Third Goldman Sach's Bank(st)er joining Trump Administration...

[Satsui Ryu]

I wonder if his supporters are even a little disappointed by this.

I do not think they care. The euphoria of being able to say you lost the election liberal losers is more than enough for the price of admission.

 

[Desdinova]

I'm not particularly happy with a lot of his appointments, but I am curious who you guys would appoint instead.

 

[luckyshot]

Remember those good ol' days when he attacked Ted Cruz because his wife works there, or when he attacked Hillary for giving a speech to GS, or in his final campaign ad when he railed against globalist bankers...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/trum...ip-of-national-economic-council-nbc-news.html

Cohn joins Steve Bannon (Chief WH Strategist) and Treasury Pick Steven Mnuchin, whereas the latter two worked for GS in the past, Cohn is currently their President and COO.

Seems like Trump combined his two most popular hashtags into one - "Build the Wall" and "Drain the Swamp" have become "Build the Swamp!!!".

Or "Drain the Wall (Street to make my cabinet)"

 

[luckyshot]

I do not think they care. The euphoria of being able to say you lost the election liberal losers is more than enough for the price of admission.

This is it. They got the election. They got to say fuck you to all their teachers. Now they can sleep the deep sleep of the unreflectively self-righteous until it's time to vote for the next anti-intellectual demagogue. Or until Jesus comes back. Whichever happens first.

 

[HomerThompson]

Fairly clear that we're shaping up for another Bush-esq presidency only even more brazen and powerful.

And with less nuance.

 

[m52nickerson]

 

[HereticBD]

Maybe there's some happy medium between stacking your cabinet with Burger King clerks and stacking it with the same Wall Street elites that your idiot base has been complaining about for the last year and a half.

Who would that be? Some other not quite as rich guy, who would still be criticized for being too rich to fit one of Trump's campaign slogans? Let's face it, it's one or the other with the left, and both choices are bad. There is no middle ground that will satisfy them. If he goes outside the box, the left criticizes. If he goes with the status quo, the left criticizes. I know this, because he's done both, and the left criticizes regardless.

Appointments are one thing, policies are another. If Trump starts fucking over the people who elected him with his policies, to fill the pockets of the rich dudes he's aligning himself with, talk to me. Until that happens, meh.

 

[7437]

They do Gods work, therefore they do Trump's work

You have that backwards.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Who would that be? Some other not quite as rich guy, who would still be criticized for being too rich to fit one of Trump's campaign slogans? Let's face it, it's one or the other with the left, and both choices are bad. There is no middle ground that will satisfy them. If he goes outside the box, the left criticizes. If he goes with the status quo, the left criticizes. I know this, because he's done both, and the left criticizes regardless.

Appointments are one thing, policies are another. If Trump starts fucking over the people who elected him with his policies, to fill the pockets of the rich dudes he's aligning himself with, talk to me. Until that happens, meh.

This isn't true though. The Mattis pick, for example, actually got quite a bit of praise. He's well suited for the position. Guys like Ben Carson get shit on because they have absolutely zero qualifications for their positions. I'll take a wait and see how the policy shakes out here but it's worth pointing out just how incredibly hacky Trumpsters are when it comes to these appointments.

 

[HOLA]

Take a shit in the swamp, feed it to your moron supporters.

I do not think they care. The euphoria of being able to say you lost the election liberal losers is more than enough for the price of admission.

2020
"Trump hasn't fulfilled any campaign promise"
"You mad Hilary lost bra? Trump 2020!"

I'm not particularly happy with a lot of his appointments, but I am curious who you guys would appoint instead.

Someone who believed in protecting the environment to protect the environment, little things like that.

 

[m52nickerson]

Who would that be? Some other not quite as rich guy, who would still be criticized for being too rich to fit one of Trump's campaign slogans? Let's face it, it's one or the other with the left, and both choices are bad. There is no middle ground that will satisfy them. If he goes outside the box, the left criticizes. If he goes with the status quo, the left criticizes. I know this, because he's done both, and the left criticizes regardless.

Appointments are one thing, policies are another. If Trump starts fucking over the people who elected him with his policies, to fill the pockets of the rich dudes he's aligning himself with, talk to me. Until that happens, meh.

Sounds a lot like the criticism of Obama by the right.

Really Trump is going to get criticized because he promised his way into a corner. Trump spoke against Wall Street and against Government. That means he left himself with nowhere to really find qualified people for a lot of posts without looking hypocritical.

 

[INTERL0PER]

Yeah man! He should've hired the part time Burger King clerk to advise him on the economy.

Yeah, I guess those are the only two options, right?

Just one extreme or the other. That's it. There is no middle ground. No real alternative.

Just corrupt high finance execs and dudes from Burger King.

It's a real shame. You'd think there would be a bunch of alternatives in a country with 300 million people. But no.

Just like the election, there's only two options.

 

[freakyfarley]

bunch of marks

 

[Desdinova]

Someone who believed in protecting the environment to protect the environment, little things like that.

Okay, I can get behind that one, but I'm looking for specifics here. This thread is about economic advisors and I have yet to see anyone make alternative suggestions.

 

[Damien Karras]

Who would that be? Some other not quite as rich guy, who would still be criticized for being too rich to fit one of Trump's campaign slogans? Let's face it, it's one or the other with the left, and both choices are bad. There is no middle ground that will satisfy them. If he goes outside the box, the left criticizes. If he goes with the status quo, the left criticizes. I know this, because he's done both, and the left criticizes regardless.

Appointments are one thing, policies are another. If Trump starts fucking over the people who elected him with his policies, to fill the pockets of the rich dudes he's aligning himself with, talk to me. Until that happens, meh.

I would start with American Economics Nobel prize laureates.

Economics university professors.

Heads of economics think tanks?


Doesn't have to be a banker.

 

[panamaican]

Sounds a lot like the criticism of Obama by the right.

Really Trump is going to get criticized because he promised his way into a corner. Trump spoke against Wall Street and against Government. That means he left himself with nowhere to really find qualified people for a lot of posts without looking hypocritical.

Who would that be? Some other not quite as rich guy, who would still be criticized for being too rich to fit one of Trump's campaign slogans? Let's face it, it's one or the other with the left, and both choices are bad. There is no middle ground that will satisfy them. If he goes outside the box, the left criticizes. If he goes with the status quo, the left criticizes. I know this, because he's done both, and the left criticizes regardless.

Appointments are one thing, policies are another. If Trump starts fucking over the people who elected him with his policies, to fill the pockets of the rich dudes he's aligning himself with, talk to me. Until that happens, meh.

I disagree here. There are lots of qualified people who aren't also on Wall Street. You could tap the unions for labor or a CEO of a company that actually worries about decent paying jobs (as opposed to a pro immigration fast food guy). You could tap a wide range of superintendents for education. A banker for commerce or Treasury obviously makes sense.

There are lots of very talented Americans who don't work in finance or on Wall Street. Unless Trump's position is that every agency needs an economic overhaul, which is a plausible position (Ross fits that bill).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I disagree here. There are lots of qualified people who aren't also on Wall Street. You could tap the unions for labor or a CEO of a company that actually worries about decent paying jobs (as opposed to a pro immigration fast food guy). You could tap a wide range of superintendents for education. A banker for commerce or Treasury obviously makes sense.

Well, Trump is a Republican. I would love to see someone qualified and passionate about the environment running the EPA or a pro-labor Labor Secretary, but I don't think those are necessarily realistic hopes. Trump was open on the campaign about not believing in climate change (other than that debate when he denied saying what he's been saying), wanting to deregulate finance, favoring regressive tax cuts, etc., and he won the election.

My fear with Trump is that he'd be picking more people like Sessions, Carson, or Flynn. Highly competent Wall Street types to fill the relevant positions is not great, but I see it as a best-realistic-case scenario. W's third term would be bad, but not nearly as bad as it could be given who we elected.

 

[panamaican]

Well, Trump is a Republican. I would love to see someone qualified and passionate about the environment running the EPA or a pro-labor Labor Secretary, but I don't think those are necessarily realistic hopes. Trump was open on the campaign about not believing in climate change (other than that debate when he denied saying what he's been saying), wanting to deregulate finance, favoring regressive tax cuts, etc., and he won the election.

My fear with Trump is that he'd be picking more people like Sessions or Flynn. Highly competent Wall Street types to fill the relevant positions is not great, but I see it as a best-realistic-case scenario. W's third term would be bad, but not nearly as bad as it could be given who we elected.

Let me be clear, I don't think these are bad picks just because they're also WS guys.

I just think it's hilarious that after a campaign that excoriated the ties between government and Wall Street and the massive anti-war positions taken by many, Trump is appointing lots of people with ties to Wall Street and the military.

I take great pleasure in watching people simply pretend that this isn't exactly what they claimed they didn't want by reconfiguring their belief systems. I always say that I keep a mental list of posters whose opinions hold no value to me because they don't have consistent principles. That list is growing following this election.

 

[Fawlty]

And with less nuance.

I don't think that's even possible, but it do.

 

[Cmart]

I guess the left's response to this has me wondering. Hillary had a cozy and personally beneficial relationship with the Goldman Sachs people. Was that good or bad?