US Politics

Thank you for that feedback.

You asked me about Kennedy, which is understandable as I posted that he had been appointed.

That didn't mean I was looking to have a detailed discussion of US healthcare policy, or vaccination, as those are not my main areas of interest. I am interested in economics, and in US foreign policy as it affects all of us. I'm far more interested in what Kennedy has said on US militarism and on income distribution than what he's said on vaccines - even though his role is obviously focused on the latter. That someone who was overlooked by the Obama administration because he was seen as being too far to the left ends up in a Republican cabinet is very interesting for me.

Honestly putting RFK jr in charge of HHS is like putting one of those guys that crushes watermelons in a hydraulic press in his shed, in charge of the Large Hadron Collider.

Here's what he's been up to in his current position of 'executive responsibility'

https://apnews.com/article/how-rfk-jr-built-anti-vaccine-juggernaut-amid-covid-4997be1bcf591fe8b7f1f90d16c9321e

You seem to be someone that doesn't value expertise very much.

You don't seem to value precision and clarity.

Whatever he was doing before he was not running a government department: he hasn't had executive responsibility until now.

If you run a company or charity, do you not have executive responsibility?

This is the fun bit where I get to re-stock my list of my favourite Trumpkins.
Will someone knock Scaramucci off his number one spot? So far I reckon Don Jr. in a safe in his number two spot, but below that it's going to become lively. I'm excited about Tulsi Gabbard's chances of breaking it into the top five. The guy who headed EPA for a bit should probably go into a spot in the hall of fame, next to Bolton.

Executive means the government as opposed to the legislature, ie Congress.

Whatever actual responsibility Kennedy had in whatever he did before must have been trivial compared to being health secretary. He might have had a lot of influence, but it's very different when the buck stops at your desk.

Not sure about the logic there, there's a touch of truth but saying you can't judge someone on every action and choice they've made in their life up until now is a stretch

I'm not saying that. People are right to be concerned and he has to address those concerns if he wants to have a chance at being effective in the role.

As I said before, I was very surprised that he was offered the role, and that he accepted it. But given that has happened, what he says next will matter far more than anything he has said in the past, when he was not in government. When a health secretary says something it carries much more weight than when a random lawyer or protest group leader, even if he's from a famous family, says it.

I think it'll be the making of him.

Like when you make the disruptive skallywag a prefect and they start tucking their shirt in properly, straighten their collar and living up to the role.

I think he was overlooked because he exhibits very poor judgment, even if he does agree with me on some things. He's a nut who shouldn't be anywhere near government.

Fuck it, I'm going with this.

Why are people surprised by these Trump appointments? Did they think he was going to appoint OG Republicans or choices acceptable to the Democrats?

He made noises about moving away from the neocons like Hailey and pompeo towards more MAGA/isolatioist people but he's ended up mainly picking people with similar hawkish foreign policy views to the neocons he has kicked out.

I don't know. Like watching a horror movie, you know it's coming but you still jump out of your seat I suppose.

choices acceptable to the Democrats?

The Dems will make noises and split hairs but, big picture, he seems to have largely picked people who will continue Biden foreign policy.

Dunno if it's exactly surprised, more like when you watch a shock video and from the start you see the setup and think 'ok no they're not going to .... Ok they are ...oh shit that's horrifying!'

I'm a bit surprised by Hegseth and Gaetz, largely because they hadn't been trailed much, even at the crackpot end of the Spectrum. RFK Jr was a literal shoe-in, given the well publicized conversations with Trump during the campaign, which led to his withdrawal from the race and subsequent endorsement.

Can't say I expected any better though. Still waiting on Kash Patel as FBI director and something for Michael Flynn....

Here's a bit more RFK, in his own words....

https://www.meidasplus.com/p/viruses-are-our-friend-10-off-the?r=9qw74&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

I've subjected myself to some real horror in the last few days to understand what the more extreme of these people think, but I would rather not post about it on a public forum. It is getting that serious.

Trump's unconfirmable appointments are a win for him. He'll get a list of enemies in the senate and he'll try to get them booted out via the recall process. If he ends up with a decent list of rejected appointees he can say there's a crisis of a non-functioning White House and get the Supreme Court to scrap the confirmation process. He really does want the powers of a dictator. He's jealous of Putin and Xi.

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw he was nominated

Half the page of this thread is taken up with your idiocy and the replies to it. You're wrecking the thread. Please go away.

Senators can only be expelled by a 2/3rds vote (not happening) and there's no mechanism for a recall. The supreme court cannot scrap the confirmation process, as it's part of article 2 of the Constitution. The president does have powers to appoint officers when the Senate is in recess, so in theory, a simple majority of republican Senators could vote to recess and the President could appoint who he liked. That said, the supreme court ruled against Obama doing this back in 2014 when he tried the same for some relatively minor roles, so there's precedent that they'd have to overturn to change their minds this time. Not a dead cert, though certainly possible.

I think you're right that this is at least in part a fishing expedition for what he can do with the Senate.

Quite amazingly, there's not been a rejection of a cabinet appointee since 1989 and a very small number before that in total. There are many more recent withdrawals, which I think is probably going to be the case here, just as it was in his first administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Cabinet_of_the_United_States

Aha, you understand the system! Could he force an amendment of the constitution through congress? By 'force' I mean naming and shaming everyone opposing him, constant demos outside their house, death threats, investigation of their taxes, harrassment of their kids, petitions in their constituencies.

Ha - not sure about that! There's an extremely high bar to amend the constitution - 2/3s in the House and the Senate or a constitutional convention. It really doesn't happen very often, which I think is probably why organisations on the right, have concentrated on exerting control of the judiciary as much as they have. The idea being not to amend the constitution but to keep control of the interpretation thereof (originalists vs living constitutionalists.)

Say if he goes the recess appointment route and they rule 5-4 against, with Roberts and Kavanaugh or Coney-Barrett siding with the 3, he could in theory, appoint more judges until he got the decision he wanted.

Elie Mystal writes compellingly on this - there are constitutional restraints on removing justices, but few on adding them. The dems have been too timid to try it , but I imagine the Republicans might not. Similarly, a possible rescinding of the Filibuster (though Majority Leader elect, Thune, says he won't.)

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/reform-supreme-court/