Trump's disastrous cabinet

[lilpixieofterror]

The simple fact is that you don't have Trump's kind of success in business without knowing how to pick the right people for the job, and his transition team evaluated and interviewed dozens of candidates for Trump's cabinet.

That liberal morons like Jimmy and Dimbulb are having an aneurysm over some of his picks can only be a good thing.

True. Education has a place, but I don't place the importance on it that they do. I've known plenty of educated idiots.

[Cow Poke]

Ah lets see, what makes an expert? Someone educated, someone with great knowledge and experience in their particular field of study.

expert -
ex = has been
spurt = drip under pressure

[JonathanL]

expert -
ex = has been
spurt = drip under pressure

Has been known to drip under pressure?





A person who wets their pants when they get scared!

[Terraceth]

It was reported by the New York Times. In the course of the article they explicitly cite a named person they talked to about it.

Two problems. First, the person they cite (Michael McKenna) does not actually say what they claim at the start; they fluffed out his statements quite a bit. Let's compare them.
The article starts with:The quote that they then use as a cite for this:
One may notice that the claims of the article are "expanded" considerably from what Michael McKenna said, likely to try to make Rick Perry look worse. But apparently, Michael McKenna has said his statements were taken out of context to begin with. So the person they "explicitly cite" doesn't actually back up their claims.

Although I'm generally not that big on the National Review, they have a pretty good piece here pointing out the errors in the New York Times article.

[Darth Executor]

It was reported by the New York Times. In the course of the article they explicitly cite a named person they talked to about it.

Carlos Slim's blog = NYT. It's a propaganda mouthpiece of a Mexican billionaire.

The person they named was their alibi for the lie. The guy had no way of knowing what Perry did or did not know given that he left the transition team before Perry was given his position. The NYT then takes this guy's speculation (who again, has no more idea of what Perry knows than you do) and then frames it as absolute fact, because it's a garbage propaganda outlet and not a news source.

Your article is misleading.

No it isnt, you got caught with your pants down linking to a debunked lie (btw that perry video is not the only piece of evidence, just one of many). And there's no need for a department of energy to maintain nukes, it can just as easily be transferred to a different one. This is just one of many stupid arguments leftists make to prevent having the deep state you control be dismantled.

[Darth Executor]

And in the world's most blatant conflict of interest, Pruitt plans to continue the dozen or so open lawsuits he filed against the EPA as attorney general of Oklahoma, once he is on the other side of them as head of the EPA. So he'll be both the plaintiff and defendant.

Just a reminder that the EPA under Obama was spilling toxic waste out of mines as a scheme to increase their budget. Environmentalism is the only leftist platform I like and even there you idiots are a complete disaster mix of pure stupid and pure evil.

With Obama, he was so worried about accepting a nobel prize that he had lawyers do research to make sure that wasn't a conflict of interest to be receiving a benefit from a foreign entity as US president.

That's because it's unconstitutional for the president to receive gifts from foreigners, unlike the rest of the mix of fiction and spin you put on Trump's list.

[Starlight]

Two problems. First, the person they cite (Michael McKenna) does not actually say what they claim at the start; they fluffed out his statements quite a bit.

I think it's reasonable to assume that they had other sources beyond ones they quote directly. It would be rare and unprofessional for journalists to run a story based on only one source without confirming it for themselves with other sources not named in the piece. It is quite common for articles about something to cite no sources directly, but the implication always is that the journalists do indeed have sources for what they say, because that is their job.

This article happens to quote one named source directly, so I referred the doubters to that fact, but again I assume that the writers have other sources too because that is how journalism works.

Although I'm generally not that big on the National Review, they have a pretty good piece here pointing out the errors in the New York Times article.

They certainly raise some interesting points, though not definitive proof. I would be interested to see a response by the NYT on the subject.

It seems clear from Perry's own statement this week:

"after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination."

that he did not have good knowledge of what the DoE did until recently. Likewise as I previously discussed, the video of him being interviewed on the topic in 2014 shows his belief that the department should be eliminated was based on his belief that it primarily funded research into alternative energy sources, and he spoke over and ignored the host's attempt to correct him and tell him that it managed nuclear weapons. So it seems relatively clear that the NYT article is right to assert that until recently Perry didn't have good knowledge of what the DoE did.

The question thus becomes: at what point did Perry gain the knowledge about the department's function, before or after he accepted Trump's nomination to head it? His own statement gives the answer: "after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination." In context he is talking about the time he spent talking to Obama's DoE head Ernest Moniz, after he was nominated by Trump. So Perry's own claimed timeline is that Trump nominated him and he accepted, still wanting to abolish the DoE, and then after learning what it did by talking to Moniz, he now no longer wanted to abolish it. That suggests that the NYT article is entirely correct in all respects.

[Mountain Man]

It would be rare and unprofessional for journalists to run a story based on only one source without confirming it for themselves with other sources not named in the piece.

Are you really that unfamiliar with the New York Times? They have a long history of publishing fake news.

[Starlight]

The simple fact is that you don't have Trump's kind of success in business without knowing how to pick the right people for the job,

You're so gullible that you think Trump is successful at business. Dude, the guy is one of the worst businessmen in the world, and has managed to lose money on all sorts of things... Trump airlines, Trump casinos, Trump steaks, etc. His losses were so huge that they offset his profits for the next 15 years or so. He's only got money cos he inherited it from his daddy and then banks and businessmen around the world were stupid enough to lend him more, which he promptly lost, and is now massively in debt. The guy is a total charlatan and loser. That's why he can't release his tax returns.

But even if he did so, you morons would still defend him:

Not paying taxes is smart! Unless you're a democrat, in which case it's criminal!
Being deeply in debt to Russia is smart!
Not giving any money to charity is smart!
Not being nearly as rich as you say you are is smart!
Not being smart is smart!

You guys are such gullible losers that Trump has managed to sucker you into believing in him.

[JimL]

Are you really that unfamiliar with the New York Times? They have a long history of publishing fake news.

Yes, now you are free to just believe whatever Trump wants to feed you, because the MSM can never be trusted.

[Starlight]

Are you really that unfamiliar with the New York Times? They have a long history of publishing fake news.

I'm familiar with the fact that they've had an occasional scandal, but are otherwise generally a reputable source. I'm familiar with the fact that Breitbart publishes fake news on a daily basis, yet you swallow it whole, because you're that stupid.

[Starlight]

Yes, now you are free to just believe whatever Trump wants to feed you, because the MSM can never be trusted.

Yep:

[Mountain Man]

You're so gullible that you think Trump is successful at business. Dude, the guy is one of the worst businessmen in the world, and has managed to lose money on all sorts of things... Trump airlines, Trump casinos, Trump steaks, etc. His losses were so huge that they offset his profits for the next 15 years or so. He's only got money cos he inherited it from his daddy and then banks and businessmen around the world were stupid enough to lend him more, which he promptly lost, and is now massively in debt. The guy is a total charlatan and loser. That's why he can't release his tax returns.

But even if he did so, you morons would still defend him:

Not paying taxes is smart! Unless you're a democrat, in which case it's criminal!
Being deeply in debt to Russia is smart!
Not giving any money to charity is smart!
Not being nearly as rich as you say you are is smart!
Not being smart is smart!

You guys are such gullible losers that Trump has managed to sucker you into believing in him.

Trump has won at business more times than he's lost. He's started hundreds of companies, and it's expected that not all of them will succeed. Whatever ideas you have about his income and taxes is idle speculation based on a partial tax return that was illegally published.

[Mountain Man]

I'm familiar with the fact that they've had an occasional scandal, but are otherwise generally a reputable source. I'm familiar with the fact that Breitbart publishes fake news on a daily basis, yet you swallow it whole, because you're that stupid.

"Occasional scandal" ...

It constantly amazes how someone so ignorant can have such an undeserved air of confidence. The psychology behind it is fascinating.

[JimL]

"Occasional scandal" ...

It constantly amazes how someone so ignorant can have such an undeserved air of confidence. The psychology behind it is fascinating.

MM, would you please look in the mirror, what never ceases to amaze is the consistent and continuos irony of your posts.