Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump initial cabinet most women ever


Merc14

Recommended Posts

Just now, Merc14 said:

I think has has picked an outstanding cabinet.

Fair enough. Personally I think he's put some in positions they arent qualified for (carson,Devos and mattis) , some in positions they have a clear conflict of interest (tillerson,pruitt,pudzer,) some who have potential serious character issues (sessions, flynn) and those who participate in absurd demagoguery  (bannon).  Those are potentially serious issues which go beyond party politics in my opinion. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Why though? Why not accept the process as laid out in the constitution? There are clear and blatant red flags not only about Trump himself but , and maybe even more so, the people he has surrounded himself with. Even the most partisan republican has to admit that. 

Why, you have a bunch of Trump supporters out here that have been told Trump is going to be president because he won.  Look what the left had been doing just because the polls called it for Hillary. The sjw since Nov. 8 have been salivating to get the election results changed, some have been threatening the electors with death.  If they accomplish that these people that support Trump are going to be upset to say the least and rightly so.  They will have far more to be upset about than Hillary supporters.  I see more red flags with trying to throw the results of an election than I do with Trump.

Some of those partisan republicans are RINO's and part of the never Trump crowd.  I bet their biggest problem with him is not the people he is picking but the fact he wants to stop them from being lobbyists for 5 years after leaving office or permanently for foreign governments.  He also wants to stop people that award government contracts to corporations ever from working for them.  That hurts their pocket book because many land some pretty lucrative jobs. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ashotep said:

Why, you have a bunch of Trump supporters out here that have been told Trump is going to be president because he won.  Look what the left had been doing just because the polls called it for Hillary. The sjw since Nov. 8 have been salivating to get the election results changed, some have been threatening the electors with death.  If they accomplish that these people that support Trump are going to be upset to say the least and rightly so.  They will have far more to be upset about than Hillary supporters.  I see more red flags with trying to throw the results of an election than I do with Trump.

Some of those partisan republicans are RINO's and part of the never Trump crowd.  I bet their biggest problem with him is not the people he is picking but the fact he wants to stop them from being lobbyists for 5 years after leaving office or permanently for foreign governments.  He also wants to stop people that award government contracts to corporations ever from working for them.  That hurts their pocket book because many land some pretty lucrative jobs. 

So in your opinion theres no chance that the electors might see trump as unfit as per the constitutional guidelines? 

I have to add that he SAYS he wants to do those things, yet hires actual lobbyists and those who have sold their souls to lobbyists to his staff.  Just like he said he was going to prosecute hillary. Are we not seeing a pattern yet?

 

Edited by Farmer77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let it no be forgotten about that little niggling problem of a publicly published 'pledge to the American people' either ...

~

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

So in your opinion theres no chance that the electors might see trump as unfit as per the constitutional guidelines? 

I have to add that he SAYS he wants to do those things, yet hires actual lobbyists and those who have sold their souls to lobbyists to his staff.  Just like he said he was going to prosecute hillary. Are we not seeing a pattern yet?

 

Just because they see him as unfit doesn't mean he is, just means they wanted Hillary.

Who are the lobbyists?

He won't prosecute Hillary, Sessions will.  Since Hillary decided to join Stein in this recount I doubt Trump will stand in Sessions way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ashotep said:

Just because they see him as unfit doesn't mean he is, just means they wanted Hillary.

Who are the lobbyists?

He won't prosecute Hillary, Sessions will.  Since Hillary decided to join Stein in this recount I doubt Trump will stand in Sessions way.

Really? I at this point see Trump as wholly unfit for office yet I sure as hell didnt and dont want hillary. 

Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They’re on His Transition Team 

I do stand corrected. After coordinating his transition with Kstreet and then placing them on his transition team it looks like Flynn might be the only official lobbyist left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

So in your opinion theres no chance that the electors might see trump as unfit as per the constitutional guidelines? 

I have to add that he SAYS he wants to do those things, yet hires actual lobbyists and those who have sold their souls to lobbyists to his staff.  Just like he said he was going to prosecute hillary. Are we not seeing a pattern yet?

 

Remember, these electors aren't special people in any way, they are basically given and honorarium and instructed to reflect the people's choice.  They weren't voted in and have no real authority so suddenly determining that their opinion means more than the tens of thousands who legally voted seems a bit immoral to me.  Regardless, the most they can accomplish is to delegitimize millions of people's votes and send the election to congress.  I am sure that states will then put in place laws requiring the electors to vote according to the majority.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered about these electorals. Who are they, how'd they get there and who the heck do they think they are to decide against their states voters? I know it's not a serious problem nor has it ever been but still..

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I've always wondered about these electorals. Who are they, how'd they get there and who the heck do they think they are to decide against their states voters? I know it's not a serious problem nor has it ever been but still..

Me too. This guy appears to be the Barney Fife or hell the Gomer Pyle of the bunch.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I've always wondered about these electorals. Who are they, how'd they get there and who the heck do they think they are to decide against their states voters? I know it's not a serious problem nor has it ever been but still..

Its happened before 

There was only one time in history that faithless electors altered the result of an electoral vote. In 1836, all 23 electors in Virginia opted to be faithless. They were pledged to vote for Martin Van Buren and his running mate, Richard Mentor Johnson. But instead, they all refused to vote for Johnson. The Senate decided the election and ended up choosing Johnson anyway.

 

I can see the importance of the electors having the ability to be faithless. I dont know that in todays environment its such a great idea............but i do love the idea of watching people's heads, along with the entire system  explode if they were to vote against trump this time around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kurzweil said:

Me too. This guy appears to be the Barney Fife or hell the Gomer Pyle of the bunch.

I have to think that if If liberals were talking about a 9/11 first responder like that the righteous indignation from the right would be filling the pages of this forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I have to think that if If liberals were talking about a 9/11 first responder like that the righteous indignation from the right would be filling the pages of this forum. 

Hypotheticals don't interest me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
18 hours ago, Ashotep said:

My reaction to them is also is just shut up.  They aren't going to though, they think now they can throw the election by intimidating electors into voting for Clinton.  So come the 19th chaos may break out if the electors decide to listen to these people and Trump doesn't get the votes needed.

I've voted democrat a lot in my life but this new democrat party is scary along with many of their supporters.  They have really shown how scary they can be if you don't agree with them.  These sjw are looking more like a bunch of Nazi's to me, the new McCarthyism.   Instead of going after supposed communist sympathizers with no proof, its supposed bigots, racists, misogynists, etc.

 

Most of my extended family is Democrat, aunts, uncles, 1st & 2nd cousins, etc...at a holiday party on Saturday this large group were expressing their fear about their party and how far removed they've become from the average voter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, -ZZ- said:

I'm pretty sure the RNC has been on the phone to those folks.

The Texas governor is reportedly going to replace the elector who has said he won't vote for Trump.

Can you imagine what would happen if they nullified Trump's victory?

.

insurrection ..... armed insurrection...?

I don't think the Electoral Colleges will be so stupid as to nullify Trump's victory although the latest push to
try and get that to happen is getting more desperate by the day - for example the 'Russia interfered in the
election' clap trap from the CIA -

(may I say at this point that I think Anthony Weiner is a more likely candidate for passing on the Clinton
Emails to WkiLeaks..... over half a million emails stored on his computer - and he had opportunity, means and
motive IMO - with his hurt pride, a ruined career, a marriage break up and child custody case...perhaps it was 
HIM who had the ''''insurance''' - and ammunition for revenge - I read somewhere that Huma Abedin , Clinton's
closest aid was told that she would have to divorce Wiener if she was going to be part of the election campaign -
for a man who likes to be in control this could have sent him over the top and determined to get revenge..?)

.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skliss said:

Most of my extended family is Democrat, aunts, uncles, 1st & 2nd cousins, etc...at a holiday party on Saturday this large group were expressing their fear about their party and how far removed they've become from the average voter.

I think a lot of people that voted for Obama are feeling the same way including some in my family.  He really took the party far to the left.  The people I know are for some kind of healthcare for all but not open borders, not bringing in refugees by the tens of thousands we can't vet and didn't see more far left policies helping with good paying job prospects.  Although I must say they aren't too keen on some of the republicans either but they liked Trump.  They would have never voted for some of the other republican candidates. 

Edited by Ashotep
Had to add something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

White males dominate Trump's top cabinet posts  HAHA this is awesome. Does CNN realize how petty this makes them look? 

 

By selecting ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to serve as secretary of state, Donald Trump on Tuesday guaranteed that his four most influential departments will, if confirmed, be led entirely by white males for the first time since George H.W. Bush's first cabinet was approved in 1989.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Truly ridiculous. 

I agree, and I predict that CNN will be excluded from the daily press briefings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, -ZZ- said:

I agree, and I predict that CNN will be excluded from the daily press briefings.

Maybe it is time to end the daily press briefing.  Honestly, who needs it any longer when you can post everything directly to the people without the absurdly biased filter the MSM now applies to everything and anything a republican says or does.   Of course then we would miss the spectacle of Laura Ingraham eviscerating the  pompous arses of big media.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.