Donald Trump's Administration Picks

[Aliencommander1245]

In theory, running government like a business is a mixed bag imo. But we've never had a businessman (in orientation, practice, everything) president. So if we can ignore the stupid crap he may do, we can probably gather some empirical evidence to see how running government like a business will work and if its good or not.

I think discussion of Trump is way too dominated by "let's wait and see" at the expense of everything awful he's doing right now, says he plans to do and people he's shoving into his cabinet, but "We've never had a government run like a business, it could be good" is just an odd phrase to me

There's a lot of articles on why it's a bad idea, but this one in partiular has a nice quote i feel sums it up: https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco...e.com.au/&referrer=https://www.google.com.au/

We should no more want the government to be run like a business than a business to be run like the government.

Hence, to ask that the government be run like a business is tantamount to asking that the government turn a profit. The problem in a nutshell, is that not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. Reality TV, pornography, fashion, sports, and gambling are all of questionable social value, but each is quite profitable and exists in the private sector. Meanwhile, few would argue that the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, police department, fire department, libraries, parks, and public schools are of no social value, and yet they could not exist if they were required to be profitable. Imagine maintaining a standing military by selling subscriptions door-to-door: "Hello, my name is Captain Johnson, and I represent the US Army. Are you afraid of foreigners? Would you like guaranteed protection against invasion, pillaging, enslavement, and more? Please see our brochure for our three levels of service." There would, of course, be a few subscribers, but nothing approaching the level necessary to truly protect the United States from attack.

To reiterate, the key issue is this: not everything that is profitable is of social value and not everything of social value is profitable. The proper role of government is the latter. Those arguing for a business model for government must necessarily be ready to shut down all government functions that do not earn a profit, regardless of their contribution to our well being.

Another faucet of this, and Trump's own campaign, is that he'll "make good deals" or that the government is "being shafted in deals" which fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and necessity of diplomacy. When you're negotiating with a hostile foreign power, you can't be out to make the best possible deal for you- You have to be out to create the deal that will compromise best and is most conductive to peace. These are fundamentally not the same thing, and it's something people don't seem to understand

 

[Somewhere_]

I think discussion of Trump is way too dominated by "let's wait and see" at the expense of everything awful he's doing right now, says he plans to do and people he's shoving into his cabinet, but "We've never had a government run like a business, it could be good" is just an odd phrase to me

There's a lot of articles on why it's a bad idea, but this one in partiular has a nice quote i feel sums it up: https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco...e.com.au/&referrer=https://www.google.com.au/

Another faucet of this, and Trump's own campaign, is that he'll "make good deals" or that the government is "being shafted in deals" which fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and necessity of diplomacy. When you're negotiating with a hostile foreign power, you can't be out to make the best possible deal for you- You have to be out to create the deal that will compromise best and is most conductive to peace. These are fundamentally not the same thing, and it's something people don't seem to understand

I've been losing faith in Trump for a reason xD The One China Policy blunder is really making me question him.

The article is correct in my opinion; however, it doesnt acknowledge that value is subjective. Or how one can measure whether or not the social value of a public service is greater than the loss of profit.

I think his trade deals wont be beneficial at all. I dont think things like the TPP are perfect, but they are a step in the right direction. In my opinion, when you are trading, there is a lower likelihood of conflict.

 

[lloebet]

If he can make Russia chill out like it seems he's planning on doing all while not falling into the sink hole that is NATO I'll be happy.

However, there's a reason we never went to war with china even when our foreign policy was containment and I hope he understands that reason.

 

[Esper]

Regarding the business-as-government idea, we haven't had business people as president before, but we have had business people running businesses that are larger than some countries so there is some area for examples to be drawn from. It's a mixed bag, depending on what you consider "good business" (profits, accountability, etc.) but I think it's safe to say that Trump is not a good businessman when it comes to running a profitable, transparent business. He's had all those bankruptcies, for starters, and all of the shady deals underpin how much better off (relatively speaking) the country would be with a different business leader as president.

So, in theory at least, a pro-business president isn't necessarily bad, but we could objectively do so much better than Trump in that regard.

 

[gimmepie]

Regarding the business-as-government idea, we haven't had business people as president before, but we have had business people running businesses that are larger than some countries so there is some area for examples to be drawn from. It's a mixed bag, depending on what you consider "good business" (profits, accountability, etc.) but I think it's safe to say that Trump is not a good businessman when it comes to running a profitable, transparent business. He's had all those bankruptcies, for starters, and all of the shady deals underpin how much better off (relatively speaking) the country would be with a different business leader as president.

So, in theory at least, a pro-business president isn't necessarily bad, but we could objectively do so much better than Trump in that regard.

I just want to add though, that a business doesn't need to care about its employees. A business exists solely to turn a profit and it doesn't need to care about how its employees are doing outside of what the law demands. It operates for itself.

This is the fundamental opposite of a good government which should operate for the good of the many with a goal of providing a quality of life, protection and just society to those under its control.

 

[Attribule]

Eh. He ain't perfect but give him a chance to f*** up before we all assume the worst. I'll be more than happy to flip this hat around if he starts acting a fool once in office.

Trump isn't some random creature that just magically appeared out of nowhere and ran for presidency. This is a man with history, and his picks have a history. I think it's quite easy to assume somebody with a history and campaign based on corruption will do corrupt things. Are you honestly not seeing every current action he's making as blatant corruption? Yes, he isn't in office yet, but when he's currently showing corruption, what makes you think it might suddenly get better when he has even more power? We're supposed to ignore the conflicts of interest, the picks that have ideologies that go against what their roles are supposed to stand for and so on?

Anybody taking some twisted "wait-and-see" approach to this just admits they actually aren't even keeping up with any of the news whatsoever. You can't be so "neutral" with the s*** already out for the public to see.

If he can make Russia chill out like it seems he's planning on doing all while not falling into the sink hole that is NATO I'll be happy.

Trump is proven to be pro-Russia, so I'm sure he'll definitely work something out that makes Putin happy enough to "chill". Americans will pay for it, but his people will spin it like a positive as usual, especially on Trump TV AKA "Fox News".

I wonder if it's possible to have a more unfit, anti-American president. This is all some big joke. He's always been and will always be a con artist that takes advantage of people for his own gain. You can't say these things about him now, though, without it being a "political opinion", but boy have people been ripping into him for years. He only cares for him and his own, and his picks are just some of the proof of that.

Wonder why anti-American/"Western" groups (including Putin) wanted Trump to win so badly. Maybe it was because they turned over a new leaf and wanted only the best for our people? Yeah... that must be it.. HAHAHA!!!

Satan is still Satan whether you give him a chance or not. Trump is a vile pig.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Not really relevant to his cabinet picks, but relevant to this discussion:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-us-elections-campaign-promise-a7467071.html

Casually admitting he made up "locking her up" for the campaign trail but has and never had and real plan to do so

 

[Crizzle]

I still can't believe this is real life.

 

[Sir Codin]

The "lock her up" crowd didn't actually fall for all his inflammatory pandering crap, right? All those photo-shopped pictures of Hillary in a prison jumpsuit were just ironic shit-posting, right?

Naw, I guess they did fall for it. I guess they didn't realize that there's better uses for taxpayer's dollars. Move on and focus your efforts on other ways of making asses out of yourselves.

 

[Esper]

Trump wanting an oil company CEO who's friendly with Putin as his Secretary of State.

Yup, the Russians got what they wanted from that email hack.

 

[Hermione Granger]

I smell weeks of fillabusters in the Senate.

 

[lloebet]

Why do we hate Russia again?

 

[gimmepie]

Why do we hate Russia again?

They're a superpower with a long history of warmongering, rights violations and otherwise oppressing people and seeking dominance. Basically take all the bad elements of the US and then up them a few notches.

I don't think it's right to say we hate Russia though, rather they just have a bad government made worse by a few key players being particularly bad and they need to have some sort of opposition to ensure there's not an imbalance of power. Otherwise that bad warmongering government has free reign.

Be careful with this line of discussion though because it could get into off-topic territory.

 

[Ivysaur]

Why do we hate Russia again?

It's an authoritarian country, with single-party "elections", a leader-for-life who feels he has the divine right to rule over their neighbouring countries, with a terrible history of illegal invasions, defending tyrants and supporting anti-democratic movements in other countries through money and propaganda (RT and other online misinormation outlets)- and through cyberattacks, we now know too. Meanwhile, at home it jails opponents, criminalizes homosexuality, murders dissidents without trial, expropiates private property from them, and essentially the law changes at the whim of Putin. Its economy is also pretty crappy when the oil price falls and all the gaps in every other sector become apparent. If he declared himself communist, it wouldn't be that much different from Stalin (who, incidentally, he increasingly worships, along with the absolutist Tsars that preceded him). But he doesn't, so many republicans who kinda wish they could do the same (cough North Carolina cough) don't find it that bad. As Obama said, Reagan must be turning in his grave.

 

[Somewhere_]

The Russian issue is confusing as to why its becoming a partisan issue. Liberals are suddenly anti-Russia and conservatives are suddenly almost defending Russia after hating Russia for so long. Its really the Alt-Right thats actually infatuated with Putin for some reason. To me, no one should like Putin or the Russian government.

Ive been going to a political event this weekend, and all the conservatives are saying there is no evidence for Russian tampering and that the Uranium that the US sold to Russia. Also apparently Obama had some secret messages to Russia.

 

[gimmepie]

This not a discussion about Russia guys, let's keep that in mind.

 

[Stroker Ace]

It's gonna be Jesse Ventura all over again, I guarantee it.