She donated millions to Trump's foundation. Basically bribed Trump into giving her a government position.
What sort of credentials would you like to see in the head of the Small Business Administration? Apparently not someone who has been a highly successful entrepreneur and who us an excellent promoter and marketer. So leaving those characteristics out, what are the traits that you would recommend?
On the surface, she looks like a fine candidate to me, if not for that $5M donation to Trump foundation. Appearance of buying political power.
Trump trying to get some legitimacy to rub off on his cabinet selections. Trying to get some of that Obama shine: http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-he-has-consulted-with-obama-on-cabinet-picks McMahon is gonna school a lot working class whites suffering from economic anxiety what it really means to have your wages stagnated and be exploited through the use of loopholes in labor and industry regulations. Silicon Valley types have been yapping a lot about a gig economy. Well, they might just get it. Not in how they envisioned it. But the WWE has a history of using independent contractors that I am sure will inform how the SBA advises its clients or measure client qualifications. People of color already know whats up. Personnel is policy and whatnot. Trump's campaign really takes to heart the concept of accusing your opponents of everything you do and/or plan to do. This cabinet... Seriously can't make this stuff up.
Continuing the theme... wolves... henhouse... http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...epa-foe-to-lead-agency-may-spark-senate-fight
That's a dumb theory. They are extremely close friends. The mcmahons and the trumps have worked closely together for more than two decades. It was a no brainer that she was going to be involved in someway in his admin.
AGW alarmism is the de facto religion of the left right now. Scott Pruitt is in these people's view one of the most aggressive heretics and blasphemers of their religion alive, now appointed to head the federal agency that promotes and defends it. Expect the AGW extremists in the Senate to be all but foaming at the mouth at this guy's hearings. It is for them akin to Antiochus Epiphanes violation of the Jewish Temple by sacrificing swine there in 168 BC. The Jews revolted in response and the leftists are virtually certain to respond in an unusually animate manner here, even for them. It is hard to imagine a move that would agitate the left more than this is likely to. By comparison, Jeff Sessions nomination should be a good bit smoother and easier. By the way, here is a good article from the Hill that provides some pretty good background on Scott Pruitt. However, at the end of the day, there is not much the liberals can do but protest, as they discarded the filibuster for presidential appointments under the leadership of Harry Reid a few years ago. This would have provided them the ability to block this pick. But not anymore. Unless the Democrats can get three Republicans to switch sides on this vote, with no defections of their own (such as Joe Manchin D-WV), Pruitt will be the new head of the EPA.
I will give Trump credit if he doesn't pull a Bush and trample on states rights, but I highly doubt it. California's economy is too large for manufacturers to custom make without facing large financial costs, which translates to them b****ing and bribing at the federal level **** Sessions btw. But hey, at least he Seems Competent and Looks the Role. Building upon this stark unalienable truth, I can understand liberals being angry, but why are conservatives still angry and fearful of "liberal intervention"? Sincere question. The mantle of responsibility rests solely upon a party that claimed to fight the good fight by blaming others. For at least two years, there is no fight. It's like we've built each other up to be some boogeyman who preys upon and destroys your fun/anything worth living, or some anarchist caveman oblivious to rich corporate interests or beholden to anachronistic values. Neither are true and we're more alike than we care to admit.
You can't avoid the appearance of buying political power when large sum of money is involved. It's not a theory, it's an appearance based on $ involved. An appearance is much weaker than a theory. But I did look up and the 5M contribution to Trump's foundation was done in 07-09, way before Trump campaign, so based on that, the appearance shouldn't be there. However, she did contribute 6M to a super PAC for Trump's Presidential campaign. If Trump knew about that contribution, the appearance is there. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...476605082504&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.5f8bef4d79c6
Oh boy. Please tell me you bashed obama for appointing people who supported him during the campaign lol
I'm not bashing Trump. You are reading too much into it. In fact, I thought the nominee was fine, on the surface. I don't know anything about the lady. From my POV of very low expectation for Trump, if it's not someone with no experience or have extreme views, it's a thumb up. I don't think I ever made any comment on Obama related to his appointees. If he appointed someone that contributed a large sum of $, the appearance of buying political power is there.
Someone who has lots of experiences funding and working to help small businesses get funding. You know, someone with experience in this area.
It's fine if Trump dismantles the EPA - I live in a state/region where environmental regulations are tougher than federal. So this will really hurt people who live in places like Texas or Louisiana who voted for him anyway. My main concern with his appointments are in the intelligence arena. We can't afford for him to put a retired military general in charge of something like the NSA and CIA - those agencies should have a head that comes from one of their ranks and is highly respected. Not a hack that is causing our top talent thinking of fleeing to the private sector and leaving us more vulnerable to attack.
For real? I guess we should put an Amish person in charge of Health and Human Services then, or maybe Transportation. Let's find people who don't believe in certain topics and have them lead those topics. Perhaps a flat earther as chief science advisor. "I'll appoint the best people. The best!"
The problem is that the Obama regime has worked in a thoroughly lawless manner in Department after Department, and in Agency after Agency, not least of which is the EPA. The core challenge at this point is to correct the lawless actions and regulatory overreach of these agencies. For that, you need someone expert in the law and its practical effects, and with consideration for the financial and other resources that are required to achieve these objectives, which in some cases under the Obama regime have been much more motivated by politics and ideology than by they have been by "science," as you have suggested. It is the EPA itself that needs to be cleaned up in this instance. However, the mess is not a chemical spill or an inappropriate emission of gas, it is a cleanup of administrative offenses and lawless bureaucratic excess. A scientist is not what is needed to oversee a project of this sort.
Dictator Obama and his lawlessness. Because of that now we have... Constitutional Trump and his lawfulness.
Doesn't hurt that the WWE polls really well with Trump's voter base. I don't have much of a problem with Trump's EPA choice, if you're starting with the understanding that his goal is render environmental protection completely ineffectual. That's the problem, not the personnel he picks to execute on it. He wasn't going to pick Al Gore or something. However, lawlessness in the EPA is an allegation that makes no sense to me. Do you know a number of the big GHG rules that came from Obama's EPA, including the Clean Power Plan were mandated by court order? People sued and won and the EPA was required to write rules to regulate CO2. This was not simply Obama using executive power to install the green policies he wanted. They went through a big legal process first in the courts, then in drafting rules and the comment period, and final rules. Now they're going through the court process again with the lawsuits that resulted from the final rules. Next, Trump's EPA will probably reopen the CPP, make draft rules, go through a comment period, make final rules, and then go through all the litigation again to resolve complaints. That is the legal process by which my industry is regulated at the federal and state levels and has been for a century. So, you may not like the rules and feel like they go too far, but to characterize the process as "lawless" is ignorant of how this sausage is made. I'd say a better description would be tortuously legalistic.
