The unofficial "Trump's cabinet" thread

[ScruffytheJanitor]

True, true... but if I had, it might prove my point!

[Thomas]

50 minutes ago, red321 said:

My belief is if you want to "drain the swamp" you have to focus on campaign finance reform.

Which also requires a constitutional amendment. Might as well talk about all those great players the Angels can trade for using their scraps because that would still be more likely than campaign finance reform.

[Ordos]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

I don't know what world you're living in...

Clinton is elected, the Carrier plant moves to Mexico because the dems don't care. Trump is elected, the Carrier plant along with 1000 jobs stay. That's not kool-aid, that's political gold.

 

Didn't we already see how Carrier got a bail-out by Obama, then decided 14 months later it wasn't enough? It's a win now, and I'm happy for the employees. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical the honeymoon will last - and I hope I'm wrong.

[red321]

57 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Which also requires a constitutional amendment. Might as well talk about all those great players the Angels can trade for using their scraps because that would still be more likely than campaign finance reform.

I think the question regarding campaign finance is more debatable. For example, the Citizen's United ruling was predicated on the idea that corporations and unions had the same rights as individuals. With the current court environment I wouldn't see that changing anytime soon.

So, yeah...we are probably fucked.

[Thomas]

3 minutes ago, cezero said:

Incorrect. The FEC doesn't need constitutional amendments to make sweeping changes in campaign finance. 

[Thomas]

4 minutes ago, red321 said:

I think the question regarding campaign finance is more debatable. For example, the Citizen's United ruling was predicated on the idea that corporations and unions had the same rights as individuals. With the current court environment I wouldn't see that changing anytime soon.

I do wonder a political landscape where the majority of the left are more than willing to eschew constitutional protection for organizations including the NAACP and Planned Parenthood in return for so little. 

[Jay]

14 minutes ago, cezero said:

It's not a victory for employees. 

I'm not under the illusion that Hillary was going to put a dent in outsourcing, nor that Obama has done much of anything for it.

Anybody who thinks Donald will is wantonly stupid. 

 

wantonly stupid...? Keep telling yourself how smart you are, it's funny.

Not sure what a "dent" is to you but it's making a huge difference to those Carrier workers.

 

[red321]

25 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I do wonder a political landscape where the majority of the left are more than willing to eschew constitutional protection for organizations including the NAACP and Planned Parenthood in return for so little. 

I'm not sure I'm following what you wrote

[Ordos]

27 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I do wonder a political landscape where the majority of the left are more than willing to eschew constitutional protection for organizations including the NAACP and Planned Parenthood in return for so little. 

Quick question, where did the conservatives sit on the sacrifice of personal liberty with the Patriot Act? Both sides screw us, that's for sure.

[Thomas]

13 minutes ago, Ordos said:

Quick question, where did the conservatives sit on the sacrifice of personal liberty with the Patriot Act? Both sides screw us, that's for sure.

I'm not sure I could make up an accidental positive aspect of the abhorrent legislation.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

She didn't get a cabinet post, but Oklahoma's brain-dead Governor Mary Fallin got a spot on his transition team. I am sincerely hoping that reports that he is about to choose equally moronic Sarah Palin as Secretary for Veterans Affairs are a bad joke instead of a real news report.

[Adam]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

LOL @ the third party people... even less relevant than before if that was possible.

That Carrier thing was huge. I know the libs are saying, "big deal only 1000 jobs" but from a political perspective it was enormous.

Right now there are zero Republicans in congress who would go against Trump. We'll see how long that lasts but if Trump continues like this he'll be able to do whatever he wants. If he wants to drain the swamp he'll drain it.

 

I can troll with a clear conscience!

[Thomas]

37 minutes ago, red321 said:

I'm not sure I'm following what you wrote

If I may delgate my explanation. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united

[red321]

Still not sure I'm following your original thought.

In regards to the ACLU article, I agree with the general idea of the ACLU article, especially where it talks about public financing of campaigns. I struggle with the idea that money = free speech and corporations and organizations have the same protections as individual people.

[Make Angels Great Again]

2 hours ago, Jay said:

wantonly stupid...? Keep telling yourself how smart you are, it's funny.

Not sure what a "dent" is to you but it's making a huge difference to those Carrier workers.

 

 

Don't bother, he/she puts anyone with an opposing view on ignore with the excuse of them being "stupid."

Talk about a safe space.

[AngelsLakersFan]

21 minutes ago, red321 said:

I struggle with the idea that money = free speech and corporations and organizations have the same protections as individual people.

It's the one thing that keeps the liberals from turning this country into the Soviet Union. :-)

[Thomas]

23 minutes ago, red321 said:

 I struggle with the idea that money = free speech and corporations and organizations have the same protections as individual people.

It is easy to not want that when you think about large multi-national corporations, defense contractors and especially Angelswin.com. But there are other organizations that are much more likely to be damaged by this not being the case than these examples.  In the next administration what would stop Republicans from legislating against say Planned Parenthood and ban them from disseminating information if not for 1st amendment protections?  What if Trump got pissed at Twitter if they ban him after making racist tweets and went after them? Would the corporations behind newspapers even have the freedom of the press? Why exactly is not giving these groups constitutional protections a good idea?

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, cezero said:

It's not a victory for employees. 

I'm not under the illusion that Hillary was going to put a dent in outsourcing, nor that Obama has done much of anything for it.

Anybody who thinks Donald will is wantonly stupid. 

 

He just did so your statement is wantonly stupid. 1,000 or so Carrier employees get to spend Christmas not worrying out their immediate future. 

That is Trump 1,000

Your statement 0

You need to wait a little while before projecting a big comeback for the status quo government you wanted to elect.

[red321]

14 minutes ago, Thomas said:

It is easy to not want that when you think about large multi-national corporations, defense contractors and especially Angelswin.com. But there are other organizations that are much more likely to be damaged by this not being the case than these examples.  In the next administration what would stop Republicans from legislating against say Planned Parenthood and ban them from disseminating information if not for 1st amendment protections?  What if Trump got pissed at Twitter if they ban him after making racist tweets and went after them? Would the corporations behind newspapers even have the freedom of the press? Why exactly is not giving these groups constitutional protections a good idea?

It's an interesting discussion...lots of gray areas for sure.

I'm not sure the disseminating information is the same as political donations, and we already see situations where legislation has been created requiring Planned Parenthood and other health care providers to provide false information to women seeking abortion (links to cancer, fetal pain, etc).

And your second point is well noted. I would point out that freedom of the press is specifically noted in the 1st amendment.

A corporation is an artificial construct created out of laws, laws that vary by individual state. For the purposes of jurisdiction and court proceedings it make sense for a corporation to be considered "a person". The individuals that make up a corporation have rights, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a legally created entity and they aren't considered citizens. Corporations can't serve time for crimes, run for office, serve on juries, etc. If you say corporations have an absolute right to the first amendment...does that extend to the second amendment? Can they form their own militias and armies? 

[Thomas]

13 minutes ago, red321 said:

Corporations can't serve time for crimes, run for office, serve on juries, etc. If you say corporations have an absolute right to the first amendment...does that extend to the second amendment? Can they form their own militias and armies? 

Judging by how many private security contractors (PSCs) and private military companies (PMCs) fought in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan it would seem the questions would already be yes.

[Thomas]

11 minutes ago, red321 said:

I'm not sure the disseminating information is the same as political donations

Let's leave $$$ = speech as a separate argument, even if the legal precedent seems secure.  

[red321]

That's foreign soil, not sure that is really the same thing as a corporation building a corporate militia for actions on American soil (and I would note that I find that in itself pretty alarming - but I think there are different issues associated with that - including foreign laws).

Are we really saying GE would be able to build its own military force...and yes, I acknowledge corporations have their own security teams on-site, but I think it's a pretty clear distinction between the two.

 

 

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, red321 said:

That's foreign soil, not sure that is really the same thing as a corporation building a corporate militia for actions on American soil. Are we really saying GE would be able to build its own military force...and yes, I acknowledge corporations have their own security teams on-site, but I think it's a pretty clear distinction between the two.

What about the Pinkertons in the late 19th and early 20th century? Though I think constitutionally it would be possible to make a distinction between a militia and a standing army, which even the federal government wasn't suppose to keep around when the constitution was drafted because it would have been ridiculously expensive to do so. But even the private security force I interact with each day at work who are armed with military weapons would suffice as a militia.

[Thomas]

Since the Constitution makes it pretty clear that the military is a mandated task to the Feds while militias are unsurprisingly, are a more vague construct left to both the states and public.

[red321]

27 minutes ago, Thomas said:

What about the Pinkertons in the late 19th and early 20th century? Though I think constitutionally it would be possible to make a distinction between a militia and a standing army, which even the federal government wasn't suppose to keep around when the constitution was drafted because it would have been ridiculously expensive to do so. But even the private security force I interact with each day at work who are armed with military weapons would suffice as a militia.

Maybe. Pinkertons, at least on paper, was a security guard/detective agency. Gray area, but I think there is a distinction between having a security guard/team to protect a physical location and a corporation building their own militia or standing army. The legality of those corporations having a security team isn't grounded in the constitution but rather laws allowing them to have those security teams.