It’s not just about holding them accountable. If you are someone who riled against every trump appointee and now are fine with Pete getting a cabinet post because “he helped biden win”. Then you are knowingly being disingenuous and part of the problem.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Which was a bonus of the VA job, somewhat of a dead end politically as far as Cabinet positions go - which is why I hoped he got it.
I was being sarcastic based on some of the comments above.
It isn't it really nit-picky. It's obviously an enormous task, but it's a whole other level of task from steering the entire govt and being the face of a nation. Saying someone is inexperienced for A doesn't make you a hypocrite when you appoint them to do B, a much lesser task. It would be hypocritical if you then appointed them to do A.
Ultimately these people are politicians and will be surrounded by people of immense technical expertise on the specifics of their department. So long as they have a level head and are able to take in information quickly they'll mostly be alright. They should largely be façade.
And yeah it's obviously not meritocratic, but this is politics. Loyalty and reciprocity are a big part of it.
I understand, but also it also depends on why you railed against the Trump appointees. If it was because of their experience, then ok it's hypocrisy. If it was because of imbecilic views they might have held, or because they were of low integrity (i.e. disregarding and side-lining professional advice over dogmatism) then no, it's isn't.
Last edited:
Pretty much spot on. Cabinet heads are often party loyalists from different backgrounds who are surrounded by an small army of subject matter experts in their respective cabinet positions, which makes it very difficult for them to not succeed at implementing their President's agenda. The only time this sort of thing breaks down is under Trump when cabinet secretaries deliberately ignore the expert advice they get from their staff out of fear that using it may anger Trump.
That's just a cop-out, I would say. Say Biden defined 'qualified' as 'walks their dog before 7 am', and Buttigieg does that (provided he has a dog; there's an inclusion issue here right away), would you be here defending this as 'sure, he's qualified by Biden's criteria'? I'd hope not.
I don't know the actual criteria, so I have to consider this in the usual way: is this someone with political clout? Vision? Particular leadership or networking skill? Expertise on, or at least affinity with, transportation? That seems sensible to me.
I agree, the jobs are not on the same level; but Transportation is ginormous anyway, and I do think 'façade' underplays the actual role a secretary can have and should have. So I'd say it's a step up for Buttigieg of the kind that you rarely see.
I guess that depends on how Biden sees his cabinet appointees. If it's supposed to be the nice political face of the department, then sure; but I think that's pretty limited definition of the role. These people do do actual work, for example being in touch with stakeholders and counterparts. That right there requires a rather specific skill to get right - except, again, if Biden really just expects people like Buttigieg to be figureheads.
Anyway, maybe Biden has excellent reasons to appoint Buttigieg beyond political games; but as long as we don't know those, I think it makes sense to ask these questions.
Its 100% true. The public decided who they wanted as their President by way of an election, and as an extension of that, the President elect decides who he wants in his cabinet and what his criteria for selecting them is. If you don't want a guy who nominates someone who walks their dog before 7am, then don't elect him as President. If you don't want Betsy DeVos - then don't elect Trump. If you don't want someone like Buttigieg, then don't elect Biden. Since there are only two realistic options of who the President would be, the public selected Biden, so its his call.
He's a meme at this point.
Why does Pete Buttigieg remind me of a character from an Aaron Sorkin series/film
Pete's communications template #2730:
I had a personal love of <insert appointed positon> since childhood! Bla bla not important.
I had a personal love of <insert appointed positon> since childhood! Bla bla not important.
Make trains great again!! (and fast, and electric...)
If his actual goal were to push for that, wouldn't be so bad after all, but obviously that would go against Biden backers.
Pete probably is just happy with been allowed to ride trains for free.
"You can see Russia from Alaska"
He had posters of Andrew Card and Federico Peña hanging up in his room
My fellow Americans, as a young boy I dreamed of being a baseball.
Wow I guess we can delete 4000 posts in the trump presidency thread if this is the case.
I also like trains. And bridges! Cars and roads not so much though.
Apart from if you're only interested in due process (in which case the thread is pretty much done for now), the interesting point is whether decisions and their criteria make sense. In this case: why was Buttigieg appointed, and what do we think of that? Or as discussed previously: why did DeVos get that job and how did that make sense? (Phrased more aggressively, as the nonsense was quite obvious.) And that's exactly what is being talked about here. (At least by everybody else, as far as I can tell.)
Maybe you'll tell me that these are pointless as we don't get to decide for Biden; but we could close down most of the forum if that were a criterion for posting. And anyway, advocacy groups, activists, and lobbyists would certainly disagree with the idea that, outside election time, there is nothing for anyone to usefully say on government decisions.
Of course @Eboue has put this a lot more succinctly than me. I like words too much. (In addition to trains and bridges.)
Yes, but how's that interesting? Biden has been elected President and now he gets to appoint whatever people he wants for whatever reason he wants. Yep, true. Has anyone challenged that? Or for Trump's cabinet appointments? I think not, and I think everyone would be happy to agree with you on that point and move on.
Apart from if you're only interested in due process (in which case the thread is pretty much done for now), the interesting point is whether decisions and their criteria make sense. In this case: why was Buttigieg appointed, and what do we think of that? Or as discussed previously: why did DeVos get that job and how did that make sense? (Phrased more aggressively, as the nonsense was quite obvious.) And that's exactly what is being talked about here. (At least by everybody else, as far as I can tell.)
Maybe you'll tell me that these are pointless as we don't get to decide for Biden; but we could close down most of the forum if that were a criterion for posting. And anyway, advocacy groups, activists, and lobbyists would certainly disagree with the idea that, outside election time, there is nothing for anyone to usefully say on government decisions.
Of course @Eboue has put this a lot more succinctly than me. I like words too much. (In addition to trains and bridges.)
the hot new patreon rewards tier!
feck American politics is so greedy. Everything is about making more money, isn't it?
Subscribe to my patreon platinum elite level tier to find out!
But-but-but - what are they even collecting money for at this point? Repaying election campaign debts? The virtual inauguration ceremony can't be that expensive.
Last edited:
Hopefully a water bottle or cough drops for Biden.
Damn, that's some high-quality water right there!
That's Capitalism in a nutshell.
Rather US implementation.
“I'm living in America, and in America, you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now fecking pay me.”
It was also a serious question actually. I may be missing something, but what might Biden be needing so much money for right now? He isn't planning to run again in four years (or so he's said so far), so he doesn't even need to think of reelection campaign expenses.
Not a clue. I think that money can be used for pretty much anything. I doubt it is to pay off campaign stuff as they raised a crap ton of money. My guess would be to line some pockets or to help set up Biden's presidential library (I think this is what Obama did with his leftovers, and he is the one who made it legal for corporations to donate $$$$$$$$$$).
Ah, right. It's true: can't start saving for retirement early enough!
this is the inevitable result of fake news discourse. there is no way out
it's almost like being forced into the lesser of two evils....still ended up with an evil.
Until Americans want anything beyond "Making Liberals Cry" or Corrupt Technocracy, this is the garbage you'll get. Donald Trump and Joe Biden.....Christ.
Until Americans want anything beyond "Making Liberals Cry" or Corrupt Technocracy, this is the garbage you'll get. Donald Trump and Joe Biden.....Christ.
Last edited:
this is the inevitable result of fake news discourse. there is no way out
it's not even a rebuttal
this is the inevitable result of fake news discourse. there is no way out
So no one is going to say something about that mullet?
I didn't want to believe it was real.