Trump appointees abandoning ship as election nears

Politico:

At least 27 political appointees have exited the embattled Health and Human Services department since the start of the Covid-19 crisis in February, according to a POLITICO review, and senior leaders are bracing for dozens more officials to depart swiftly if President Donald Trump loses re-election.

Such a wave of departures would leave only a shell staff shepherding the department through a uniquely challenging winter of coronavirus outbreaks and drug and vaccine authorizations until Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, according to interviews with 17 current and former HHS officials, some of whom requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

Ben Reilly wrote:Politico:

At least 27 political appointees have exited the embattled Health and Human Services department since the start of the Covid-19 crisis in February, according to a POLITICO review, and senior leaders are bracing for dozens more officials to depart swiftly if President Donald Trump loses re-election.

Such a wave of departures would leave only a shell staff shepherding the department through a uniquely challenging winter of coronavirus outbreaks and drug and vaccine authorizations until Inauguration Day on Jan. 20, according to interviews with 17 current and former HHS officials, some of whom requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

Further evidence of Trump's indifference toward the people he serves. He will leave, leaving the Department of Health and Human Services empty.

But the good news is Trump's incompetence leaves empty fields on which to grow new things. A merger between the Department of Defense and a Department of Health Services is a more likely possibility, bringing excess wealth to an impoverished department (HHS). Both have the same mission: stave off enemies, whether human or microbial. And during this pandemic, we have seen how regimented must be the effort to combat the enemy.

They are not going to merge Defense and Health. Only person talking about it is an old man in California who fabricates stuff for attention on a tiny forum run by an American expat.

Anyway, Trump was never really part of the party and as soon as he looses he will be persona non grata.

I took a ride through Dallas yesterday. N Dallas, close to where W lives was interesting. The vast majority of the signs in the yards if multi million homes were for Biden. There were plenty of signs for Republican candidates, just not Trump.

Trump has destroyed the Republican party much like Nixon did. Republicans aren't dumb. Once Trump is powerless he will be cast aside.

Well, they were dumb enough to nominate Trump...

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, they were dumb enough to nominate Trump...

The Republican primary voters were. The folks at the RNC wanted no part of him.


I've come to the conclusion that the primary process for the two major parties is broken. Its giving us shitty candidates from both of them.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, they were dumb enough to nominate Trump...

The Republican primary voters were. The folks at the RNC wanted no part of him.


I've come to the conclusion that the primary process for the two major parties is broken.  Its giving us shitty candidates from both of them.  

There's no third party doing any better.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:
The Republican primary voters were. The folks at the RNC wanted no part of him.


I've come to the conclusion that the primary process for the two major parties is broken.  Its giving us shitty candidates from both of them.  

There's no third party doing any better.

The libertarians do it like the other two used to. They have a convention and folks who have been chosen as delegates decide. Its somewhere between what the Dems and Reps do now and what the Brits do.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:
The Republican primary voters were. The folks at the RNC wanted no part of him.


I've come to the conclusion that the primary process for the two major parties is broken.  Its giving us shitty candidates from both of them.  

There's no third party doing any better.

We are seeing a resurgence of the Progressive Party, leftist in leaning, but ironically a spin-off of the Republican Party. In fact, when we associate Republicans with early abolitionism, we are talking about that faction that became the departing Progressive Party, leaving the Republican Party the conservative faction they are today.

It might be interesting to watch America go from a rigid, two-party system, to a real multi-party system.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

There's no third party doing any better.

We are seeing a resurgence of the Progressive Party, leftist in leaning, but ironically a spin-off of the Republican Party.  In fact, when we associate Republicans with early abolitionism, we are talking about that faction that became the departing Progressive Party, leaving the Republican Party the conservative faction they are today.

It might be interesting to watch America go from a rigid, two-party system, to a real multi-party system.

It will be interesting.

Could be bloody, which is interesting.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We are seeing a resurgence of the Progressive Party, leftist in leaning, but ironically a spin-off of the Republican Party.  In fact, when we associate Republicans with early abolitionism, we are talking about that faction that became the departing Progressive Party, leaving the Republican Party the conservative faction they are today.

It might be interesting to watch America go from a rigid, two-party system, to a real multi-party system.

It will be interesting.

Could be bloody, which is interesting.  

That's exactly my expectation. That's why I propose the separation of the west coast states in a peaceful manner, to avoid a conflict that will rip apart the greater nation if it tries to remain as one. But that's another story...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It will be interesting.

Could be bloody, which is interesting.  

That's exactly my expectation.  That's why I propose the separation of the west coast states in a peaceful manner, to avoid a conflict that will rip apart the greater nation if it tries to remain as one.  But that's another story...

Well, no one is listening to you here or anywhere else in regards to your propositions.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's exactly my expectation.  That's why I propose the separation of the west coast states in a peaceful manner, to avoid a conflict that will rip apart the greater nation if it tries to remain as one.  But that's another story...

Well, no one is listening to you here or anywhere else in regards to your propositions.  

I disagree.  You have a personal ego to massage, so for you everything is self-absorbed...wrapped up in your own anger.  Thus, you give into your personal demons.  That's why, for you, there is little difference between the message and the messenger.

I look at things with a more detached point-of-view.  I'm interested in issues and events that are of common interest, not rancor.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, no one is listening to you here or anywhere else in regards to your propositions.  

I disagree.  You have a personal ego to massage, so for you everything is self-absorbed...wrapped up in your own anger.  Thus, you give into your personal demons.  That's why, for you, there is little difference between the message and the messenger.

I look at things with a more detached point-of-view.  I'm interested in issues and events that are of common interest, not rancor.

Show me a serious attempt by anyone, for the Western states seceding.

I'll wait.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I disagree.  You have a personal ego to massage, so for you everything is self-absorbed...wrapped up in your own anger.  Thus, you give into your personal demons.  That's why, for you, there is little difference between the message and the messenger.

I look at things with a more detached point-of-view.  I'm interested in issues and events that are of common interest, not rancor.

Show me a serious attempt by anyone, for the Western states seceding.

I'll wait.  

You've gotta start with a small voice. But, as you have been articulating yourself, the incentive to leave is there.

We had little interest in the issues of the US in 1848, when California became a state, and we've got less today. Y'all piss and moan about yer Jim Crow shit all y'all want.

We'll take our money and leave the game.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Show me a serious attempt by anyone, for the Western states seceding.

I'll wait.  

You've gotta start with a small voice.  But, as you have been articulating yourself, the incentive to leave is there.

We had little interest in the issues of the US in 1848, when California became a state, and we've got less today.  Y'all piss and moan about yer Jim Crow shit all y'all want.

We'll take our money and leave the game.

In this case, its no voice. This is just another one of your Mitty like dreams.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You've gotta start with a small voice. But, as you have been articulating yourself, the incentive to leave is there.

We had little interest in the issues of the US in 1848, when California became a state, and we've got less today. Y'all piss and moan about yer Jim Crow shit all y'all want.

We'll take our money and leave the game.

In this case, its no voice. This is just another one of your Mitty like dreams.

I don't think Trump is a no voice. He is a product of the racial and economic divide in this country, so the issue of incompatibility is up.

The question is, what to do about it? The 'snowflake' answer is to establish commissions and talk the issue to death, until it goes away by boredom. This was done after the Kennedy assassination, and again after the Challenger crash. But, the problem with the snowflake answer is that the precedent to act is established, and the commissions ad nauseum can't make it go away. Political lawyers are tricky...they will manage to extrapolate acts out of a situation, without raising the context.

Trump himself did it. He used the National Emergencies Act to redirect funds to build his wall, declaring the national emergency to be our southern border. There is no emergency on the southern border, and no logic says a wall will help. But look how it expands the scope of the National Emergencies Act. With the Act that broadly interpreted, any executive unilateral act can be justified, and a president can take over all spending power. Spending power is real and present power.

To use an example a conservative will understand, a president may now declare healthcare to be a national emergency, and set up a socialized organization like the NHS. Healthcare certainly fits the definition of emergency—with cancer, heart disease and now a pandemic at hand—and look at the magnitude of the institution it sets up.

Suffice it to say these games will go on until the system breaks. We already have suspicions from the right that a "deep state" is running the country. And from the left, there are equal suspicions that Republicans are undermining democracy with a new wave of "Jim Crow" laws, and an autocratic Supreme Court imposing RW czarism from above. At some point all parties will say, a pox on the whole damn thing!!

I think the time is right for a portion of the country to say, not that a new system is required, but that the old system is salvageable only with the right people. Yes, the idea is essentially a conservative move. Any system depends on the people within it, and it is clear that today we have stubborn people who want to tear down the fabric of the system. Exile those people, and everything will be restored to normal.

The Pacific States of America is tailor made to fit the bill. We on the coast are constitutional Americans without the old slavery and economic debates and feelings. Let the other states worry about those things…we don’t own that problem. We don’t need to buy into to trouble that gains nothing for us.

And what-the-hell, we are the richest state, shelling out money for nothing! We simply need to exile the loud neighbors, and carry on in complete bliss.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In this case, its no voice.  This is just another one of your Mitty like dreams.  

I don't think Trump is a no voice.  He is a product of the racial and economic divide in this country, so the issue of incompatibility is up.

The question is, what to do about it?  The 'snowflake' answer is to establish commissions and talk the issue to death, until it goes away by boredom.  This was done after the Kennedy assassination, and again after the Challenger crash.  But, the problem with the snowflake answer is that the precedent to act is established, and the commissions ad nauseum can't make it go away.  Political lawyers are tricky...they will manage to extrapolate acts out of a situation, without raising the context.

Trump himself did it.  He used the National Emergencies Act to redirect funds to build his wall, declaring the national emergency to be our southern border.  There is no emergency on the southern border, and no logic says a wall will help.  But look how it expands the scope of the National Emergencies Act.  With the Act that broadly interpreted, any executive unilateral act can be justified, and a president can take over all spending power.  Spending power is real and present power.

To use an example a conservative will understand, a president may now declare healthcare to be a national emergency, and set up a socialized organization like the NHS.  Healthcare certainly fits the definition of emergency—with cancer, heart disease and now a pandemic at hand—and look at the magnitude of the institution it sets up.

Suffice it to say these games will go on until the system breaks.  We already have suspicions from the right that a "deep state" is running the country.  And from the left, there are equal suspicions that Republicans are undermining democracy with a new wave of "Jim Crow" laws, and an autocratic Supreme Court imposing RW czarism from above.  At some point all parties will say, a pox on the whole damn thing!!

I think the time is right for a portion of the country to say, not that a new system is required, but that the old system is salvageable only with the right people.  Yes, the idea is essentially a conservative move.  Any system depends on the people within it, and it is clear that today we have stubborn people who want to tear down the fabric of the system.  Exile those people, and everything will be restored to normal.

The Pacific States of America is tailor made to fit the bill.  We on the coast are constitutional Americans without the old slavery and economic debates and feelings.  Let the other states worry about those things…we don’t own that problem.  We don’t need to buy into to trouble that gains nothing for us.

And what-the-hell, we are the richest state, shelling out money for nothing!  We simply need to exile the loud neighbors, and carry on in complete bliss.

You wrote all of that in response to your made up plan that no one takes seriously.

Why?

Is there a PAC I can contribute to help wit this process?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think Trump is a no voice.  He is a product of the racial and economic divide in this country, so the issue of incompatibility is up.

The question is, what to do about it?  The 'snowflake' answer is to establish commissions and talk the issue to death, until it goes away by boredom.  This was done after the Kennedy assassination, and again after the Challenger crash.  But, the problem with the snowflake answer is that the precedent to act is established, and the commissions ad nauseum can't make it go away.  Political lawyers are tricky...they will manage to extrapolate acts out of a situation, without raising the context.

Trump himself did it.  He used the National Emergencies Act to redirect funds to build his wall, declaring the national emergency to be our southern border.  There is no emergency on the southern border, and no logic says a wall will help.  But look how it expands the scope of the National Emergencies Act.  With the Act that broadly interpreted, any executive unilateral act can be justified, and a president can take over all spending power.  Spending power is real and present power.

To use an example a conservative will understand, a president may now declare healthcare to be a national emergency, and set up a socialized organization like the NHS.  Healthcare certainly fits the definition of emergency—with cancer, heart disease and now a pandemic at hand—and look at the magnitude of the institution it sets up.

Suffice it to say these games will go on until the system breaks.  We already have suspicions from the right that a "deep state" is running the country.  And from the left, there are equal suspicions that Republicans are undermining democracy with a new wave of "Jim Crow" laws, and an autocratic Supreme Court imposing RW czarism from above.  At some point all parties will say, a pox on the whole damn thing!!

I think the time is right for a portion of the country to say, not that a new system is required, but that the old system is salvageable only with the right people.  Yes, the idea is essentially a conservative move.  Any system depends on the people within it, and it is clear that today we have stubborn people who want to tear down the fabric of the system.  Exile those people, and everything will be restored to normal.

The Pacific States of America is tailor made to fit the bill.  We on the coast are constitutional Americans without the old slavery and economic debates and feelings.  Let the other states worry about those things…we don’t own that problem.  We don’t need to buy into to trouble that gains nothing for us.

And what-the-hell, we are the richest state, shelling out money for nothing!  We simply need to exile the loud neighbors, and carry on in complete bliss.

You wrote all of that in response to your made up plan that no one takes seriously.

Why?

Why do people write articles? Why do newspapers write editorials? Why do people write on websites? To get the ideas out there.