals who share his delusions.
  • On the news they were saying that the Health department has never had a vaccine sceptic at its head before.

    I guess this is because it is a stunningly bad idea to put someone so stupid, incompetent and incapable of understanding basic science as to reject vaccines in any position of power.

    But it does seem that crass stupidity is the base requirement these days.

    Is there a word for rule by the most unsuitable people? Trumpocracy?
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Which brings up an idea: what if the employees of whole departments go on strike? The whole government will come crashing down (Shades of Mark 13 her) would it not?
    They would do that only if they wanted to be felons. It is against the law for federal employees to strike. Title 5, section 7311 of the U.S. Code, if you want to look it up. Federal employees may not participate in a strike, assert the right to strike, or even belong to a union that “asserts the right to strike against the government of the United States.” And you might also glance at title 18, section 1918 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a felony to strike against the United States or belong to a union that asserts the right to strike against the United States.

    Which is why federal employees do not strike, but can do a work slow-down (taking sick days, vacation etc.) to deplete the number of workers, but a traditional strike is a felony.

    Which is part of why Reagan could fire the air traffic controllers. For regular businesses, the employer cannot just fire striking employees, but because the strike was illegal, he was free to fire them. He showed restraint in not throwing them all in prison.

  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Which brings up an idea: what if the employees of whole departments go on strike? The whole government will come crashing down (Shades of Mark 13 her) would it not?
    They would do that only if they wanted to be felons. It is against the law for federal employees to strike. Title 5, section 7311 of the U.S. Code, if you want to look it up. Federal employees may not participate in a strike, assert the right to strike, or even belong to a union that “asserts the right to strike against the government of the United States.” And you might also glance at title 18, section 1918 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a felony to strike against the United States or belong to a union that asserts the right to strike against the United States.

    Which is why federal employees do not strike, but can do a work slow-down (taking sick days, vacation etc.) to deplete the number of workers, but a traditional strike is a felony.

    Which is part of why Reagan could fire the air traffic controllers. For regular businesses, the employer cannot just fire striking employees, but because the strike was illegal, he was free to fire them. He showed restraint in not throwing them all in prison.

    It's a bit of an - interesting - situation where not jailing workers for striking is "restraint".
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Which brings up an idea: what if the employees of whole departments go on strike? The whole government will come crashing down (Shades of Mark 13 her) would it not?
    They would do that only if they wanted to be felons. It is against the law for federal employees to strike. Title 5, section 7311 of the U.S. Code, if you want to look it up. Federal employees may not participate in a strike, assert the right to strike, or even belong to a union that “asserts the right to strike against the government of the United States.” And you might also glance at title 18, section 1918 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a felony to strike against the United States or belong to a union that asserts the right to strike against the United States.

    Which is why federal employees do not strike, but can do a work slow-down (taking sick days, vacation etc.) to deplete the number of workers, but a traditional strike is a felony.

    Which is part of why Reagan could fire the air traffic controllers. For regular businesses, the employer cannot just fire striking employees, but because the strike was illegal, he was free to fire them. He showed restraint in not throwing them all in prison.

    Thank you for the information. I knew it is illegal for a Federal Employee to strike, but I did not know the specifics of the law.

    @The_Riv, no not trolling you, but wanted to set up a thread in which we could discuss the proposed cabinet without having to worry about how anyone spells, misspells, or mangles a name, and wondering what the options of the federal employees might be.

    Take, for instance, the military, the greatest bureaucracy in the world. Also, the greatest social experiment in the world. It has led our society in modern integration by a decade before the civil rights bills were passed. It was allowing for same sex relationships even before Obama formally integrated it. It has developed many diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that have been copied in private industry.

    Now that Hegseth has said he is going after the "woke" generals, if he is confirmed, how much of a push back will there be from the top brass? Remember, the military is sworn to defend the constitution, not a particular president, what options would they have? What options would they likely use.
  • There are a several of things going on here. First, this is a loyalty test for the Senate Republicans. Will they approve a whole slate of clearly unqualified cabinet secretaries and other high level appointees? Second, it insures the absolute loyalty of Trump's cabinet. These are people who would never be trusted with similarly important/prestigious jobs under any other circumstance, so they know that they rise or fall with Trump. Third, loyalty among his cabinet protects Trump against Vance acting on any ideas he might have about invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and displacing Trump. Finally, narcissists like surrounding themselves with incompetent people because it reinforces their feelings of superiority.
  • There is precedent for a head of state requiring the military to swear personal allegiance to him. I have no doubt that would be attractive to Trump.
  • There is, of course, the strong possibility that these terrible appointees aren't expected to actually run the departments they're nominally going to be in charge of. They'll just be an eye-catching front man while actual decisions are made by their Project 2025 deputies.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Eirenist wrote: »
    There is precedent for a head of state requiring the military to swear personal allegiance to him. I have no doubt that would be attractive to Trump.

    Not in the United States, I don't think. If there is, I would like to know.

    The New Republic had a discussion on the Republican meltdown concerning G*etz and Kennedy. Essentially, the participants think both men are bridges too far.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    There is precedent for a head of state requiring the military to swear personal allegiance to him. I have no doubt that would be attractive to Trump.

    Not in the United States, I don't think. If there is, I would like to know.

    The New Republic had a discussion on the Republican meltdown concerning G*etz and Kennedy. Essentially, the participants think both men are bridges too far.

    I think they underestimate the cowardice of GOP senators when it comes to facing down MAGA.
  • The number of them that have walked-back to nothing, then crossed over into gaslighting and propaganda re: January 6 is Exhibit A.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I agree. They're talking a lot, but it's just talk at this point and I'm not hopeful about it becoming more than that. We'll have to see if they want to or even think they can maintain power separate from the presidency. And whether Trump would adjourn Congress, which a president has never done, but which the Constitution allows if the two houses don't agree about adjourning.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    I agree. They're talking a lot, but it's just talk at this point and I'm not hopeful about it becoming more than that. We'll have to see if they want to or even think they can maintain power separate from the presidency. And whether Trump would adjourn Congress, which a president has never done, but which the Constitution allows if the two houses don't agree about adjourning.

    I'm kind of astonished that those who wrote the constitution retained the power of the executive to effectively suspend the legislature. Wouldn't this enable the president to adjourn congress if they thought impeachment was on the cards? I thought the founders learned the lessons of parliament in the Stuart period and the Protectorate. Evidently not all of them.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Missed the edit window:

    On reading further, it looks like Trump would have to contrive a disagreement between the House and Senate, so it is only really relevant if the Senate is not keen on his nominees but the House is.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    I agree. They're talking a lot, but it's just talk at this point and I'm not hopeful about it becoming more than that. We'll have to see if they want to or even think they can maintain power separate from the presidency. And whether Trump would adjourn Congress, which a president has never done, but which the Constitution allows if the two houses don't agree about adjourning.
    I'm kind of astonished that those who wrote the constitution retained the power of the executive to effectively suspend the legislature. Wouldn't this enable the president to adjourn congress if they thought impeachment was on the cards?
    It shouldn’t. (Though with the current SCOTUS, who knows.) The relevant provision (Art. II, sec. 3) states:
    [The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; . . . .
    So, per the text the ability to adjourn Congress is dependent on the Senate and the House of Representatives being unable to agree on a time of adjournment.

    To the best of my knowledge, this authority has never been exercised. I acknowledge, though, that we are in a time of “never before” when it comes to the president-elect.


  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Crœsos wrote: »
    There are a several of things going on here. First, this is a loyalty test for the Senate Republicans. Will they approve a whole slate of clearly unqualified cabinet secretaries and other high level appointees?

    This theory only works if Trump himself believes the appointees to be unqualified. But I could honestly see him thinking that people like Gaetz, Gabbard, and Kennedy jr. are, in fact, the best people for the job.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    There are a several of things going on here. First, this is a loyalty test for the Senate Republicans. Will they approve a whole slate of clearly unqualified cabinet secretaries and other high level appointees?

    This theory only works if Trump himself believes the appointees to be unqualified. But I could honestly see him thinking that people like Gaetz, Gabbard, and Kennedy jr. are, in fact, the best people for the job.

    I think it's highly unlikely that he knows or cares who is best for the job, or even thinks about it in those terms.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    There are a several of things going on here. First, this is a loyalty test for the Senate Republicans. Will they approve a whole slate of clearly unqualified cabinet secretaries and other high level appointees?

    This theory only works if Trump himself believes the appointees to be unqualified. But I could honestly see him thinking that people like Gaetz, Gabbard, and Kennedy jr. are, in fact, the best people for the job.

    I think it's highly unlikely that he knows or cares who is best for the job, or even thinks about it in those terms.

    Well, maybe, but for @Crœsos's theory to hold, Trump WOULD have to have a criterion for thinking these people are incompetent, since the whole point would be for Trump to see if Congress will accept unqualified nominees.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    There are a several of things going on here. First, this is a loyalty test for the Senate Republicans. Will they approve a whole slate of clearly unqualified cabinet secretaries and other high level appointees?
    This theory only works if Trump himself believes the appointees to be unqualified. But I could honestly see him thinking that people like Gaetz, Gabbard, and Kennedy jr. are, in fact, the best people for the job.

    Hard to say what Trump "believes", or if that word even applies to how he thinks of things. But this seems like the equivalent of forcing Sean Spicer to go out and repeatedly tell the press that the crowd for Trump's first inauguration was the biggest in history, much bigger than Obama's. Spicer and the reporters he was talking to all knew that this was false, but part of the value for Trump was his ability to force Spicer to repeat farcically obvious falsehoods.

    The other value seems to have been Trump's conviction that if you say something often enough it becomes true through repetition. So if the Senate votes to confirm his appointees they therefore must be qualified by virtue of that approval.
  • The very Senate that failed to impeach not once, but twice, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt? I don't trust the Senate, especially the incoming one, to do anything worthy of approval by the public.
  • Under UK law, will trump, as a convicted criminal, be allowed into the UK?
  • Under UK law, will trump, as a convicted criminal, be allowed into the UK?

    Foreign leaders are usually accorded diplomatic immunity when visiting other countries.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Under UK law, will trump, as a convicted criminal, be allowed into the UK?

    If the government says he is, sure. The law gives the Home Secretary pretty wide latitude in this area.
  • The very Senate that failed to impeach not once, but twice, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt? I don't trust the Senate, especially the incoming one, to do anything worthy of approval by the public.

    The Senate failed to convict and remove him from office. He was duly impeached twice by the House of Representatives.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Under UK law, will trump, as a convicted criminal, be allowed into the UK?

    If the government says he is, sure. The law gives the Home Secretary pretty wide latitude in this area.
    It is perhaps worth noting that while Trump was convicted of felonies by the jury, judgment—the formal order of the court declaring him guilty— hasn’t been entered yet. That doesn't happen until (or after) the sentencing hearing, which last I knew was scheduled for later this month.

    And of course, assuming judgment and a sentence are entered, he can appeal and move for that judgment to be stayed pending appeal.


  • No doubt he will appeal, which will surely drag the business on until Death takes him, or the world ends.
  • With him in the White House I wouldn't want to bet on which will occur first.
  • Turns out HegSeth was accused of sexual assault by a woman in 2017. Story here Might have a paywall.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    That's not a functioning link.
  • One thing about the idea of recess appointments. They are only temporary, lasting no longer than two years. See Wikipedia article

    Then too, a recess appointment can only be made when the Senate takes a recess longer than ten days. But, the Senate cannot do that without agreeing to a concurrent resolution with the house--meaning a majority of both houses have to agree to adjourn. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-senate-recess-appointments-new-leader/
  • With him in the White House I wouldn't want to bet on which will occur first.

    Neither would I.

    What a ghastly muddle it all seems to be.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    CBS Weekender discussed the results of the appointments. Major Garrett pointed out this will disrupt the bureaucracy that has evolved since WWII. He also discussed a reason why tRump chose K3n3dy. This might get into my sermon for tomorrow.
  • @Gramps49
    He also discussed a reason why tRump chose K3n3dy.

    My theory is that it was straight payback for Kennedy's endorsement sending a few eco-luddite votes in Trump's direction, and that Trump has very little interest in actually implementing Kennedy's anti-Big Pharma agenda.

    What did Garrett say?
  • stetson wrote: »
    My theory is that it was straight payback for Kennedy's endorsement sending a few eco-luddite votes in Trump's direction, and that Trump has very little interest in actually implementing Kennedy's anti-Big Pharma agenda.

    Just a random metaphorical notion, but I think Kennedy jr. is gonna end being DJT's Father Coughlin. I've got a bet going with myself that he eventually turns against Trump and quits the cabinet in hateful disillusionment.
  • I read that as well as being an anti=vaxer, RFKJr is also anti-fluoridation. The cynic in me wonders whether there are some US dentists who might be quite happy about that?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Eirenist wrote: »
    I read that as well as being an anti=vaxer, RFKJr is also anti-fluoridation. The cynic in me wonders whether there are some US dentists who might be quite happy about that?

    I assume that's a humourous way of saying that de-fluoridation will lead to more people needing dental work. FWIW, the American Dental Association publically recommends fluoridation.
  • RFK Jr. is a kindred spirit to the next President: 3 wives, 37 documented affairs, etc.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Eirenist wrote: »
    I read that as well as being an anti=vaxer, RFKJr is also anti-fluoridation. The cynic in me wonders whether there are some US dentists who might be quite happy about that?

    General Ripper would be.
  • Before RFKjr became an anit-vaxer and an anti flouridite, he was a very strong environmentalist--along the lines of Al Gore, Some are wondering if he will stand for the anti-environmental agenda tRump wants to follow.

    And he does have a point about all the crap that goes into American food. He once used the illustration of the difference of McDonald french fries in the United Kingdom and America. In the UK, he said, there are three ingredients: the potato, the oil, and a dash of salt. In America, according to him, there is the potato plus about 17 different chemicals.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    =

    And he does have a point about all the crap that goes into American food. He once used the illustration of the difference of McDonald french fries in the United Kingdom and America. In the UK, he said, there are three ingredients: the potato, the oil, and a dash of salt. In America, according to him, there is the potato plus about 17 different chemicals.

    And the solution to that is better regulation. Which will not come from conspiracy theorists or smash-the-staters.

    David Ike started out as an environmentalist too.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    I read that as well as being an anti=vaxer, RFKJr is also anti-fluoridation. The cynic in me wonders whether there are some US dentists who might be quite happy about that?

    General Ripper would be.

    But the Disgraced Son doesn't have a record of denying anyone his essence -- especially women.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    =

    And he does have a point about all the crap that goes into American food. He once used the illustration of the difference of McDonald french fries in the United Kingdom and America. In the UK, he said, there are three ingredients: the potato, the oil, and a dash of salt. In America, according to him, there is the potato plus about 17 different chemicals.

    And the solution to that is better regulation. Which will not come from conspiracy theorists or smash-the-staters.

    David Ike started out as an environmentalist too.

    Some of us on this side of the pond do not know who you are talking about. Also, is the spelling right?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    =

    And he does have a point about all the crap that goes into American food. He once used the illustration of the difference of McDonald french fries in the United Kingdom and America. In the UK, he said, there are three ingredients: the potato, the oil, and a dash of salt. In America, according to him, there is the potato plus about 17 different chemicals.

    And the solution to that is better regulation. Which will not come from conspiracy theorists or smash-the-staters.

    David Ike started out as an environmentalist too.

    Some of us on this side of the pond do not know who you are talking about. Also, is the spelling right?

    David Icke. The Lizard People guy. Basically re-marketing the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion as a New Age UFO cult.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    I read that as well as being an anti=vaxer, RFKJr is also anti-fluoridation. The cynic in me wonders whether there are some US dentists who might be quite happy about that?

    General Ripper would be.

    But the Disgraced Son doesn't have a record of denying anyone his essence -- especially women.

    Well played.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    =

    And he does have a point about all the crap that goes into American food. He once used the illustration of the difference of McDonald french fries in the United Kingdom and America. In the UK, he said, there are three ingredients: the potato, the oil, and a dash of salt. In America, according to him, there is the potato plus about 17 different chemicals.

    And the solution to that is better regulation. Which will not come from conspiracy theorists or smash-the-staters.

    David Ike started out as an environmentalist too.

    Some of us on this side of the pond do not know who you are talking about. Also, is the spelling right?

    David Icke. The Lizard People guy. Basically re-marketing the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion as a New Age UFO cult.

    Thanks. Apologies for the typo.
Sign In or Register to comment.