When it comes to things like "senior advisor", "counselor", "strategist", I don't think it really matters who he appoints. The way I look at it is that these are the people he trusts to give him advice and thus, they are the people he would be looking to regardless of whether they had an official position or not. It is more transparent if they actually have a position, so I think it is a good thing. If he was putting them in positions to run agencies then I would feel differently.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Trumps Cabinet...Whom will he appoint??
- Thread starter SEIndSAM
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
When it comes to things like "senior advisor", "counselor", "strategist", I don't think it really matters who he appoints. The way I look at it is that these are the people he trusts to give him advice and thus, they are the people he would be looking to regardless of whether they had an official position or not. It is more transparent if they actually have a position, so I think it is a good thing. If he was putting them in positions to run agencies then I would feel differently.
I watched Henry VI, so it was on my mind.
I also don't think lawyers have shown themselves to be effective in the Obama administration. Obama, Jarrett & Holder. Yuck. When and if they made a decision, it was sub-optimized. But, I think that's the nature of legal training to some degree.
I also don't think lawyers have shown themselves to be effective in the Obama administration. Obama, Jarrett & Holder. Yuck. When and if they made a decision, it was sub-optimized. But, I think that's the nature of legal training to some degree.
Kirshner was vetted by one of Trump's most trusted advisors first. We all knew about Trumps family prior to the election, they are actually part of the reason he was elected. No reason to start listening to the losers now.
Hey, he hasn't made the scotus pick yet. It could be his sister.
We didn't get to see much of Kirshner during the campaign. But I have to agree his kids seemed to be pretty impressive. I liked that the oldest could carry on a conversation with gun enthusiasts.
For me, the issue isn't this appointment. Jared Kushner (I bungled his name earlier) is clearly a smart, well-educated, experienced businessman. (I have more of an issue with hiring the Breitbart guy for a similar role.)
Somewhere between hiring one family member and hiring all family members is a line where nepotism is a bad thing. Just wondering if INGO has a consensus on where that line is, or a range where it becomes problematic.
Somewhere between hiring one family member and hiring all family members is a line where nepotism is a bad thing. Just wondering if INGO has a consensus on where that line is, or a range where it becomes problematic.
I think Trump would be wise to go with the one standard that wouldn't/couldn't be second guessed. Zero tolerance. No hiring of family by POTUS or any member of cabinet/advisers
If you don't start that you don't have to argue about the rules or grey areas where the line is drawn
If you don't start that you don't have to argue about the rules or grey areas where the line is drawn
Perhaps an attempt to get him in a role where he can get sufficient clearance to keep acting as a meaningful adviser
So far, that's probably the closest to a whiff that I can see. (Dan Coats would be 2d, and there's still a chance on the unnamed SCOTUS pick.) In that context, Bannon is more likely to be the primary echo in the chamber; Kushner has the personal capital to present a contrary viewpoint. Trump can't fire him.
I'm also concerned, though, about how many "special counselor" roles Trump can make up. Sure, there are some BS titles in politics, but they are usually things like Deputy Chief of Staff, Assistant to the Congressional Liaison, Attorney General, etc.
I'm generally against zero tolerance type policies.
I mean, I totally understand that a policy like you describe is a great idea, perhaps even a goal.But at the same time, politics is tricky. Hard to know what agendas other people are pursuing sometimes. Having a family member in a key role, so you know your interests align (as much as possible) can really help.
Again, in a vacuum, I have no issue with Kushner. The media will do the "optics" thing, which is whatever. Giving him, or a family member like him, the official role that would give the appropriate access to information does make sense. Plus, I trust Ivanka's judgment more than Trump's sons.
Well, the buzz from the left is that Kushner is there to disguise Dad's medical problems that some might view as making him unfit for office. A male Nancy Reagan? Possibly.
Lots of people are watching....I don't know how you can disguise a health problem for long in the presidential role in the 21st century.
Lots of people are watching....I don't know how you can disguise a health problem for long in the presidential role in the 21st century.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
mom45Momerator
Members online
- ikky68
- rwilky78
- Joegrz308
- DoggyDaddy
- TC_Oneshot
- NyleRN
- Waterboy
- COOPADUP
- 2tonic
- mfd111
- Kirk Freeman
- Waldojr
- WebSnyper
- jgarcia87
- Brad69
- sharkey
- Old Bear
- drgnrobo
- edwea
- pewpewINpewpew
- straight-shooter
- snapping turtle
- mom45
- JimH
- VERT
- GLC3
- kwood
- rosejm
- TR1032
- littletommy
- typarker
- ChristianPatriot
- jcj54
- Drewfus
- XDragon117X
- OneBadV8
- jabean
- Jdr308
- fishbass62
- mike45
- cavemike
- fullauto 45
- NHT3
- BackFromDC
- blainepoe
- melensdad
- citizenkane
- Eagle21
- BAgun
- X3r0h0uR