White House WHITE interns

[Sparko]

Since most blacks and minorities are democrat, how many of them would even apply to work as a White House intern under Trump?

[carpedm9587]

Since most blacks and minorities are democrat, how many of them would even apply to work as a White House intern under Trump?

Already responded to.

[mikewhitney]

Then that is where we disagree. A constitutional amendment is needed only to reject an existing part of the constitution (e.g., to repeal the 2nd, for example), or if there is a desire to expand the constitution to cover something it is not clear about or does not cover. Creating something like the ACA is not prohibited by any part of the existing constitution (that I can see), so it is not something beyond the scope of what Congress and the Executive can do. It is not a "new power." It is simply a program wanted (or not wanted) by the people.

You are advocating a democracy which was opposed by the fore fathers, who fully distrusted giving power into the hands of government ... especially at the upper levels. We are guaranteed to have Republican forms of government within the states. From where did you get your education on the US Constitution?

Oh my...we definitely disagree on THAT one. Trump is the one that has been appointing into positions of power people from these very industries, largely to reverse the limits government has put on these industries. As a result, we have roll-backs of ecological regulations, clean car initiatives, and many other things - all in the name of "making business more profitable." When capitalism is unregulated, it has a long and ugly history of running roughshod over people so it can make money. Trump is returning us to all of that, and apparently enriching himself on the presidency at the same time (as best we can tell).

I would like to see Robert Schlesinger's (of usnews) emolument articles on the Obamas and Clintons. Then I will know if Robert is genuine in his concerns. So often the media groups only get interested in an issue when it is said to be happening with a Republican.

Trump is pretty high on my list. It is not about his power - I expect him to be gone in 2020.

It might have been okay to have another person as president if only there had been someone that had sufficient qualities to compete against Trump.

[carpedm9587]

You are advocating a democracy which was opposed by the fore fathers, who fully distrusted giving power into the hands of government ... especially at the upper levels. We are guaranteed to have Republican forms of government within the states. From where did you get your education on the US Constitution?

No, I'm actually not. I thoroughly appreciate the balance required between states and the federal government, and appreciate the fact that there was an enormous shift in that around the time of the Civil War. Indeed, it is my understanding that this is pretty much when "These United States" (plural) became "The United States" (singular). In these United States, power remains primarily in the hands of the people, because we elect the government that represents us. Take the ACA for example. Many companies in this country have seen the benefit of self-ensuring. When they get to a sufficient size, they buy a stop-loss policy and begin paying medical expenses out of their own coffers. It turns out to be FAR less expensive. Socializing healthcare is simply taking that model to its extreme. And since the government IS us and works FOR us, making it the coordinator of the world's largest "self-insurance" scheme makes perfect sense to me. It leverages all of the power of "we the people" to drive costs and gain control over our own healthcare. Right now, that control rests in the hands of insurance companies I cannot control/influence, who are out to make a buck. At least with a government-run program, I can influence things to some degree with my vote.

I would like to see Robert Schlesinger's (of usnews) emolument articles on the Obamas and Clintons. Then I will know if Robert is genuine in his concerns. So often the media groups only get interested in an issue when it is said to be happening with a Republican.

I'm sorry, Mike, but I just do not share this brand of paranoia. My experience of news agencies is that they are by-and-large mostly interested in eyeballs and advertisers. Since the Obamas and Clintons publicized their financials and tax returns, I have to believe any violations of the emoluments clause would long since have been dug out by the far right and sprayed across the media landscape. If the MSM had found it first, it would have secured them eyeballs and it would have been published. The media spent tons of ink on the infamous "blue dress" and all of the rest of the Clinton scandal, because it got eyeballs. Same for Nixon. As for Trump - I find it a bit disingenuous on his part to play the media like he does, and then complain that the media is reporting on what he's doing.

It might have been okay to have another person as president if only there had been someone that had sufficient qualities to compete against Trump.

Personally, I don't think Trump had any (good) qualities to compete with. He's repugnant as a person. He's a racist. He objectifies women. His moral fiber is about as strong as tissue paper. He's a bully. He had zero political experience (name me another job where a good qualification is "no experience"). He lies and defends it as the right thing to do. The list goes on....

He had two things going for him: 1) he plays the media like a fiddle, and 2) he knows how to read the mood of an angry populace and play to it. That does not make him a leader. A leader LEADs people out of where they are to whether they could/should be - they do what Bush did in the early days of 9/11 - when he counseled the nation not to go down the road of the way the Japanese were treated in WWII, and treat the Muslims in this country as enemies. Instead, Trump played on those fears and maximized them for his own ends.

I do not despise Trump for his policy positions. I recognize the parties will shift in their distribution of power, and no one party should always get things "there way." A little balance is a good thing. I don't agree with many of his policy positions, but that is a reason for voting against him, not despising him. I didn't despise Bush (either one) or Reagan. I despise Trump for what he is doing to our national level of trust, for his lack of almost any positive personal traits, and for what he is doing to our country on the international stage. I don't know who will be next - and I ultimately don't care what party they belong to. They almost HAVE to be better than Trump.

[mikewhitney]

No, I'm actually not. I thoroughly appreciate the balance required between states and the federal government, and appreciate the fact that there was an enormous shift in that around the time of the Civil War. Indeed, it is my understanding that this is pretty much when "These United States" (plural) became "The United States" (singular). In these United States, power remains primarily in the hands of the people, because we elect the government that represents us. Take the ACA for example. Many companies in this country have seen the benefit of self-ensuring. When they get to a sufficient size, they buy a stop-loss policy and begin paying medical expenses out of their own coffers. It turns out to be FAR less expensive. Socializing healthcare is simply taking that model to its extreme. And since the government IS us and works FOR us, making it the coordinator of the world's largest "self-insurance" scheme makes perfect sense to me. It leverages all of the power of "we the people" to drive costs and gain control over our own healthcare. Right now, that control rests in the hands of insurance companies I cannot control/influence, who are out to make a buck. At least with a government-run program, I can influence things to some degree with my vote.

Again you make claim to agreeing with the Constitution but you describe America in terms of a democracy.
When a power grab of medicine is done by the US Government, you mistakenly ascribe this to democracy. Most people were against centralized medicine based on what I remember.

I'm sorry, Mike, but I just do not share this brand of paranoia. My experience of news agencies is that they are by-and-large mostly interested in eyeballs and advertisers. Since the Obamas and Clintons publicized their financials and tax returns, I have to believe any violations of the emoluments clause would long since have been dug out by the far right and sprayed across the media landscape. If the MSM had found it first, it would have secured them eyeballs and it would have been published. The media spent tons of ink on the infamous "blue dress" and all of the rest of the Clinton scandal, because it got eyeballs. Same for Nixon. As for Trump - I find it a bit disingenuous on his part to play the media like he does, and then complain that the media is reporting on what he's doing.

The news media covered up Clinton's behavior until they had to publish this news. It was the drudgereport that forced the media's hands in this.

Personally, I don't think Trump had any (good) qualities to compete with. He's repugnant as a person. He's a racist. He objectifies women. His moral fiber is about as strong as tissue paper. He's a bully. He had zero political experience (name me another job where a good qualification is "no experience"). He lies and defends it as the right thing to do. The list goes on....

Oh. Now you have to go to insults by making him sound like another Clinton.

I don't know who will be next - and I ultimately don't care what party they belong to. They almost HAVE to be better than Trump.

It will be a tough thing to do to find a better president for the age than Trump.

[rogue06]

Because it is sooo much better to have a group of people with different shades of skin who all share the same perspective (the liberal idea of "diversity").

[carpedm9587]

Again you make claim to agreeing with the Constitution but you describe America in terms of a democracy. When a power grab of medicine is done by the US Government, you mistakenly ascribe this to democracy. Most people were against centralized medicine based on what I remember.

The United States is not a direct democracy - it is a democracy by representation, which is also a valid definition of "democracy." We also meet the valid definition of "republic." So how it works is pretty simple: if the government enacts a policy or program the people do not want and feel is a "power grab," then representatives usually step forward and say "elect me - I'll reverse that policy." If the majority of people want it reversed, then they will tend to elect more people who will reverse it, and the "power grab" will end. Of course, that process is somewhat compromised by the presence of big money in politics, and by the significant gerrymandering done by both parties. If we were to reverse the gerrymandering and adopt policies to prevent/minimize it in the future, if we were to reverse "citizens united" and cease equating "money" with "speech," and if we placed term limits on our representatives, I suspect most of these issues would go away. That requires us to band together to elect people who will enact these things.

The news media covered up Clinton's behavior until they had to publish this news. It was the drudgereport that forced the media's hands in this.

That is not the way I remember it, but I frankly am too busy/tired/uninterested to go back and research it. It's not that important to me. Sometimes the story breaks from the right, sometimes from the left. Assuming the left knew about it and "sat on it" until it broke from the right is counter intuitive. The media wants eyeballs. It serves no purpose to give another media outlet "the scoop."

Oh. Now you have to go to insults by making him sound like another Clinton.

I don't share your view of Clinton. She was a bad candidate, no question about it. But I did not see her having anywhere near the character flaws of Trump. And my intention was not to "be insulting." However, Trump is who he is. His character flaws are pretty obvious and well documented.

It will be a tough thing to do to find a better president for the age than Trump.

My view is quite the opposite. I suspect Trump will go down as the worst president, possibly in the history of this country. I have never uttered the words "not my president," until this man was elected. But I will not sully the title of "president" by putting "Trump" after it. He degrades/disrespects the office and I will not grant him the honorific as a title. My small rebellion (in addition to joining all of those who want to see him gone).

[mikewhitney]

The United States is not a direct democracy - it is a democracy by representation, which is also a valid definition of "democracy." We also meet the valid definition of "republic." So how it works is pretty simple: if the government enacts a policy or program the people do not want and feel is a "power grab," then representatives usually step forward and say "elect me - I'll reverse that policy." If the majority of people want it reversed, then they will tend to elect more people who will reverse it, and the "power grab" will end. Of course, that process is somewhat compromised by the presence of big money in politics, and by the significant gerrymandering done by both parties. If we were to reverse the gerrymandering and adopt policies to prevent/minimize it in the future, if we were to reverse "citizens united" and cease equating "money" with "speech," and if we placed term limits on our representatives, I suspect most of these issues would go away. That requires us to band together to elect people who will enact these things.
.

We started with no popular selection of Congress members. It was solely up to the state governments to decide who and how they placed people into office. It was not intended that the people in general would be involved in determining what happens at the fed level. If memory serves, this design was to avoid just popular votes by people ignorant of the integrity and qualifications of candidates.

[One Bad Pig]

You seem to have an equal tendency to mine of mind reading.

My powers seem confirmed by others though who also think you are saying the same things as I do.

We're an insignificant group which is extremely right-wing and think in lock-step, however, so we can be safely brushed aside.

[One Bad Pig]

We started with no popular selection of Congress members. It was solely up to the state governments to decide who and how they placed people into office. It was not intended that the people in general would be involved in determining what happens at the fed level. If memory serves, this design was to avoid just popular votes by people ignorant of the integrity and qualifications of candidates.

I don't recall the state governments having a hand in choosing members of the House of Representatives. The state legislatures (part of, but not the whole of, state governments) chose senators. IIRC this was intended to balance popular representation and state interests.

[rogue06]

I don't recall the state governments having a hand in choosing members of the House of Representatives. The state legislatures (part of, but not the whole of, state governments) chose senators. IIRC this was intended to balance popular representation and state interests.

Drat. I find myself agreeing with a singular naughty swine here.

I better go shower.

[Bill the Cat]

We are actually not there yet. Skin color still DOES matter, and to ignore that perpetuates the problem.

No it doesn't. And it's racist to say it does.

I am the father of two African American boys. This has been a source of regular tension in our home between my wife and I. Her uncle bought the boys a subscription to "Black Enterprise." My response was to note I did not want that magazine in my house. When asked why, I asked them how everyone in the house would feel if the title were "white enterprise" and every cover had a picture of white people. When Obama was first elected, my boys and my wife were dancing in the living room. I wasn't. When my 9-year old asked me why I wasn't dancing with them, my response was "I'm going to wait until the day comes that a black person is elected, and nobody notices." I hate affirmative action because it is a racial solution to a racial problem - picking people by skin color and ethnicity to reverse a history of picking people by skin color and ethnicity just reverses the problem, it does not solve it.

Bingo!

But that is not the situation with the cabinet. I am not talking about "giving opportunity" or "making it fair." I am talking about the hard reality that growing up and living in America is a different experience for women than for men. It is a different experience for a black person than a white one. It is a different experience for a hispanic than an Asian person. A cabinet that will be leading agencies that serve these people, and will be advising the president as the highest council in the land, should represent that diversity as long as it exists. When the life of a black person and a white person in America is not different, the races of the cabinet members will not matter. When the experiences of a woman and a man in America are not different, the gender of the cabinet members will not matter.

And I don't think the experiences are different except in the eye of the beholder. There are some idiots who still act like color or gender is an issue to divide, but thankfully they are a dying breed.

Until those things are true, however, simply saying "race/gender/ethnicity" don't matter and turning a blind eye to a council so blatantly skewed simply perpetuates the problem. It ensures that the advise given will be predominantly from one perspective: the life of a wealthy, white, male American citizen.

When one is treated by the content of their character, then the perspective is the same. By further perpetuating the color of their skin, we can't see past it to the content of a person's character. when we call a white male's perspective a white male's perspective, we continue to perpetuate the divide.

[Cerebrum123]

I presume you're referring to the "doing a Sparko" part of the post? Sparko, there is a long history of you telling me what I think and what my intentions are. I've pointed it out several times, and you continually insist you know better. Why not call it what it is? However, if you find it objectionable, I will stop, and I apologize.

And you cannot use "pulling a Carp" because that has already been reserved (by you and others) for my tendency to say "last word is yours" and then add another post...

Actually that one is a "carp out". We can have more than one term inspired by a single poster.

[Sparko]

We're an insignificant group which is extremely right-wing and think in lock-step, however, so we can be safely brushed aside.

I knew you would say that and I agree with you, brother rightwinger.

[Sparko]

so Carp out = saying you are giving someone the last word then you post again
Pulling a Carp = being passive-aggressive and then dodging responsibility for it
and I propose: Carptionary = Making up your own definitions.