Trump's cabinet

An interesting article by CNBC's Jake Novak, Interesting, Jake predicted Trumps victory back in June. Evidently, he didn't know about Nate Silver's system.

www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/trump-cabinet-pi...anger-democrats.html

Why Trump's cabinet picks are so galling to Democrats, and why he doesn't care

Some paragraphs from the article:

But in 2016, the Democrats might have a point in that Trump seems to be going out of his way to choose a number of cabinet members who raise liberal hackles as much as possible. He's tapped several appointees who are best known for their strong opposition to the agencies they're going to lead.


Even worse, the Democrats themselves eliminated almost every significant minority party filibuster tool when former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid initiated the so-called "nuclear option" in 2013. Since that move, individual senators have only been able to seize the floor for marathon speeches opposing nominees. But once those speeches end, the majority can now confirm nominees without needing the once traditional minimum 60 votes. All of this is adding to a combination of liberal despair and vehement anger. Boulderhawk note: Did it ever occur to the Democrats that the Republicans could one day be back in control of the Senate & White House; therefore eliminating an effective tool of the minority party?


He's also betting that the people who are the angriest about his picks are either career politicians or activists who will never support him and don't represent the bulk of the voting public anyway. In other words, Trump doesn't think the average American is scared or aggrieved about his cabinet picks. He's betting the people are only going to care about results.


Remember, Trump beat a bevvy of 16 ideologically conservative Republicans in a landslide GOP primary performance. Then he took down a leader of liberal ideological identity politics in the general election by beating Hillary Clinton in 30 out of 50 states. Losing the popular vote means nothing to Trump, and neither does the idea of using his precious cabinet picks to placate those whose political sensitivities are currently wounded.

"But once those speeches end, the majority can now confirm nominees without needing the once traditional minimum 60 votes. All of this is adding to a combination of liberal despair and vehement anger." Boulderhawk note: Did it ever occur to the Democrats that the Republicans could one day be back in control of the Senate & White House; therefore eliminating an effective tool of the minority party?
That's funny, Boulder. Did the supposed "most intelligent" progressive party overestimate their own self worth? I also thought it was great that the never-changing, unpopular Nancy Pelosi is minority leader once again. Did the progressives forget to progress? The people overwhelmingly elected change and she is NOT that! From a Republican standpoint--she was an excellent choice by the un-progressing progressives! I was worried they would pick the young, up and coming Democrat who may make some changes for the Dems.

The electorate "overwhelmingly voted for change" only in the Presidential election. Repubs controlled both the House and Senate before the election and they still do. There was very little change in the number of seats belonging to each party. Since you singled out Pelosi, maybe you were talking about leadership? Notice that McConnell and Ryan are still both the Republican leaders in the Senate and House, so there was no change there. "Unpopular Nancy Pelosi?" She's been returned to Congress time and time again by her constituents, so I'd say she must be popular with them. She's retained the Democratic leader in the House multiple times, so her colleagues must like her. So, it would appear that she's only unpopular with Repubs and, of course, you.

I keep hearing that people want change and that's why they supported the Creep.

Well, 64,223,058 "people" voted for Hillary Clinton in hopes she would continue and enhance her work on women's, children's, and family issues and rights. They voted for her dedication to maintain our good relations with our allies while working to improve relations with countries who might be or could become our enemies. This includes but a small portion of what we believe she could and would have done for America and Americans.

62,206,395 "people" voted for the Creep, declaring they wanted change. What change? Fewer regulations on companies who harm our ecology? Even more tax breaks for the wealthy? Fences at our borders? A society which accepts or excuses sexual assault as normal and protected from prosecution? Disdain for immigrants and those with disabilities? Cabinet members who are ideologically opposed to the duties of the job to which they've been entrusted? Pandering to our enemies for profit? Secrecy regarding elected officials' IRS statements? Are these the changes that are going to make America great again?

If you don't think people didn't vote overwhelmingly for change, you aren't paying attention. The change was to have a President and congress who could get some things done. Yes, Trump will have a pen and phone, but most of us like to follow the Constitution when making new laws and rulings.

You may also be a little bit confused about Nancy's unpopularity. It definitely is not just me and the Republicans that don't like her. But again, I am very happy she was re-elected as minority leader.

Unpopular Nancyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sorry-but-pelosis-fundraising-wont-save-the-democrats_us_583c78a8e4b000af95ef2627

“You can ask candidates like Nebraska Congressman Brad Ashford who just lost his seat thanks in part to anti-Pelosi ads like this. In district after winnable district, Nancy Pelosi has been tied like a rock around the neck of Democratic hopefuls and incumbents alike………But reviewing the facts and recent history, there is every reason to believe that Pelosi’s challenger, Youngstown-area Congressman Tim Ryan will be an even more effective fundraiser and without the devastating political baggage.