Featured Assault on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What can Trump do to stop the bleeding?

What to do? Seek God, Repent, Pray.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

You might want to consider the context of "my sarcasm" (which you agree with ) is based on God’s judgment of the age of Jesus when He started His ministry.

 

Yep. Stephen Miller and Jesus Christ's maturity level at 31 years old are comparable. Comparable life missions too. Thanks for pointing that out!

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

Don't want people with "experience in washington. They have been the problem. We need new people who have not been corrupted by washington. The fact that he has no washington experience is why he won the election.

 

Fair enough. Maybe he should pick people with Moscow experience instead!

 

Moscow experience?

 

Granted. But then Obama's adviser Ben Rhodes was in his 30's also when he served in the White House. According to NY Times interviews, Rhodes was, "The single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from Potus himself."
And this was a guy who prior to becoming an Obama advisor was a novelist. Or at least aspiring novelist.

 

And there it is--the "but...but...Obama" defense.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

Every freaking time!

 

Just joking about the Russian connections.

 

The "but...but...Hillary" defense is very popular as well. It's a spin off of the "everybody's doing it, so it's OK" excuse that children employ and parents reject, but for some reason adults think it's OK to use when it comes to politics.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

For the cabinet, I don't like the picks for Energy (should be a scientist, not Rick Perry), HUD (should be someone with actual experience---that department is a monster---Carson could have been a solid pick for Surgeon General, IMO, but he doesn't have the experience for HUD.). I've been against DeVos because I believe she's completely unqualified, not necessarily for her positions. The President has the prerogative to fill his cabinet with people who may have controversial ideas, but I think he could have found a better candidate than DeVos quite easily, all without having to sacrifice any political aims in the process.

I'm just a firm believer that in order to implement your agenda, you need people around you with experience, knowledge, and competence. If you don't have all three, you are taking major risks.

Priebus seems to be ok, so I'd see no reason to sack him. Firing Flynn was a step in the right direction. Conway? I think she'd be better behind the scenes at this point. She obviously did a good job as a campaign manager, but in her current position she's making herself look like an idiot when she definitely isn't. Some of that is likely not her fault---she is in a very difficult situation, but that doesn't change the perception. And, fairly or not, when the spokespersons look bad, that reflects poorly on the President.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Oh? What connections?

 

It was just a joke, not a treatise on the nature of the USA-Russia relations and the role the administration has or has not played.

 

I forgot about Carson and Perry. Carson is a bad choice. Perry? He's got executive experience and respect. Someone with a scientific background would be ideal but no matter who it was they would still be lacking the complete spectrum of knowledge needed at Energy and would be relying on the experts anyway.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

There are scientists with executive experience, even if not state-wide experience.

And, yes, no scientist would be able to be an expert in the totality of scientific knowledge required to run the Dept. of Energy, but a scientist in a relevant field such as physics (at the PhD level, preferably) would at least be able to participate in the discussion at much higher level than a non-scientist. Perry's going to be completely at the mercy of the experts. A scientist would be able to engage them and possibly uncover important insights, etc. Perry wouldn't even know the questions to ask.

I don't blame him. I wouldn't know them either! That's why I think a scientist is best suited for the position.

 

Nope. It is context. If you're going to act all alarmed at Stephan Miller's age, then I
am going to point out that Obama's top aid, Ben Rhodes, was in his 30's also.

White House aids related how Rhodes and Obama spoke for 2-3 hours each day and that the two of them had a "mind meld" going on.

 

So? Did I defend Ben Rhodes? Is it a good thing that a guy who's 31 is a "senior" adviser to the President? One error does not excuse the other. Or, to put it more simply, "If everybody were jumping off the bridge would you do it too?"