The sound of the starting gun is now an echo. Cabinet picks?

1. 87

   tsmogposted 4 weeks ago

   Newly elected president Trump is not waiting for the formality of counting the electoral votes and then officially be sworn in. The new government is being formulated like picking the right parts for a high performance Hemi engine to create 11,000+ horsepower to run in the quickest and fasted class of drag racing - Top Fuel, with the goal of setting both an ET and speed record with a sharp reaction time at the drop of the green light. It is not a place for beginners and Trump is a veteran now knowing the game of governing our nation. Of import is picking his cabinet members, the crew members, and those of responsibility. Who will they be? There are 15 posts to be filled.
   
   Here are the most talked-about candidates for top posts in Trump's administration by Fox News (Nov 7, 2024)
   President-elect Trump will begin his second White House term in January
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/here-m … nistration
   
   Getting to the nitty-gritty - Secretary of State. Who is being kicked around for the pick?
   
   Senator Marco Rubio, R-Florida
   Senator Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn
   Robert O'Brien, former Trump national security advisor
   Richard Grenell, former ambassador to Germany & former acting director of national intelligence under Trump.
   
   Read the article for the other Secretaries of the Cabinet and speculate your best choice with why?
   
   Another source for a compare/contrast . . .
   
   The Scramble Is On to Fill Out Trump’s Cabinet by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) (Nov 7, 2024)
   President-elect’s transition team sorts through spreadsheets as allies float names
   https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/ … 6573050106
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I’m still in celebration mode, and it’s hard to think beyond all the amazing names people are suggesting. Perhaps Trump will appoint a woman as Attorney General—maybe District Judge Aileen Cannon. He was very impressed with her during his last term. I’ll give more thought to this as things unfold. I truly believe we’ll see many women appointed to key positions. As for Kayleigh McEnany, I think she’ll be part of the team. She’s young, incredibly sharp, and quick on her feet. For Secretary of State, I’m hoping for Senator Marco Rubio, and I’d love to see Tulsi Gabbard as Secretary of Defense. Yikes, so many to consider.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         tsmogposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the reply and speculations. That is all we have, but I see it as wise to stay abreast of what possibilities our future government will be while thinking about the 5-W's and How Much. Since you brought up the Attorney General, I read an article this night by Mark Pulliam & T.J. Harker published at the heralded conservative website/blog of Thomas D. Klingenstein. He is Chairman of the Claremont Institute. The article/essay is titled . . .
         
         Should Trump Use DOJ Against His Enemies? (Oct 8, 2024)
         https://tomklingenstein.com/should-trum … s-enemies/
         
         It briefly shared the background then centered on two topics - Accountability and Reconciliation in that order. The opening three paragraphs are . . .
         
         "Over the last four years, regime lawyers and government officials have repeatedly ignored the constitution, stretched the meaning of federal and state statutes, and shredded legal norms. They have investigated, prosecuted, and persecuted their political opponents. They did this to suppress those who challenged their rule and to send a message to would-be challengers.
         
         With Donald Trump’s election and pending inauguration (assuming no shenanigans between now and then), unpleasant things will have to be done to hold these people to account. The regime’s aggressive lawlessness will require a response.
         
         The response must balance the immediate need for accountability with the ultimate need for reconciliation. On the one hand, we must hold responsible those whose criminal conduct subverted our constitutional order. On the other, we must prepare to reconcile with the millions of Americans who erred grievously in supporting the regime’s lawlessness — at least with those people who are humble enough to acknowledge their error."
         
         ********************
         
         Not an expert, certainly not close to yourself, I would think that what the essay centered on will be topics discussed during Trump's and/or staff interviews with the candidates, though unsure. Things like how big of a grind stone and how many RPM's will be used comes to mind.
         
         Along the lines of a possible pick the following article was pretty informative.
         
         Here are Trump’s potential picks to lead the Justice Department published at Colorado Politics (Nov 10, 2024)
         https://www.coloradopolitics.com/here-a … d8f78.html

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I read the article—hope I got the essence of it. Just keep in mind that this is my perspective, and right now, that's all I have. What Trump will do on any issue is still up in the air. My thoughts on it were shaped, at least in part, after listening to his speech the night he won. You know I speak the language of Trump... LOL. His speech was really poignant, and he spoke in his own way about bringing Americans together. He talked about how success would show everyone that he wants the best for all. This isn't a direct quote, but it's pretty close to what he said. So, I will go out on a limb and say he won't be going after those who tried to get his name off the ballot. He may pursue cases he feels he could win to point out what he called political corruption. I would hope if he did this the cases would be very strong where clear laws were broken.
            
            I think the author is taking a lot for granted when it comes to what Trump might actually do. It seems like they’re assuming he’ll be primarily focused on retribution, but we can't really know for sure what his thoughts are on that. Trump has made it clear that his priorities are fixing the border, reviving the economy, and opening up the oil markets again. He’s been pretty consistent with his promises, and I believe he’s excited about delivering on those, especially given the challenges we’ve faced under the current administration.
            
            While I understand the call for accountability, focusing too much on legal action against those who’ve opposed him could risk distracting from the bigger picture. Trump’s real strength lies in his ability to get things done that directly benefit the American people, and I think his focus would be more on that rather than pursuing revenge or punishment. At the end of the day, it’s about restoring the country and doing so through policies that improve lives, rather than bogging the administration down in endless legal battles.
            
            I can’t help but feel that there’s a better chance of uniting the country through progress rather than a long list of prosecutions. Of course, accountability is important, but it needs to be balanced with action on the issues that matter to people right now—things like jobs, energy, and security. That’s what will truly help heal the divide.
            
            I almost think his pick for AG will be a surprise. I’m hoping it’s someone who will really throw the media off, someone they’ll have to spend time trying to dissect into little pieces. The article mentioned how the media is already prepared, and they've been focused on digging into potential negatives. Whitaker is someone Trump gets along with and trusts, so he could be a strong contender. I hope to see a woman ---maybe Judge Aileen Cannon. But her appointment would be really ripped apart due to her handling the document case related to the FBI’s search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.

            replyreport
2. 87

   tsmogposted 4 weeks ago

   The most recent news from BBC (Oct 8, 2024)
   
   Who's in the frame to join Trump's new top team?
   https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx24gze60yzo
   
   Of importance to some may be candidates for Attorney General.
   
   "No personnel decision may be more critical to the trajectory of Trump's second term than his appointee to lead the Department of Justice.
   
   After uneven relationships with both Jeff Sessions and William Barr, the attorney generals during his first term, Trump is widely expected to pick a loyalist who will wield the agency's prosecutorial power to punish critics and opponents.
   
   Among the names being floated for the cabinet post are Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been both indicted and impeached like Trump; Matthew Whitaker, the man who took over for three months as acting attorney general after Sessions stepped down at Trump's request; Mike Davis, a right-wing activist who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and has issued bombastic threats against Trump critics and journalists; and Mark Paoletta, who served in Trump's budget office and argues there is no legal requirement for a president to stay out of justice department decisions."
   
   Will the Attorney General be a major player in Trump's strategy for 2025?
   
   Who is the best choice?
   
   Who is the worst choice?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?

   replyreport
3. 68

   abwilliamsposted 4 weeks ago

   I love the sound of a Hemi engine! Give me that roar any day over the silent E.V. that no one hears coming!
   I would love see Vivek Ramaswamy in the Trump  Administration, as Energy Secretary, or perhaps, the Justice
   Dept.
   Charlie Kirk, an amazing young man, and sharp as a tack, but where could he be best utilized?! Tulsi Gabbard, Veterans Affairs. If Kari Lake is defeated, she would make a great Press Secretary. Dr. Ben Carson, Surgeon General, or back to HUD Secretary.
   
   It will be exciting to watch it unfold.
   Either way, we'll have a Hemi engine vs. the silent E.V. of the past 4 years, which left a trail of destruction.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      tsmogposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I live about an hour and a half from Pomona Raceway. That means the Winternationals the first race of the NHRA drag racing season and the World Finals the last race of the season are a hop-skip-jump away. I use to purchase diecast cars, hike them to the races, get them signed, and sell them on Ebay along with signed Hero Cards for the drivers.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         abwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         I love an entrepreneurial spirit! That, and racing, are SO Americana!!

         replyreport
4. 58

   Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

   How about a Democrat in his cabinet? Or an Independent? You know foster some unity? When 50% of the country don't vote for you, wouldn't it be a positive gesture?  I mean if he cares about unity at all

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I think Trump has had enough of Democrats.   I wish I could make a wager that he won't appoint not one. Fact I think we will see a pink wave--- So many pink slips they could build a path out of DC.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         So much for unity. Although, you know what I would love to see Sharlee?  Whoever wins the presidency, must choose a vice president from the opposing party.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Not a bad idea, it could be helpful. But we both know unity isn't in the cards. The country is deeply divided, split by ideologies. These differences don’t just vanish like a cold. People as a rule will fight for what they believe. The loudest voices will be the majority.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

               re: Vice President from opposing party.
               
               Idaho has a Lt. Governor that does not like how the Governor is running the state.  Twice he has left the state temporarily on state business, twice she has immediately begun disassembling his work and policies.  As soon as she had the power, she used it to promote her own policies rather than those of the governor.
               
               Of course he, upon his return, immediately stopped her work and returned to his own policies.  How much was lost, in time, effort or resources, we will never know.
               
               That's what can happen with the two top people do not agree on what needs done.  It is intolerable and cannot be allowed.
               
               Not a good idea to have a vice in great opposition to the policies and direction of the boss.  Differing somewhat, yes - that is a good thing - but not total opposition.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yup... we saw what happened when Trump surrounded himself with 'establishment' sycophants last time (2016 - 2020)...
                  
                  From Fauci to Bolton... they were all lifetime 'establishment' shills... this time around he better stick with the people of 'change' that got him back there.
                  
                  Tulsi Gabbard
                  RFK
                  Vivek Ramaswamy
                  
                  They need to be in prominent roles in his Administration... people voted as MUCH for Musk, Gabbard, RFK... if Trump does not do this... and chooses 'DC lifers' again to surround himself with... he will lose ALL support... he won't make it 6 months without the entire country turning against him.
                  
                  Trump is going to take that team and make change... or he will face the wrath of the people who put him in office... who will be bringing the people who have TDS with them.

                  replyreport
5. 68

   abwilliamsposted 4 weeks ago

   There are plenty to choose from: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Manchin, Gloria Romero, Elon Musk, Vernon Jones, Jeff Van Drew......

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Many on this forum mention RFK Jr. quite often.  What is the appeal specifically?  He has advocated for removing fluoride in our nation's water supply.  His history of giving time to some of the wackiest conspiracy theories out there is long.  It's a good idea he should be included in a cabinet? Particularly in charge of health?

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         You have mentioned RFK Jr.'s fluoride position before. My impression is that it is a criticism, an example of his 'wackiness.'
         
         If that's wrong, my response is probably also wrong, but . . .
         
         I don't see the wackiness. After a brief look-around it appears there is a solid argument to eliminate it, and no argument—other than 'that we've always done it', for it.
         
         The recent discovery of harmful developmental brain effects seems a serious and documented concern.
         
         If the argument is as real and valid among scientists as it appears to be, why is it wacky to address it — as RFK Jr. is doing?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            But there is no valid evidence that suggests removing fluoride from water is something we should do. Not just that, many studies conclude that removing it entirely from public drinking water would cause more harm than good. 
            
            Kennedy has made claims that fluoride causes cancer and kidney disease but there is no scientifically valid evidence to support these claims.   Additionally he has claimed that it reduces IQ, again with no solid evidence.
            
            " in a post on X  RFK Jr. said one of his first acts as an official in a new Trump administration would be to “advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water.” He went on to list several false statements about the effects of fluoride and then linked to a video on a website founded by prominent anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist Del Bigtree."
            
            Trump's response?  "Well, I haven’t talked to him about it yet, but it sounds OK to me,”
            
            No.  I think that an issue with potential health costs should be informed and debated by doctors and scientists. 
            
            https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-heal … conspiracy

            replyreport
            1. 82

               GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               Well, you made me look. And you made me work. A half-dozen open tabs of links and sub-links, and two tired red eyes later, it was almost like old times. We'll see . . . (and don't forget that you asked for it)
               
               Here's where I came down:
               
               The benefits claimed by the pro-fluoridation folks are (it seems to this layman) legitimate. But for balance, there wasn't any new science on it until several new studies recently (semi-recently?) offered new information.
               
               Also, the pro camp's explanation that public levels are less than half of the danger threshold cited by the studies seems provably right. There may be 'possible' high-level scenarios, but not many probable ones.
               
               The 'cause-leading' article of the controversy passed peer review and was published in Nature. I only mention that because it lends credibility to the study's conclusions. (I think)
               
               I don't need to come down on a side. All I need is to see that it looks like a very legitimate discussion for health officials to have.
               
               Even if the legitimacy of the support for the conclusions is challenged, the simple fact of a challenge validates its legitimacy. Frivolous wacky ideas never reach the peer-review challenge level. They're sniffed at and dismissed.
               
               Remembering our starting point; "Was RFK Jr.'s fluoridation plan a wacky idea — with the contextual inference of 'like all his other wacky ideas . . .'
               
               Nope, I don't know which side is right, but it is not 'just another wacky idea.'
               
               But, even if you can't use this one as a club, there is a silver lining. I recall seeing headlines, clips, and blurbs about a lot of really wacky RFK Jr. ideas. (now this is for fun, not snark) Like dead bears over state lines, and chainsaws and whale heads, and . . . ;-)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What I would really like to see in terms of the way matters of health are handled this time around?  I don't want to hear from RFK Jr or Donald Trump on the matter.   After covid, I think that many of us would prefer to have our health decisions guided by credible research, not politicians.   I'm hoping Trump has learned some lessons from talking about injecting disinfectants and using light in the body... Let the experts speak and present the information.    Sure, it's worthy of a legitimate discussion.   But only what if the administration treats it as such .

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     abwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Oh good Lord, not sure about GA, but I often wonder, why bother!?

                     replyreport
            2. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               Pure clean, unadulterated water does not appeal to you?
               A chemical which could accidentally, (or accidentally on purpose) be added as an overdose amount is not frightening to you?
               It does cause damage. It is not natural. Why would we risk it?

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Fluoride exists in water naturally.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                     no. it is added.
                     
                     "Opponents of the practice argue that neither the benefits nor the risks have been studied adequately,
                     
                     and debate the conflict between what might be considered mass medication and individual liberties."
                     
                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

                     replyreport
         2. 87

            Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            European Union: Many European countries, including Germany, France, and the Netherlands, do not fluoridate their public water.  This subject needs its own thread. Lots of scientific research has come to the conclusion fluoride can cause many health problems. Including bone fractures, thyroid problems, and as you mentioned neurological effects.
            
            So much of what our FDA  tells us is safe in proper levels. Yet in other countries banned. Splitting my time between here and  Mexico  I can share they have stricter regulations regarding food supplements compared to the United States.   
            
            RFK will most likely be informing Americans about the problems not only with our water but also with what's being added to our food. In my view, if he provides solid scientific evidence, I'm on board.

            replyreport
6. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks ago

   "Typically a fluoridated compound is added to drinking water, a process that in the U.S. costs an average of about $1.32 per person-year. Defluoridation is needed when the naturally occurring fluoride level exceeds recommended limits. In 2011, the World Health Organization suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L (milligrams per litre), depending on climate, local environment, and other sources of fluoride.
   
   In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program found that water fluoridation levels above 1.5 mg/L are associated with lower IQ in children.
   
   In 2024, U.S. court rulings have raised concerns about the potential health risks of water fluoridation, including findings by the EPA and new risk assessments that suggest the benefits may be waning.
   
   Bottled water typically has unknown fluoride levels."
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

   replyreport
7. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks ago

   I wonder how Fluoride is removed when levels are too high.

   replyreport