Trump's Team

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    Who makes up his team moving forward? My choices:

    Attorney General - Trey Gowdy
    Sec of Defense - William McRaven
    Sec of State - not sure here...but I bet he picks Gingrich
    Surgeon General - Ben Carson
    FIrst SCOTUS. - Ted Cruz
    Chief of Staff - Kellyanne Conway
    Homeland Security - Rudy Guliani
  2. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    That would be a good line-up but no way does he nominate Cruz for SCOTUS.
  3. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    I think Newt will be Chief of Staff and Guliani is Secretary of State.

    Carson has better things to do then be Surgeon General...unless it comes with a mandate from Trump to elevate the prestige and importance of the role.

    McRaven as SECDEF is hilarious. No way that happens. Sessions will probably be SECDEF. Gen. Flynn will probably be National Security Advisor.

    You have to appoint the people who stood up and worked for you during the campaign - Guliani, Christie, Gingrich, etc. But expect a lot of women and diversity. Conway will probably be Senior Counselor.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2016
  4. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 1,000+ Posts

    I like that list as much as any I have seen, probably more.
  5. Musburger1

    Musburger1 1,000+ Posts

    Don't know about McRaven. He's a very capable commander, but philosophically appears to be aligned with the neocon concept of imperial policeman and interventionist. I think he was under consideration for a position under Hillary had she won.
  6. horninchicago

    horninchicago 2,500+ Posts

    I would add Jeff Sessions to the list and he probably name what position he wants and get it.
    Brad Austin likes this.
  7. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 500+ Posts

    Agreed about McRaven. I worked for him a short while and had a little interaction with him. That and some of his other comments lead me to believe he leans a little left. Certainly a very intelligent man and extremely competent commander, but I don't know that I want his politics in that role.
  8. theiioftx

    theiioftx 2,500+ Posts

    Interesting about McRaven. In most of the stories about him, he seems apolitical and I think we need more of that in the administration.
  9. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 500+ Posts

    It was in AFG and he was doing a little impromptu Q&A with the troops. He may have been playing the part of good soldier/follower but he was very complimentary of Obama and his foreign policy.

    Being a Naval officer, of course he would have been a seaman instead of a soldier...just have a hard time describing him that way. :)
  10. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    He is apolitical, he just has his personal views on military strategy and foreign policy (ones that I agree with btw).

    His jobs as JSOC, SOCOM, and Chancellor never required him to make foreign policy. His responsibility was to manage enterprises. Honestly, his apolitcalness is a testament to his professionalism and abilities. He stays in his lane, motivates and takes care of the people he's responsible for, and effectively executes his mission.

    While he's definitely a critic of isolationist foreign policy and a proponent of a muscular, active, and forward deployed posture, I don't believe that would compel him to have joined a Clinton cabinet. He seems pretty conservative otherwise. Him and Bob Gates seem to be on the same page. For a non-isolationist GOP admin...maybe, but he has a great job right now.

    Good sailor. And he refers to himself as an old sailor.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2016
  11. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    I sure hope this is CNN trying to paint Trump negatively but this cabinet is fairly abhorrent. Surely a few of the "insiders" can help extend the Trump network of potential cabinet members.
  12. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Some reporter on Fox just said maybe Sarah Palin might be in the cabinet. Dear God no.

    Maybe she could be Secretary of the Interior?
  13. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    I heard that and assumed it was some liberal media joke. Sarah Palin has proven over and over that she doesn't deserve a federal government role.
    Hollandtx, mchammer and Brad Austin like this.
  14. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    Which will definitely show what a revolutionary anti-establishment and anti-insider guy Trump is....
    Hollandtx and Seattle Husker like this.
  15. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Loyalty and friendship is a personal virtue valued by the people who elected him. Loyalty is a derivative of the most important part of a person's character...your Word. What kind of a leader doesn't take care of his people? Here's a universal fact, the worst leaders and people in the world are fickle. Fickleness is often a sign of a low character person who's principles are for sale.

    I heard Carson for Secretary of Education. I think that would be an inspired choice. Jindal for HHS was just talked about too.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2016
  16. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    When I look at Guiliani, Christie and Gingrich "loyalty" and "friendship" aren't the first characteristics that come to mind especially when talking about their character.
    Statalyzer likes this.
  17. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    They risked a lot supporting him and they worked hard for him. That what it means in this case.

    Spin comes from overthinking straightforward information.
    Horn6721 likes this.
  18. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    I get where you are coming from. Christie is tied directly to corruption which supposedly was a characteristic Trump supporters wanted to rid Washington of. I can't fathom the message a Trump-Gingrich-Guiliani triumverate message sends regarding family values and respect for females. Given the religiousness of Pence, he'd need to shower after just being around that group.

    Honestly, if I'm a female and that group is leading my country I'm embarrassed. Seriously, those 3 alone set back the perception of women's value decades.
    Hollandtx likes this.
  19. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    I have family and shipmates who don't share the same morals, what you refer to as "values," that I do. I'm still loyal to them and will take care of them and defend them. Standing by your principles, e.g. your word, family, principles (loyalty) when it's inconvenient...especially when it's inconvenient and hard (see sig) and unpopular and solicited for purchase - is the definition of character. It's not about morality.

    That's something Hillary never got.

    Last edited: Nov 10, 2016
  20. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    We've gone down the proverbial rabbit hole but that sounds like a lot of justification given that Trump chose to surround himself with those individuals. Those mental gymnastics could be used to justify Charles Manson as his Chief of Staff in the right situation.
  21. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Like I said Husker, it's not a rabbit hole. It's simple.

    The idea of Trump dumping these specific important and close teammates after a grueling campaign because it's not optically convenient is dishonorable.

    And your analogy is ridiculous. There is no mental gymnastics - Manson would not be legally eligible, any way qualified, or practically confirmable for any cabinet position.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2016
  22. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 5,000+ Posts

    I'd argue that the characteristics of running a campaign and those it takes to govern are different thus should be assessed differently. Starting your governing process with "Bridgegate" still front and center is akin to stepping up to the plate starting with an 0-1 count.

    With all this discussion, I don't think Trump has many friends in government (State or Fed) thus his options are likely less than most POTUS-elects.
    Statalyzer likes this.
  23. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 1,000+ Posts

    Said the boy that voted for Clinton!
    mb227 likes this.
  24. Hollandtx

    Hollandtx 250+ Posts

    Please, not Steve Bannon for Chief of Staff. That he is even on the table is starting on a very wrong foot.
    He can't really be thinking this, can he? (but I have read and seen it reported in many places, including Fox)
  25. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    If those are his operating principles, that's fine. But they are completely at odds with the idea that he's the guy to put an end to insider politics.
  26. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    The principle has already been vetted by the electorate. These guys were his very public senior advisors and lieutenants during his campaign to "drain the swamp."

    If surrounding himself by these advisors were "completely" (your words) at odds to his mission and platform, why did his supporters seeking change from insider politics vote for him?

    Maybe there's something you're missing...or maybe
    is just the sour grapes it sounds like.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2016
  27. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    People are suckers for the claim "I don't support the Washington insiders". See the past 8 years.

    And I don't think you know what sour grapes are.
  28. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    In my post - criticizing a potential cabinet your candidate could have made, but squandered away.

    The irony of your "I don't think you know," is that people making sour grapes comments have no idea the true nature of their comments and thoughts is, in fact, just jealous sour grapes - hence the idiom and not just jealously or "sore loser."
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2016
  29. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    So your fundamental thesis is that Trump voters are suckers.

    Sigh...I will say that your comment definitely confirms that we have not learned anything over the past 8 years.
    mb227 likes this.
  30. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Let's get real here. We've spent the last 8 years with highly incompetent cabinet members who were not chosen for their expertise in specific areas.

    Most were not selected for their high competency for specific roles, but instead were those who'd loyally bow to Obama and force through his radical agenda at all costs.

    One could pick the third best choice on Trump's rumored list and he/she would still be a better servant of the best interests of the American people than SOS Clinton & Kerry, and SJW AG's Holder and Lynch.

    And who in the hell do people think HRC would be filling her staff with? Co-conspirators (Abadein, Mills, etc), nutjob female Dem crusaders (Pelosi and/or Warren), and CF donors / Friends of Bill.

    I agree it's crucial Trump choose a staff on merit and not just based on loyalty.

    But people can slam Trump's rumored staff all they want and they'll still be more competent and in the corner of the American people than the last 8 years or the insanity we avoided by ending the Clinton tyranny.

Share This Page