White House WHITE interns

[Mountain Man]

Not in the least. There was no such implication in my post or my intent. You are engaging in strawmen, MM.



And now you are "doing a Sparko" and trying to tell me what I think and care about. So again, strawmen. Not to mention that, beyond the sentence, "this is no surprise," I don't believe any of my other posts had anything to do with the interns.

I'm not guessing what you think or care about because you've told us. You look at a group of white people and accuse them of lacking "diversity" because you care nothing about genuine diversity and fixate on skin color like a bigot, as if that's a person's most important quality.

[Terraceth]

The "I hate government" movement has done enormous harm. Now they have successfully elected one of their own to the highest office in the land, and he has done more to undermine our system of government in one year than any other human being I can think of.

Well, either you're not thinking very hard, or you're living in the year 1860. Which is it?

[Teallaura]

Charted out? Teal, we have a 20-person cabinet (15 appointed, the VP, and 4 ex-officio) to begin with. So we're not talking about a huge sample set. When 85% of that is white/male compared to 60% for Bush and 55% for Obama the difference is, IMO, substantial. When 90% is white, compared to 80% for Bush and 75% for Obama, the distinction is significant. When 100% is Republican vs. 90% for Bush and 85% (Democratic) for Obama, the distinction is significant. It also sends a fairly clear and broad message to the nation as a whole. There are few (if any) voices of opposition surrounding this president - something most (all?) previous residents have found important.

It tells me a great deal about this president.

When the pop is that small, you are drawing invalid conclusions. There's a lot more to selecting a cabinet member than seeing how much melanin is in his skin. That Bush went out of his way to select for a racial trait speaks to his political environment - IF that's what he did. It doesn't make Trump a racist. IF this is racially only (really unlikely) then we can make a good case for Bush and Obama having been race placators - or we can be more generous to the three of them and admit that each had his own political agenda.

Also, if Trump hates black people, why hire any at all? he doesn't strike me as the sort to suffer fools - or undesired appointees - gladly.


Trump wasn't my any choice for a candidate - but this obsession with finding fault with him is just weird.

[Teallaura]

I'm curious to know what "power grab" you think has occurred, and where the government's powers have been increased in an unconstitutional fashion?

There are multiple studies showing this trend especially with the Exec and the Court over the last sixty years. There are alarming trends with executive orders and none seem particularly more one party than the other. that's to be expected - once the door's open, both the horse and the cow can get out of the barn.

[rogue06]

There are multiple studies showing this trend especially with the Exec and the Court over the last sixty years. There are alarming trends with executive orders and none seem particularly more one party than the other. that's to be expected - once the door's open, both the horse and the cow can get out of the barn.

Is it a power grab or has Congress been a willing participant/accomplice?

[carpedm9587]

People can but this is through the amendment process if we wish to grant a new task or power to the US Government. Or, the people work within their states or they make an organization of cooperation which is voluntary for people to join.

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.

I agree about the problem of wealthy people and corporations exerting too much influence on government ... and government giving favors back to those corporations. This is one of the problems of having giving government all this power. For now the first task seems to be about reducing the excess groups unneeded in the federal government. It should be noted that these corporations haven't elected their own into the presidency-- the problem is they have elected their own into Congress and the FDA and the defense groups, etc. If we have any hope of fixing government, it is through the outsider, Trump.

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).

Well. Freedom comes at a great price, proper education, and high viligance.

He's the least thing to worry about right now. The high-wealth groups' pressures on Congress to disable Trump's influence already constrains him. Even the Republicans in Congress have been acting against him. I don't know how any common person in America can be afraid that Trump has too much power or will use it to any disadvantage against us. Ha ha, in a parallel cleanup, we have already seen Hollywood cleaning itself up ... at least of some of the worst sexual offenders. (I don't want their actions to become too much of a witch hunt, but it appears that many people, especially women, have been messed up by the standard Hollywood practices.)

Trump is pretty high on my list. It is not about his power - I expect him to be gone in 2020 (though I have to admit that there are several ways he can reverse that, starting with pressuring the DOJ to approve the Sinclair/Tribune merger. As for the "Hollywood clean-up," I am glad to see that happening, but it's not just Hollywood - it's the halls of our legislatures, executive offices, and corporations as well. The #MeToo movement, which no longer dominates the news cycle, swept through most of the country, as it should have. It's 2018, for pity's sake - we should be well past all of that horsehockey.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not guessing what you think or care about because you've told us. You look at a group of white people and accuse them of lacking "diversity" because you care nothing about genuine diversity and fixate on skin color like a bigot, as if that's a person's most important quality.

No - I did not "tell you." If you believe so, feel free to point out the post. And no, I did not look at a picture of white people and accuse them of "lacking diversity." I looked at the history of cabinets, and the players involved, and noted a lack of diversity in Trump's cabinet. My specific focus is gender, ethnic, and racial diversity, for the reasons I cited. I did not say they lacked diversity in other ways, but you also have not said exactly how they ARE diverse (in other ways).

[carpedm9587]

When the pop is that small, you are drawing invalid conclusions. There's a lot more to selecting a cabinet member than seeing how much melanin is in his skin. That Bush went out of his way to select for a racial trait speaks to his political environment - IF that's what he did. It doesn't make Trump a racist. IF this is racially only (really unlikely) then we can make a good case for Bush and Obama having been race placators - or we can be more generous to the three of them and admit that each had his own political agenda.

Trumps racism is well documented and traces back decades. I do not need the cabinet to "prove it." The cabinet merely is another small data point in a long history. And it does not make someone a "race placator" to want representation on the highest council in the land from across the racial, ethnic, and gender divide. If I were choosing a cabinet, I would strive to make its constitution as aligned as I could with the distribution of the general population, seeking the best people qualified within those parameters. I would do that NOT to placate races, but to get input from people who have a greater likelihood of sharing the experience of "growing up in america" as white, black, asian, female, male, etc. That perspective cannot come from a council that shows no racial/ethnic/gender diversity. IMO, all presidents have fallen short of this ideal - but Trump is most obviously extreme in his distancing himself from any need to do so.

Also, if Trump hates black people, why hire any at all? he doesn't strike me as the sort to suffer fools - or undesired appointees - gladly.

If I had to guess - it's because having at least one on his cabinet gives him a tool to do what you are doing - deny he is a racist.

Trump wasn't my any choice for a candidate - but this obsession with finding fault with him is just weird.

I don't look for fault, Teal - it is simply evident to me each and every day.

[carpedm9587]

There are multiple studies showing this trend especially with the Exec and the Court over the last sixty years. There are alarming trends with executive orders and none seem particularly more one party than the other. that's to be expected - once the door's open, both the horse and the cow can get out of the barn.

I do not dispute that there has been a significant shift of power towards the Executive branch. That is well document. But that is a shift of power within government, with the legislature more and more ceding power to the Executive (which is a dangerous thing, frankly). But I believe Mike was talking about the federal government as a whole grabbing more and more power, presumably form the states and the people.

[Mountain Man]

, I did not look at a picture of white people and accuse them of "lacking diversity." I looked at the history of cabinets, and the players involved, and noted a lack of diversity in Trump's cabinet.

Exactly! You looked at a picture of Trump's cabinet, noticed they were predominantly white males, and concluded they were not "diverse" because you didn't see enough people with the "right" skin color.

Deny it all you want, but you're a textbook bigot who focuses on race above all else and doesn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about genuine diversity.

I work with a number of middle aged, middle class white males, and we could not be more diverse. Ask any ten of us for an opinion about something, and you'll get ten different answers. This idea that whites walk in lockstep with each other is a racist lie.

[MaxVel]

If I had to guess - it's because having at least one on his cabinet gives him a tool to do what you are doing - deny he is a racist.

Doesn't that strike you as you having it both ways?

>>Trump's a racist - he only hires white people

** But he has a black person in his cabinet

>> He's only hiring that person so he can deny he's a racist.

[Mountain Man]

Doesn't that strike you as you having it both ways?

>>Trump's a racist - he only hires white people

** But he has a black person in his cabinet

>> He's only hiring that person so he can deny he's a racist.

Trump could have appointed all blacks to his cabinet, and people would still accuse him of only doing it so people won't call him racist.

Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

[MaxVel]

Trump could have appointed all blacks to his cabinet, and people would still accuse him of only doing it so people won't call him racist.

Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

Yeah, looks like that.

[Roy]

I work with a number of middle aged, middle class white males, and we could not be more diverse.

[Sparko]

Not in the least. There was no such implication in my post or my intent. You are engaging in strawmen, MM.



And now you are "doing a Sparko" and trying to tell me what I think and care about. So again, strawmen. Not to mention that, beyond the sentence, "this is no surprise," I don't believe any of my other posts had anything to do with the interns.

For someone who likes to pretend to be civil and be against insults and such you are surprisingly good at it, in a passive aggressive way. I think I will call that "pulling a Carp"