The unofficial "Trump's cabinet" thread

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, #CF8 said:

If you don't want to abort your baby then don't.

If you don't want to speed then don't do it.
If you don't want to steal then don't do it.
If you don't want to smoke crack then don't do it.
If you don't want to cheat on your spouse then don't do it.
If you don't want to euthenize grandma then don't do it.

Why do we legislate morality in some cases but not others? Why does the federal government get to step in and tell us some things are not ok for everyone but others are not ok for anyone? If the fed's one day turned around and deemed abortion illegal nationwide, would you still feel the same way about the federal governments power? 

[InsideThePark]

4 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

How do we not do that now? Virtually all laws are based on some sort of a moral code. We all have our own ideas about right and wrong, whether they come from a religious perspective or something else. In the end different parts of the country have different ideas about right and wrong, I don't see why half of the country should be telling the other half how they have to live.

When you encourage decisions to be decided by local communities you promote liberty and allow for people who don't share their local social/cultural beliefs to go find somewhere that does. Blanket federal laws which apply to everybody should work for everybody, instead they are used as a political football where one side focuses on telling the other how to live, until tide turns the other way.

Correct, there are currently laws that derive from Bible beliefs, particularly at the state level.  If history has taught us anything, it's that religion should not be used to govern society.

Just to put things into perspective on the abortion issue, 54% of evangelicals think Roe v Wade should be overturned. Only 9% of non-religious folks feel the same way. Legislating laws in accordance to religious beliefs is unfair to those who don't worship the same god or any god at all. God doesn't belong in politics, or the science classroom, or wherever else the fundamentalists want to put "Him."

[Adam]

6 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

How do we not do that now? Virtually all laws are based on some sort of a moral code. We all have our own ideas about right and wrong, whether they come from a religious perspective or something else. In the end different parts of the country have different ideas about right and wrong, I don't see why half of the country should be telling the other half how they have to live.

When you encourage decisions to be decided by local communities you promote liberty and allow for people who don't share their local social/cultural beliefs to go find somewhere that does. Blanket federal laws which apply to everybody should work for everybody, instead they are used as a political football where one side focuses on telling the other how to live, until tide turns the other way.

And everyone said Amen!

[red321]

20 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

How do we not do that now? Virtually all laws are based on some sort of a moral code. We all have our own ideas about right and wrong, whether they come from a religious perspective or something else. In the end different parts of the country have different ideas about right and wrong, I don't see why half of the country should be telling the other half how they have to live.

When you encourage decisions to be decided by local communities you promote liberty and allow for people who don't share their local social/cultural beliefs to go find somewhere that does. Blanket federal laws which apply to everybody should work for everybody, instead they are used as a political football where one side focuses on telling the other how to live, until tide turns the other way.

preach it Calhoun!

[Blarg]

10 hours ago, calscuf said:

Let's break up into 50 or so small countries that share the same values.

Thst makes more sense.  Then I can move to Kentuckistan and not have to see fags kissing on TV.

I just change the channel because moving is a hassle. 

[Kevin]

11 hours ago, calscuf said:

Let's break up into 50 or so small countries that share the same values.

Thst makes more sense.  Then I can move to Kentuckistan and not have to see fags kissing on TV.

You've always come across as the type of guy that would be into your cousin anyways.  So win win.

[Lou]

14 hours ago, cezero said:

Donald's deputy NSA thinks Putin deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. 

I'm not under any illusions that Obama deserved one at all. No American president from the past 100 years should ever have been considered. We make and break political alliances to line the pockets of our corporations as much or more than any other nation. 

An American citizen saying that about Putin, especially a high ranking official, is just absurd.  So yeah, makes perfect sense. 

why would anyone care what people have to say about an award that has been given to the likes of Kofi Annan, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, Arafat and Rabin, Al Gore and Barack Obama and not Mahatma Gandhi or Irena Sendler? 

 

[Stradling]

Because people like to bitch about stuff and pretend it means something.  This is no different than getting upset that the Angels signed some minor league depth guy during free agency.  You can pretend it means something, but that doesn't mean it has meaning.  

[Glen]

On 11/24/2016 at 6:43 PM, Lou said:

a relatively short trip vs 18 years of raising a child you don't want.

it might not be as problematic as you think. 

 

Do you consider a couple hundred miles a relatively short trip?

[Blarg]

To secure your future, yes.

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 hours ago, Glen said:

Do you consider a couple hundred miles a relatively short trip?

She could go to Vegas and get knocked up again before she heads home.

[Tank]

9 hours ago, Lou said:

why would anyone care what people have to say about an award that has been given to the likes of Kofi Annan, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, Arafat and Rabin, Al Gore and Barack Obama and not Mahatma Gandhi or Irena Sendler? 

dig up the thread where MCab won the MVP after winning the triple crown while Trout finished second.

[Lou]

On November 27, 2016 at 4:54 AM, Glen said:

Do you consider a couple hundred miles a relatively short trip?

unless she's walking, yes. 

[Puget Sound Angel]

Now Trump wants Elain Cho, Mitch McConnell's wife (beard) for transportation secretary.

[Blarg]

Looks like the swamp is being filled with recycled water.

[Ordos]

36 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Looks like the swamp is being filled with recycled water.

Didn't we already see this kind of hope and change? New lipstick, same pig.

[Spirit]

4 hours ago, Puget Sound Angel said:

Now Trump wants Elain Cho, Mitch McConnell's wife (beard) for transportation secretary.

This is really going to piss the Dems off.  It's pretty well documented how much they hate Asians.

 

 

[ScruffytheJanitor]

On 11/29/2016 at 8:47 PM, Geoff said:

This is really going to piss the Dems off.  It's pretty well documented how much they hate Asians.

 

 

I know you are joking, but this is really a shame. If this causes the 1 Trillion dollar spending bill to be passed, then I will be against it. It is impossible to spend 1 Trillion dollars with out a good measure of corruption involved. 

[ScruffytheJanitor]

On 11/25/2016 at 8:25 PM, InsideThePark said:

Correct, there are currently laws that derive from Bible beliefs, particularly at the state level.  If history has taught us anything, it's that religion should not be used to govern society.

Just to put things into perspective on the abortion issue, 54% of evangelicals think Roe v Wade should be overturned. Only 9% of non-religious folks feel the same way. Legislating laws in accordance to religious beliefs is unfair to those who don't worship the same god or any god at all. God doesn't belong in politics, or the science classroom, or wherever else the fundamentalists want to put "Him."

Religion is not the same thing as morality.  Religions prescribe a specific code of morality, but that doesn't make all morality religious. Remember: Morality is simply a judgment of "right' or "wrong."

It is impossible for a government to pass an amoral law. In our system of government, laws can either prohibit or encourage any activity. In both cases, that is the government deciding that a particular act is a "good" or "bad" thing to do. Even something like a highway spending bill is a moral statement; it is saying that the interstate system is a better use of the land, money, labor, and time than another activity than people might spend elsewhere.

[Make Angels Great Again]

16 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

I know you are joking, but this is really a shame. If this causes the 1 Trillion dollar spending bill to be passed, then I will be against it. It is impossible to spend 1 Trillion dollars with out a good measure of corruption involved. 

Are you referring to infrastructure spending? It's widely believed several trillion is needed to get the US infrastructure healthy. How do you propose it be done?

[Thomas]

On 11/27/2016 at 5:54 AM, Glen said:

Do you consider a couple hundred miles a relatively short trip?

You've never been a hockey dad I see!

[ScruffytheJanitor]

24 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Are you referring to infrastructure spending? It's widely believed several trillion is needed to get the US infrastructure healthy. How do you propose it be done?

I am not opposed to infrastructure spending in general. I just don't think most of what people mean when they say "infrastructure" is a federal responsibility. The interstate system is working pretty well (not that improvements aren't needed, but they should be grandfathered in); state and local roads should be paid for by state and local governments. Bridges are generally well maintained (the recent collapses were a design defect and not a maintainence issue)  I would add schools, drinking water (for many places; more below), public transportation, and most parks to the "State/Local" basket. 

In fact, most infrastructure privately maintained. Railroads are falling apart because the companies that run them haven't done a good enough job; otherwise, these are really well managed-- honestly. 

Now, there are many areas where I am all for Federal infrastructure investment: Water management (Drinking Water, Levies, and locks) and the power grid. However, I have doubts that an omnibus bill is good enough for these issues. The power grid needs to be re-thought from scratch, and isn't something a single spending bill will solve. This is going to take DECADES to work through.

Levies and locks needs to be planned carefully because they can take so damn long to complete. Drinking water is something I don't know enough about, but too many areas (Atlanta, SoCal, many places in the west) where states aren't playing nice.

[Make Angels Great Again]

13 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

I am not opposed to infrastructure spending in general. I just don't think most of what people mean when they say "infrastructure" is a federal responsibility. The interstate system is working pretty well (not that improvements aren't needed, but they should be grandfathered in); state and local roads should be paid for by state and local governments. Bridges are generally well maintained (the recent collapses were a design defect and not a maintainence issue)  I would add schools, drinking water (for many places; more below), public transportation, and most parks to the "State/Local" basket. 

In fact, most infrastructure privately maintained. Railroads are falling apart because the companies that run them haven't done a good enough job; otherwise, these are really well managed-- honestly. 

Now, there are many areas where I am all for Federal infrastructure investment: Water management (Drinking Water, Levies, and locks) and the power grid. However, I have doubts that an omnibus bill is good enough for these issues. The power grid needs to be re-thought from scratch, and isn't something a single spending bill will solve. This is going to take DECADES to work through.

Levies and locks needs to be planned carefully because they can take so damn long to complete. Drinking water is something I don't know enough about, but too many areas (Atlanta, SoCal, many places in the west) where states aren't playing nice.

 

You definitely sound like you know what you're talking about. Do you have a background in this stuff?

I'm pretty sure if state/local governments started taking some of this stuff California would go broke in a day.

[Lhalo]

1 hour ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

Railroads are falling apart because the companies that run them haven't done a good enough job; otherwise, these are really well managed-- honestly.

Where did this information come from?

[Make Angels Great Again]

James Mad Dog Mattis is sec of defense. This guy has some epic quotes.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/the-best-from-mad-dog-mattis/

 

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”