Trump (GOP) Orchestrated Destruction of America

I'm deeply concerned based upon recent events specifically as it relates to the departments and agencies of the federal government. Congress and the President create departments and agencies for the federal government to address specific issues of concern that warrant high-level specific issues of importance and grant these agencies and departments the regulatory authority to promote those interests without political interventionism.

The obvious requirement for each of these departments and agencies to have those placed in charge to be supportive of the goals of the agency and department. There's an obvious contradiction in the recent nominees for several of these departments and here are some examples.

The Department of Justice of the United States is and agency headed by the Attorney General that has a minor role in criminal law enforcement (the vast majority of criminal law is a state responsibility) with a primary role to ensure the civil rights of the American people that are protected by the Constitution. The Attorney General selection should always be based upon a person that has history of significant civil rights advocacy. Donald Trump's selection for Attorney General has a long record of opposing civil rights to the point of calling it a hostile record related to civil rights.

The Department of Education is an agency created to support and improve public education in the United States. Donald Trump's selection for Sect of Education has a long record of opposing public schools and supporting private "for profit" charter schools.

Environmental Protection Agency was created to protect the environment from harm caused by people and industry. Donald Trump's selection to head the EPA has never supported protecting the environment and literally worked in an industry that's arguable has the worst environmental record.

The Department of Labor was created to promote the interests of the workers of America in virtually all respects from worker safety, worker rights, and to promote federal regulations and laws that increase compensation for workers to counteract the downward effect on compensation by market forces. Donald Trump selected a corporate executive that profited from the low compensation and limited benefits for it's labor force.

There couldn't be a worse selection of people for the heads of federal departments because so many of Trump's selections aren't even neutral but instead have record of opposing and even being hostile to the very purpose of the agency they're being selected to lead. This is not going to be good for America and literally represents a threat to our future as a nation.

 

It's your opinion, then, that the Attorney General needs to have a background as a race-baiting social justice warrior a la Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch?

The official duty of the Attorney General is as follows: "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments". I see no "Civil rights" requirement listed.

And what's wrong with that? We didn't have a Department of Education until 1979, how did the US become a world leader in education at a time with no Department of Education?

As a self-proclaimed libertarian who likes to talk about the Founders and the Constitution, you should appreciate the push for education to become a private affair. You should be elated that Trump favors the policy of people being able to send their kids to whatever school they want, instead of being forced by the Government into sending their kids to failing inner city public schools where they will be permanently nerfed by a bad education.

The EPA is a runaway organization causing billions of dollars in harm to US businesses by way of pointless and overreaching regulations. A self-proclaimed libertarian should have a problem with the current level of regulation that is keeping a boot on the necks of businesses and the hiring process. And, again, this department didn't exist until the 70's, no need to act like the world is coming to an end just because the EPA is being scaled back.

Being a corporate executive doesn't disqualify someone from holding this position, I'm not sure what this fearmongering about his job is all about. Just more left-wing anti-business sentiment.

It's funny to me how a self-proclaimed libertarian is acting like the sky is falling simply because a few bloated bureaucracies are (hopefully) going to be scaled back. Real libertarians understand that the Constitution has a list of things the Federal Government is responsible for, and none of the bureaucracies you are listing are consistent with that list. The Government has taken more and more control away from the States and the private sector, which should be a big no-no to a libertarian, except we are seeing the exact opposite.

 

The goals of a federal department are set according to polices devised by the President and, possibly, Congress.
The President then chooses nominees he believes are suited for implementations for those policies.
That the nominees are not supportive of the policies of the previous administration(s) means nothing.
Elections, after all, have consequences.

 

The federal government is driven by the US Constitution that is overwhelmingly dedicated to the protection of Rights of the People/Person. As I recall there are only two explicit criminal acts addressed in the Constitution, piracy and counterfeiting. Yes, we have added more criminal statutes for federal law enforcement not enumerated in the US Constitution but that hasn't changed the primary responsibility of the Department of Justice that is the vigorous enforcement if the Constitutional protections of the Right of the People/Person, or our CIVIL RIGHTS.

The Attorney General must be highly dedicated to the vigorous enforcement of the Civil Rights protected under the Constitution. You can sling partisan labels at Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder but the criteria that must be applied is whether they were vigorous in the enforcement of Constitutionally protected Rights. Did they file lawsuits to challenge laws that potentially infringed upon the Right to Vote of the People. Did they file lawsuits addressing racial prejudice by law enforcement agency? Have they filed lawsuits to address "denial of access for abortion" for women that denies them their Constitutional Right to An Abortion?

That's what the position of Attorney General demands. Any person that is not dedicated to the vigorous enforcement of the US Constitutionally protected Rights of the People/Person should never be Attorney General. The Attorney General should be so committed that the should file lawsuits that they might sometimes lose because if they're not losing some lawsuits then they're not winning some lawsuits they should have filed.

This applies to the heads of every government agency.

 

You seem to think the function of the US Government and its agencies is to push a progressive agenda.

 

No, the AG should NOT be an advocate for an agenda, nor should any other department head. Your complaint is that Trump is not picking ideologues that believe and pursue the federal government controlling every aspect of everyone's life as demigods and tyrants of independent absolute power over everyone.

You reveal yourself in your last paragraph when you advocate the AG filing "losing" lawsuits - literally to financially wipe out people and companies punitively as the cost of such litigation, even if a person or company wins, costs millions to defend against the government - which has unlimited money to sue people with. The core of your message is, candidly, hatred of people and companies and pure worship of the federal government.

 

Treason.

The DoJ mission statement:

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

Your statement differs from theirs; they do not see their primary responsibility as you do.
They must be wrong, eh?

 

What about selecting a DoD head that wants to reduce the size of that agency? How would you feel about that?

 

Executive orders will be signed on day one. This is gonna be great.

 

Another trolling post. Please merely admit that you will accept nothing less than a hard-left wing progressive government and really are not looking for an honest discussion. Save us the bandwidth thank you.

 

The destruction of obama's America is a great thing. Flame on!

 

I regret I can only LIKE this once.

 

Indeed -- the entire premise of the OP is demonstrably unsound.

 

The goals of an federal agency are defined by Congress when the agency is created and expressed as the Mission Statement for the department or agency. For example:

https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa

Real simple and straightforward. It doesn't say anything about protecting corporate profits. It doesn't say anything about supporting political agendas. It doesn't say anything about taxes or other government responsibilities.

The job of the head of the EPA is to be concerned exclusively with the protection of human health and the environment based upon available science and technology.

Recently the EPA issued a regulation to the coal industry to cut atmospheric emissions by 30% over the next ten years (plus). Do coal fired power plants create atmospheric pollution? Absolutely and I don't believe anyone can honestly dispute that coal fired power plants emit pollutants that cause acid rain and CO2 gas that's a know greenhouse gas, that in excess atmospheric amounts results in global warming. We know that currently the planet is incapable of recycling the CO2 being produced by both man and nature because of the measurable increase in CO2 and that over the last 100 years the planet is warming. We can't reduce naturally produced CO2 that can contribute to this but we can reduce manmade CO2 and, in fact, the coal industry states that it can reduce all of the atmospheric pollution cause by the burning of coal by UP TO 40% WITH EXISTING CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY.

The EPA was absolutely correct to issue the regulation limiting the atmospheric pollution created by the coal companies for three reasons. The science, the technology, and the fact that no one has a Right to Pollute especially when that pollution is unnecessary because the technology can eliminate it.

There's not a single valid complaint against the regulation based upon the EPA Mission Statement.

Republicans complain because of the potential economic but that's not the EPA issue.

That's an issue for the United States Department of Commerce that has this mission statement:

https://www.commerce.gov/page/about-commerce

So the United States Environmental Protection Agency issues the regulation based upon it's Mission Statement and then United States Department of Commerce defines how to create economic growth and opportunity in compliance with that regulation.

Two different federal agencies where the zealous enforcement of their respective mission statements by the heads of the departments will result in American having economic growth and opportunity while protecting human health and the environment.

If we have a head of the EPA that doesn't care about the environment and a head of the DOC that doesn't care about commerce then we won't have economic growth and opportunity or protection of human health and the environment.

 

Good question, how would YOU feel about a DoD head who's only agenda would be to destroy the agency?

And that's exactly the agenda for the other agencies: Put in a director who makes the agency dysfunctional by cutting funding, so that later on conservatives can point fingers at the dysfunctional agency and reduce it by further budget cuts. Corporate mission accomplished. Because who would want to have agencies who actually protect labor or the environment. That's only for the little guy, while the corporate fat cats sit in their gates community homes far away from the toxic landfills they produce and shielded from uprising labor.

The whole episode actually reminds me of evil Diesel in "Thomas the tank engine". Pinchy, come and destroy. He even looks somewhat like Trump.

 

As you know, I posted the mission statement of the DoJ

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

Your statement differs from theirs; Congress does not see the DoJ's primary responsibility as you do.
Congress must be wrong, eh?

And, of course, the POLICIES of those departments, pursuant to the mission statements, are determined by the President.
The President then chooses nominees he believes are suited for implementations for those policies.
That the nominees are not supportive of the policies of the previous administration(s) means nothing.
Elections, after all, have consequences.

 

Example, please.
Be sure to include citations.

 

They hamstrung the post office by passing onerous rules designed to destroy our postal service. They want to reduce the number of employees by a third. Lay off like 100,000 people . They have been attacking the post office for years. The US post is absolutely necessary to poor people. Did you know it used to be a savings and loan for poor people ?
Republicans hate government. They hate taxes and they hate poor people. They will destroy education because an informed electorats votes for progressive democrats. Progressive democrats are the reason we have clean air clean water. They are the reason we have social security,progressive republicans are the reason we don't have slavery , but it's progressives who gave us the laws that protect us from corporations who would run roughshod over us all.

 

No one is trying to destroy the environment, just the bureaucracy. I'm sorry you feel over regulating by bloated, inefficient, politically motivated beauracracy is necessary to protect the environment. I don't think overreach and over regulation is what Nixon had in mind when he signed the clean air and clean water acts.

 

A "progressive agenda" would be an agenda that is characterized by:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive

The opposite is a "regressive agenda" that would be an agenda that is characterized by:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regressive

I'll let others choose first about which direction we should go as a nation.

Do we want to be progressive in moving forward as a nation and a society through enlightenment and knowledge?

OR

Do we want to be regressive and go back to the past where people were ignorant, survival of the jungle prevailed, where people were ruled by myth and superstition, where total destruction of environment and of species was common "just for fun" by some, and the where civil rights didn't exist and where just slightly more than 150 years ago people were held in bondage as slaves.

As for me I think I'd rather have our government adopt a progressive agenda that takes us forward into the future as opposed to a government with a regressive agenda that takes us back into the past.

That's exactly what this thread is about because the "Destruction of America" is about destroying the advancements that we've made as a nation and society, in a very slow and often hard-fought progressive manner, since this nation was founded. Donald Trump and the GOP seem hell-bent on destroying the progress we've made as a nation and society.

I can think of no significant advancement that's been achieved in the United States that hasn't been opposed by social conservatism. Social conservatives opposed freeing the slaves, they opposed civil rights, they opposed protecting the environment and the species, they opposed women voting and women's rights, they've opposed workers rights.... I just can't think of anything positive that they've ever advanced for the United States or the American people. Hell, they don't even like the US Constitution.

Maybe a social conservative can think of one significant positive change they've been responsible for but I haven't been able to.

 

Trump must be a progressive then as dismantling the "achievements" of the Obama administration is, unarguably, progress.

 

Simply calling your left-wing social agenda "progress" doesn't make it so. "Progress" to the left is a forward motion towards socialism. Those agencies you cited were, in many cases, nothing but power grabs by the Federal Government, taking more and more power away from the States and from individuals. They now have a choking effect on business, and do this under the guise of environmentalism and "fairness". A real libertarian would oppose this.

 

No. The thread is about your false premise, illustrated in post #3.

 

I gather the opinion of the OP is that the DoJ should be marching with BLM chanting:
"What do we want?
Dead cops
When do we want them?
Now."

However, his side lost the election. BLM lost. Cops won.

 

"Progressive" was a word picked to hide from the particularly unpopular "liberal."