This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
beckyromero · 36-40, F
Yes and no.
I don't agree with a lot she has said, but don't thing Betsy DeVoss has done anything ethically questionable as Secretary of Educcation like Pruitt has as EPA administrator.
Furniture shopping aside, hard to describe Carson as have been part of the swamp.
There's a lot worse in the Trump admin to worry about than DeVoss and Carson.
Stop grasping for low-lying fruit!
I don't agree with a lot she has said, but don't thing Betsy DeVoss has done anything ethically questionable as Secretary of Educcation like Pruitt has as EPA administrator.
Furniture shopping aside, hard to describe Carson as have been part of the swamp.
There's a lot worse in the Trump admin to worry about than DeVoss and Carson.
Stop grasping for low-lying fruit!
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero The low-lying fruit shouldn't be ignored because they are low-lying or because they are less incompetent than the others or because they don't have as many unethical motives as someone else. When Betsy DeVoss admits she hasn't visited low performing schools and then when publically chastised for it mumbles something about her words being taken out of context (which can't be corroborated by the unedited video footage) hints at her lack of experience. When taken in context with her hearty donations to the trump campaign and her lack of credentials it does seem like run of the mill corruption of rewarding a donor with an appointment for their donation. Carson's lack of understanding of social housing issues, how to run a department the size of HUD, and his poor judgment, not to mention his quickness for pointing the blame (or the gun) to someone else in the room suggests his appointment is also a sham.
That being said, you are right, there are a lot worse than DeVoss and Carson. That's hardly reason enough to let them off the hook though. In words, trump has the right idea. The "swamp" should be drained. That's not best done by bringing in low-lying rotted fruit so they can be left dangling on the tree to add to the stench that a swamp gives off. If we are going to drain the swamp, let's do it, low-lying fruit and all.
That being said, you are right, there are a lot worse than DeVoss and Carson. That's hardly reason enough to let them off the hook though. In words, trump has the right idea. The "swamp" should be drained. That's not best done by bringing in low-lying rotted fruit so they can be left dangling on the tree to add to the stench that a swamp gives off. If we are going to drain the swamp, let's do it, low-lying fruit and all.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
People donate to political campaigns, serve as regional managers, etc., and get tabbed for ambassadorships and plum posts all the time. It's called loyalty. Both parties do it. I really don't have a problem with that. Except when they become turncoats. (Bill Richardson, for example).
Nor is lack of experience necessarily a problem. Just because she's naive and wouldn't have been my pick doesn't mean I'd waste time on efforts on pushing her out. And seriously, you do know that for a lot of lower cabinet positions, the secretary is just a public face?
This is an atypical presidency. Trump's got in hands into everything, for good or bad. I'd worry more about a 2am Tweet that could have much more grave policy concerns than Betsy DeVoss' field trips. Seriously.
Nor is lack of experience necessarily a problem. Just because she's naive and wouldn't have been my pick doesn't mean I'd waste time on efforts on pushing her out. And seriously, you do know that for a lot of lower cabinet positions, the secretary is just a public face?
This is an atypical presidency. Trump's got in hands into everything, for good or bad. I'd worry more about a 2am Tweet that could have much more grave policy concerns than Betsy DeVoss' field trips. Seriously.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero You are exactly on point. Donors getting plum posts exclusively for their donations happens all the time. That can't be refuted; it happens across party lines. I don't know about that qualifying for loyalty, but it sadly does seem to qualify for human nature. The problem is, when you gas-bag how you are going to "shake things up," that you are going "drain the swamp," and you criticize your predecessor for doing these types of things AND more (like playing golf "all the time," for taking a vacation, like "telegraphing your war plans to the enemies," etc.) and then you take the exact same actions AND worse... well, you know, it kind of calls into question how sincere you were, how sincere you are, and probably how truly disingenuous you plan to be about "draining the swamp."
You seem too willing to let the cry-baby (trump) off the hook for his lesser cry-baby antics out of concern he could do so more serious damage if he has another cry-baby tantrum. And, yes... that is a cause for concern.
Perhaps you are willing to put up with a dirty napkin at a restaurant because you are more worried about possibly finding something undesirable floating in your soup. You seem willing to let a rude telephone service representative treat you like shit so long as the service you get from the company he/she works for gives you what you need. I get the feeling you might let the school yard bully pull your hair because you are more worried that he could get you into some kind of trouble that could ruin your GPA. Your approach is one way to go through life... only focus on priority-one issues. I am not convinced that's the best way. And, for the record... if a restaurant starts their service off with a dirty napkin... I wouldn't eat there.
Don't accept mediocrity in service from a restaurant or from an elected con artist.
You seem too willing to let the cry-baby (trump) off the hook for his lesser cry-baby antics out of concern he could do so more serious damage if he has another cry-baby tantrum. And, yes... that is a cause for concern.
Perhaps you are willing to put up with a dirty napkin at a restaurant because you are more worried about possibly finding something undesirable floating in your soup. You seem willing to let a rude telephone service representative treat you like shit so long as the service you get from the company he/she works for gives you what you need. I get the feeling you might let the school yard bully pull your hair because you are more worried that he could get you into some kind of trouble that could ruin your GPA. Your approach is one way to go through life... only focus on priority-one issues. I am not convinced that's the best way. And, for the record... if a restaurant starts their service off with a dirty napkin... I wouldn't eat there.
Don't accept mediocrity in service from a restaurant or from an elected con artist.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@MarkPaul Not making any excuses for Trump. You should be able to find "Trump" as a definition of "disingenuous" in the dictionary.
Yes, f a restaurant starts their service off with a dirty napkin I perhaps might be very less likely to eat there every again.
Doesn't mean I'd take to Yelp over every time I encountered poor service or a lazy employee. Not accepting such mediocrity is called not doing business with them again.
In politics, it means voting for someone else.
You and I voicing opinions about minor ethically or political concerns about the Trump administration is one thing. But calling for (and if you're doing that then you should participate in) a major lobbying effort to remove such people from their positions is something else. That is what I mean when there are more important issues to be concerned with and one has to allocate time and resources effectively.
(The school yard bully? A well placed knee can do wonders, you know. 😉 And, no Secret Service, not saying Trump should take one in the balls)
Yes, f a restaurant starts their service off with a dirty napkin I perhaps might be very less likely to eat there every again.
Doesn't mean I'd take to Yelp over every time I encountered poor service or a lazy employee. Not accepting such mediocrity is called not doing business with them again.
In politics, it means voting for someone else.
You and I voicing opinions about minor ethically or political concerns about the Trump administration is one thing. But calling for (and if you're doing that then you should participate in) a major lobbying effort to remove such people from their positions is something else. That is what I mean when there are more important issues to be concerned with and one has to allocate time and resources effectively.
(The school yard bully? A well placed knee can do wonders, you know. 😉 And, no Secret Service, not saying Trump should take one in the balls)
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero I think you miss the point of how accountability works. You seem to want to relegate politics to a one-dimensional and disposable exercise. If a (disposable) politician doesn't follow through, let's just vote for someone else. That's not entirely bad or wrong, but it leaves a huge gap in opportunity cost. It's also what most politicians count on... "oh, buying this dining room set on the taxpayer's expense is such a little thing in the scheme of things, it won't even come to anything;" "oh, taking first class on every trip can easily be explained away as a security measure," "oh, not following through on this 1 thing will be something everyone will forget about." And, on and on.
It might be idealistic in school, business, and government to expect and hold people accountable to the commitments they make. It might seem naïve to expect people to practice the principles they claim they have, but I think living to that standard is a worthy one and holding people accountable to that standard is worthwhile.
There is something to be said for the convenience of a disposable society. I am not convinced it's the best long-term solution for all of us who are earth-dependent though. Are there some issues that are more important than others? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Do we have to allocate our time and resources and does it makes sense to determine which ones to focus on more over others? Yeah... probably. But, should any of the issues be allowed the cover of darkness? No, I don't think so. Each person can decide which issue is important to them. Not every issue is going to necessarily be important to each one of us. But, if we don't even know what some of the issues are, how will we get to choose which ones to fight for? And... shouldn't we decide as individuals which issues are important [u]to[/u] us rather than letting some central committee or corrupt individual decide [u]for[/u] us?
It might be idealistic in school, business, and government to expect and hold people accountable to the commitments they make. It might seem naïve to expect people to practice the principles they claim they have, but I think living to that standard is a worthy one and holding people accountable to that standard is worthwhile.
There is something to be said for the convenience of a disposable society. I am not convinced it's the best long-term solution for all of us who are earth-dependent though. Are there some issues that are more important than others? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Do we have to allocate our time and resources and does it makes sense to determine which ones to focus on more over others? Yeah... probably. But, should any of the issues be allowed the cover of darkness? No, I don't think so. Each person can decide which issue is important to them. Not every issue is going to necessarily be important to each one of us. But, if we don't even know what some of the issues are, how will we get to choose which ones to fight for? And... shouldn't we decide as individuals which issues are important [u]to[/u] us rather than letting some central committee or corrupt individual decide [u]for[/u] us?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
Oh, not for allowing issues to be hidden in darkness. Gifts are too be disclosed. Travel is to be disclosed. Expenses are to be disclosed. Campaign contributions, too. And there are penalties for non-disclosure.
If anything, penalties should be MORE meaningful.
The mere fact you have brought out issues with Carson and Pruitt by inference show that openness is working.
And of course, we as individuals get to chose what is important to us. Which is my point. I think Betsy DeVoss and Ben Carson's actions aren't worth getting too excited about. Carson is unlikely to be bringing that furniture home for personal use, correct? So it's more of a questionable expense for him. The criticism of DeVoss is more about her stance on issues on her experience (or lack thereof). I guess part of what I'm saying is there is a big difference between accountability that is deserving of kicking someone out of office and nit-picking. Another way to put it is that there are bigger fish to fry. Nothing wrong with scrutinizing Carson's expense account. But it doesn't deserve page one on WaPo.
If anything, penalties should be MORE meaningful.
The mere fact you have brought out issues with Carson and Pruitt by inference show that openness is working.
And of course, we as individuals get to chose what is important to us. Which is my point. I think Betsy DeVoss and Ben Carson's actions aren't worth getting too excited about. Carson is unlikely to be bringing that furniture home for personal use, correct? So it's more of a questionable expense for him. The criticism of DeVoss is more about her stance on issues on her experience (or lack thereof). I guess part of what I'm saying is there is a big difference between accountability that is deserving of kicking someone out of office and nit-picking. Another way to put it is that there are bigger fish to fry. Nothing wrong with scrutinizing Carson's expense account. But it doesn't deserve page one on WaPo.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero We both agree there is a prioritization of issues that require different responses. We both seem to agree accountability in degrees is important. I think where our agreement diverges is in what constitutes page one attention. To me, stating "I only hire the best," and then installing people who demonstrate "the worst" is an indicator of a contradiction. As you showcase example after example after example, the indicator turns red-hot and a trend is identified.
Individually, a $39,000 dining room set... a claim of ignorance about its price tag... a pivot to blaming the wife at home for being a bit scatterbrained are each curious incidents that start forming a trend. Now add, a Secretary of Education who doesn't seem to know what she is talking about, seems to dispute facts she should know, but doesn't... I'm [u]starting[/u] to suspect a trend. Now add in, a Cabinet member who instructs one of his [b]19[/u] security agents to run the lights and siren to shuttle him to a restaurant and avoid the type of traffic a "commoner" must face, an order for a bullet-proof desk, first class accommodations on all trips, taking the FULL security detail (at government expense) on a personal vacation... and the trend is starting to seem something bigger. Now, keep in mind... at this point we haven't even gotten into any objections to policy... this is all simply professional behavior that really has no political leaning one way or the other. This is just a small sampling of one-off issues that, in isolation, do seem undeserving of being on the front page of the Washington Post or even a surviving small town paper struggling for survival.
It's the identifying trend of these issues that makes them important and newsworthy. It's a mistake to purify these issues in isolation and wave them away with a shrug of the shoulders that "important people will do what important people always do... oh well, what can we do" type of attitude.
And, so it comes down to, the guy who said he would never play golf on the job, plays more golf than anyone thought imaginable. The guy who said he only hires the best, actually hires the worst people that human nature has ever laid its hands on. The guy who said he was going to drain the swamp, has created a swamp in the image of his own ego. Each of these "little things" do mean so little. But, together they show the true nature of the man, the true darkness of his message, and the true recklessness of the people who continue to prop him (and his fragile ego) up. And, it seems to me, in total they do deserve a full court press.
Individually, a $39,000 dining room set... a claim of ignorance about its price tag... a pivot to blaming the wife at home for being a bit scatterbrained are each curious incidents that start forming a trend. Now add, a Secretary of Education who doesn't seem to know what she is talking about, seems to dispute facts she should know, but doesn't... I'm [u]starting[/u] to suspect a trend. Now add in, a Cabinet member who instructs one of his [b]19[/u] security agents to run the lights and siren to shuttle him to a restaurant and avoid the type of traffic a "commoner" must face, an order for a bullet-proof desk, first class accommodations on all trips, taking the FULL security detail (at government expense) on a personal vacation... and the trend is starting to seem something bigger. Now, keep in mind... at this point we haven't even gotten into any objections to policy... this is all simply professional behavior that really has no political leaning one way or the other. This is just a small sampling of one-off issues that, in isolation, do seem undeserving of being on the front page of the Washington Post or even a surviving small town paper struggling for survival.
It's the identifying trend of these issues that makes them important and newsworthy. It's a mistake to purify these issues in isolation and wave them away with a shrug of the shoulders that "important people will do what important people always do... oh well, what can we do" type of attitude.
And, so it comes down to, the guy who said he would never play golf on the job, plays more golf than anyone thought imaginable. The guy who said he only hires the best, actually hires the worst people that human nature has ever laid its hands on. The guy who said he was going to drain the swamp, has created a swamp in the image of his own ego. Each of these "little things" do mean so little. But, together they show the true nature of the man, the true darkness of his message, and the true recklessness of the people who continue to prop him (and his fragile ego) up. And, it seems to me, in total they do deserve a full court press.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
Those types of incidents, in isolation, you can find in just about an administration. Sure, they deserve to be reported on. But you're going for more than reporting. You're calling for an effort to oust them.
Do you really think if DeVoss, Carson and Priutt were in the unemployment line, the public would be any better served by those [b][u]TRUMP[/u][/b] would select to replace them with? That's what it boils down to and I think the answer is probably not. So what is gained?
Why not employ the 'full court press' against the guy who's actually scoring (i.e. Trump) instead of wasting energy on the shooters who couldn't hit a wastepaper basket?
Do you really think if DeVoss, Carson and Priutt were in the unemployment line, the public would be any better served by those [b][u]TRUMP[/u][/b] would select to replace them with? That's what it boils down to and I think the answer is probably not. So what is gained?
Why not employ the 'full court press' against the guy who's actually scoring (i.e. Trump) instead of wasting energy on the shooters who couldn't hit a wastepaper basket?
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero Why choose to live a life of limitations. We can do both and we should.
A neighbor who enters our apartment to borrow a cup of sugar is such a little thing and calling the police on him and having him thrown in jail for breaking and entering won't really serve any useful lesson. It's just what he considers part of being a neighbor. When he forgets to relock our door and a real burglar gets in and steals our prized curved screen desktop PC seems like a bigger deal, but with renter's insurance and the fact the burglar came from a disadvantaged background, why bother. Besides, there most likely would just be another crook who not only would steal our things, but might take it a step further and scare us with physical harm. So, we should really just be happy with the intruders we already know and instead focus on the bigger issues causing the intrusions in the first place.
What we really should do is figure out how to set-up a sugar co-op for the entire building so that everyone gets their own monthly allotment of sugar. That way our neighbor won't need to rely on us anymore. Big problem solved. Additionally, we should take on community activism during our spare time to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds find a way to channel their efforts to acquire consumer goods in a more socially acceptable way. Another big problem solved.
I don't think DeVoss, Carson, Pruitt, etc. should enjoy the windfall of their incompetence because there's another army of incompetents who can easily take their places. It is the assumption that the lack of ethics is acceptable, normal, and to be expected that both starts and keeps the chain of corruption running.
A neighbor who enters our apartment to borrow a cup of sugar is such a little thing and calling the police on him and having him thrown in jail for breaking and entering won't really serve any useful lesson. It's just what he considers part of being a neighbor. When he forgets to relock our door and a real burglar gets in and steals our prized curved screen desktop PC seems like a bigger deal, but with renter's insurance and the fact the burglar came from a disadvantaged background, why bother. Besides, there most likely would just be another crook who not only would steal our things, but might take it a step further and scare us with physical harm. So, we should really just be happy with the intruders we already know and instead focus on the bigger issues causing the intrusions in the first place.
What we really should do is figure out how to set-up a sugar co-op for the entire building so that everyone gets their own monthly allotment of sugar. That way our neighbor won't need to rely on us anymore. Big problem solved. Additionally, we should take on community activism during our spare time to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds find a way to channel their efforts to acquire consumer goods in a more socially acceptable way. Another big problem solved.
I don't think DeVoss, Carson, Pruitt, etc. should enjoy the windfall of their incompetence because there's another army of incompetents who can easily take their places. It is the assumption that the lack of ethics is acceptable, normal, and to be expected that both starts and keeps the chain of corruption running.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
Or maybe you can keep your doors locked and he could just ring your door bell when he needs some sugar. And if you're not home, it's probably healthier for him in the long run anyway.
😉
😉
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero Or... we could hold him accountable for his actions by calling him out, reporting him for his actions, and expecting him to pay the consequences. And, his health regimen is (and should be) his own business.
And, yes we may wind up with a worse new neighbor, but that's hardly a sensible reason to let someone as unethical as our current neighbor continue to get a free pass.
And, yes we may wind up with a worse new neighbor, but that's hardly a sensible reason to let someone as unethical as our current neighbor continue to get a free pass.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
[quote]his health regimen is (and should be) his own business. . . .yes we may wind up with a worse new neighbor, but that's hardly a sensible reason to let someone as unethical as our current neighbor continue to get a free pass.[/quote]
Wait! You're not concerned about his health? That's not very communal of you!
😉
Wait! You're not concerned about his health? That's not very communal of you!
😉
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero Well, he's not concerned about our sugar budget. That's not very fiscally responsible of him. So, it kind of balances out.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@MarkPaul [quote]Well, he's not concerned about our sugar budget. That's not very fiscally responsible of him. So, it kind of balances out.[/quote]
You could always go Rambo or Bloomberg on him and tell him you're instituting a new sugar tax.
It's been a long day; signing off. Enjoyed our conversation.
You could always go Rambo or Bloomberg on him and tell him you're instituting a new sugar tax.
It's been a long day; signing off. Enjoyed our conversation.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@beckyromero I might, but... I would rather convince the apartment building newsletter editorial staff to write a page one leading story on the topic.