Trump has earned the right to the cabinet of his choice

Truth Detector said:
Once again, it is not the Senates job to “approve of.” It is “advise” and more importantly, “CONSENT.”

This notion that a President is not entitled to build a cabinet of his choice, barring something dark in the background checks, is absurd and false.

Approval is demanded by the mere fact of the huge electoral win Trump enjoyed. The people have spoken. Democrats need to get on board and STFU.

Trump has earned the right to the cabinet of his choice​


Confirmation hearings began this week for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. If senators stick to the schedule, as many as ten picks could be reviewed, with another eight hearings possible the following week.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, should expedite floor votes to allow the incoming administration to clean up the mess left behind by President Biden.

Senators — particularly Republicans — shouldn’t get in the way of this vital task. The public resoundingly endorsed the incoming administration’s agenda in November, so it’s not the place of senators to second-guess their constituents.
........................

The concern is less about their fitness to serve than the president’s intention to shatter Washington’s status quo. Country club Republicans hate it when someone starts rocking the boat, particularly when it comes to the waging of endless war, spying on U.S. citizens and cozying up to Big Pharma.

The health industry has contributed $27,347,222 to federal lawmakers and spent $259,268,750 lobbying them over the past 10 years, according to Open Secrets. That buys a lot of influence.

Click to expand...
tenor_20_50.gif
 
Diogenes said:
I heard that he plans to rule as a dictator, so doesn't that mean he can pick whoever he likes?
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again, it is not the Senates job to “approve of.” It is “advise” and more importantly, “CONSENT.”

This notion that a President is not entitled to build a cabinet of his choice, barring something dark in the background checks, is absurd and false.

Approval is demanded by the mere fact of the huge electoral win Trump enjoyed. The people have spoken. Democrats need to get on board and STFU.

Trump has earned the right to the cabinet of his choice​


Confirmation hearings began this week for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. If senators stick to the schedule, as many as ten picks could be reviewed, with another eight hearings possible the following week.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, should expedite floor votes to allow the incoming administration to clean up the mess left behind by President Biden.

Senators — particularly Republicans — shouldn’t get in the way of this vital task. The public resoundingly endorsed the incoming administration’s agenda in November, so it’s not the place of senators to second-guess their constituents.
........................

The concern is less about their fitness to serve than the president’s intention to shatter Washington’s status quo. Country club Republicans hate it when someone starts rocking the boat, particularly when it comes to the waging of endless war, spying on U.S. citizens and cozying up to Big Pharma.

The health industry has contributed $27,347,222 to federal lawmakers and spent $259,268,750 lobbying them over the past 10 years, according to Open Secrets. That buys a lot of influence.

Click to expand...
the fuck he has
 
Diogenes said:
Just in case you don’t understand what’s going on here, President Trump may be the greatest civics teacher in our country’s history.

Read and learn.

Silly Swampers shrilly screeching the "unqualified" mantra are trying to pretend they are champions of “Senate confirmation”, without considering whether or not it is constitutional.

This is purposeful.

Governmental power should only ever be exercised on behalf of the people. President Trump just received a massive mandate from the people of America.

President Trump wants this fight and he wants it to be very public.

Why?

All of nis nominees will now be contrasted with the “preferred” candidates of the DC establishment, and the Swampers suffer by comparison.

But it’s more than that.

This fight is over whether or not a president gets to choose his own cabinet to run the Executive Branch.

For too long, the Senate has encroached on the Executive Branch's powers in regards to appointments.

The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.

In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts - within their states.

This influence over filling federal jobs empowered senators, and many became leaders of the political parties that emerged in the early 19th century. That's when the Democrats invented the Spoils System that poisoned American government with partisan political patronage.

By the late 19th century, in the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall era, Republican presidents and Democrat senators began to clash over control of these positions, prompting some to push the notion of "advice and consent" of the Senate beyond the scope of the Constitution, while also expanding the federal bureaucracy that was beholden to the party.

What started as Senatorial “courtesy" morphed into Senate “approval".

As the federal government grew in size in the 20th century, the number of appointments subject to Senate confirmation continued to grow until the 1980s, when a Republican majority in Congress passed legislation that has gradually reduced the number of positions supposedly subject to Senate confirmation.

President Trump is taking us back to the Constitution.

As the founders intended, Congress will no longer be able to prevent a president elected by the people from fulfilling his promises by appointing the people he wants.

This is the beginning of reining in Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch and re-establishing the separation of powers.




iu




www.senate.gov

www.senate.gov
Click to expand...
So if Biden had nominated Hunter as Secretary of defense you would have argued in favor of it and said congress should not prevent it
 
SlaveForChrist said:
Well, would you have?
Click to expand...

Asking what someone might have done in the past based on something they've just said can be considered illogical for several reasons:

  1. Correlation vs. Causation: Just because someone says something now doesn't necessarily mean their past actions directly caused or are related to that statement. There might be a correlation, but assuming causation without evidence can lead to incorrect conclusions.
  2. Present Behavior vs. Past Behavior: People change over time. What someone says now might reflect their current views or circumstances, which could be different from their past behaviors or opinions. For instance, someone might express regret or have learned from past mistakes, making their present statements not reflective of their past actions.
  3. Contextual Misinterpretation: Without knowing the full context or background of the statement, it's easy to misinterpret what's being said. For example, sarcasm, humor, or rhetorical questions can be taken out of context, leading to assumptions about past behavior that aren't accurate.
  4. Assumptions Without Evidence: Such questions often rely on assumptions. If there's no direct evidence linking the statement to past actions, any inquiry into what someone "might have done" is speculative at best. This can lead to baseless accusations or judgments.
  5. Bias and Prejudice: If the question is posed due to preconceived notions or biases about the person, it can reflect more on the asker's prejudices than on the actual past behavior of the individual. This can promote unfair scrutiny or stereotyping.
  6. Psychological Complexity: Human behavior and speech are complex. People might say things for various reasons - to deflect, to impress, out of insecurity, or for strategic communication. Basing assumptions about past actions on current statements oversimplifies this complexity.
  7. Privacy and Relevance: Not all past actions are relevant to every conversation. Asking someone about their past based on a current statement might invade privacy or be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


@Grok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top