The Biden Cabinet: President-elect begins to build a team

[J Town]

On 12/4/2020 at 5:43 PM, Phoenix Rising said:

Most Americans voted for him.

Again, most people didn't vote FOR Joe, they voted AGAINST 45. To think of, all the people qualified for the job, Joe is the best we could come up with? That is just sad and decries a true democratic process.

[J Town]

9 hours ago, Kelsall said:

The topic is about the Biden cabinet.

Lobbyists are the TRUE cabinet members.

[J Town]

5 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

Good luck to Biden and his new cabinet, I wish them good luck, but I doubt they will achieve as much as Trump did in his short presidency

You left out the word damage:

 

"I doubt they will achieve as much damage"

[mtls2005]

23 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The appointment that I am most interested in is Attorney General

 

Agreed. Although there may have to be some soft-shoe on prosecutions of the soon-to-be former administration.

 

President-elect Biden needs to balance getting someone good, and being able to get someone confirmed - I assume repubs will maintain a Senate majority.

 

Some interesting names on the list including Sally Yates. Separately have seen names like Preet Bharara, Stacy Abrams, Neal Katyal, Deval Patrick. Any of these work for me.

[J Town]

15 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

1. Agreed. Although there may have to be some soft-shoe on prosecutions of the soon-to-be former administration.

 

2. President-elect Biden needs to balance getting someone good, and being able to get someone confirmed - I assume repubs will maintain a Senate majority.

1. Biden has been painfully clear that he will have a completely hands-off approach. If his AG wants to go ballistic on the former administration, so be it, and I personally hope the AG does. Blatant crimes must be paid for to demonstrate there IS still rule of law for ALL in the US. No one should be above it.

 

2. Make no assumptions about this 5 Jan election. Stacy Abrams is out getting that vote. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and the last election in which she ran was truly stolen from her.

[cmarshall]

32 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Agreed. Although there may have to be some soft-shoe on prosecutions of the soon-to-be former administration.

 

President-elect Biden needs to balance getting someone good, and being able to get someone confirmed - I assume repubs will maintain a Senate majority.

 

Some interesting names on the list including Sally Yates. Separately have seen names like Preet Bharara, Stacy Abrams, Neal Katyal, Deval Patrick. Any of these work for me.

 

My own preference would be Adam Schiff.  Bharara, as a former US Attorney, would on the one hand be more likely to prosecute the Trumps, but on the other hand, since Trump fired him, would be accused of a revenge motivation by the Rs.

 

Biden can and should step around the confirmation problem by appointing acting Cabinet members and/or creating new positions in the departments with titles like "Supervisor performing the duties of the <Cabinet member> as Trump has done with DHS.

 

In addition, Biden can fill vacancies in the federal judiciary including the Supreme Court, without Senate approval by making a recess appointment, which does not require subsequent confirmation.  You might suppose that the Congress only goes into recess when both Houses agree to, but in the event that both Houses do not agree, the president casts the deciding vote.  So, Biden and Pelosi can recess the Congress whenever they wish for as long as they wish.  Sure, Moscow Mitch would howl, but som nam na, as they say.  Obama should have done this to put Garland on the Court.  

[Kelsall]

47 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

My own preference would be Adam Schiff.  Bharara, as a former US Attorney, would on the one hand be more likely to prosecute the Trumps, but on the other hand, since Trump fired him, would be accused of a revenge motivation by the Rs.

 

Biden can and should step around the confirmation problem by appointing acting Cabinet members and/or creating new positions in the departments with titles like "Supervisor performing the duties of the <Cabinet member> as Trump has done with DHS.

 

In addition, Biden can fill vacancies in the federal judiciary including the Supreme Court, without Senate approval by making a recess appointment, which does not require subsequent confirmation.  You might suppose that the Congress only goes into recess when both Houses agree to, but in the event that both Houses do not agree, the president casts the deciding vote.  So, Biden and Pelosi can recess the Congress whenever they wish for as long as they wish.  Sure, Moscow Mitch would howl, but som nam na, as they say.  Obama should have done this to put Garland on the Court.  

Adam Schiff? ????

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, J Town said:

1. Biden has been painfully clear that he will have a completely hands-off approach. If his AG wants to go ballistic on the former administration, so be it, and I personally hope the AG does. Blatant crimes must be paid for to demonstrate there IS still rule of law for ALL in the US. No one should be above it.

 

 

Well, yes and no.  Biden probably will not intercede in investigations or prosecutions of the DoJ.  Where he will intercede is selecting the Attorney General.  It wouldn't be too hard to figure out which possible nominee for the AG job will go after the Trump crime family and which will decide doing so violates democratic norms.  So, effectively Biden will decide whether there will be such prosecutions or not

[GrandPapillon]

it's not impossible to think the election was biased, and some frauds were committed.

 

Not the first time or the last time, happened to Gore in 2000 with GW Bush, so I guess it's only natural that the other side win with a "questionable" election

 

Biden is going to do nothing anyhow, much like Obama, sadly. Maybe the VP could replace him soon and she will get things moving in the right direction.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

it's not impossible to think the election was biased, and some frauds were committed.

 

Not the first time or the last time, happened to Gore in 2000 with GW Bush, so I guess it's only natural that the other side win with a "questionable" election

 

Biden is going to do nothing anyhow, much like Obama, sadly. Maybe the VP could replace him soon and she will get things moving in the right direction.

If fraud on a deciding scale was committed the senate would have been won by the Democrats. Look at the results independently of Congress, Senate and President, and it is very clear this was not a rebuke of Republicans but a rebuke of Trump.

[GrandPapillon]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If fraud on a deciding scale was committed the senate would have been won by the Democrats. Look at the results independently of Congress, Senate and President, and it is very clear this was not a rebuke of Republicans but a rebuke of Trump.

Trump managed to gain a lot of new votes in this election, and it was a close call, not the Biden tsunami that a complete rejection of Trump would have created

 

If you look at the map of the "questionable" states, it's all red, with a few clusters of blue in big cities. If I was a Grand Elector in those states, I would clearly make the decision for red and not blue on Dec 14th, no matter what election system was used locally.

 

The system was designed to give equal votes between "unpopulated" states and "populated" states, which is quite smart actually.

 

Technically the Grand Elector should follow that same principle at the county level when they cast their votes on Dec 14th

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by GrandPapillon

[GrandPapillon]

The vote counting in the US has always been flawed, and the Republicans knew it, hence why they were able to call it in 2000 and hand it over to GW Bush.

 

As Stalin used to say, I paraphrase here: "it's not how many votes you receive, but who is counting those votes"

 

????

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Trump managed to gain a lot of new votes in this election, and it was a close call, not the Biden tsunami that a complete rejection of Trump would have created

 

If you look at the map of the "questionable" states, it's all red, with a few clusters of blue in big cities. If I was a Grand Elector in those states, I would clearly make the decision for red and not blue on Dec 14th, no matter what election system was used locally.

 

The system was designed to give equal votes between "unpopulated" states and "populated" states, which is quite smart actually.

 

Technically the Grand Elector should follow that same principle at the county level when they cast their votes on Dec 14th

 

"If I was a Grand Elector in those states, I would clearly make the decision for red and not blue on Dec 14th"

 

So you would chose for the minority. Sad.

 

You're not addressing the point I made.

[GrandPapillon]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

"If I was a Grand Elector in those states, I would clearly make the decision for red and not blue on Dec 14th"

 

So you would chose for the minority. Sad.

 

You're not addressing the point I made.

I think you are missing one yourself, the founding fathers didn't like "popular" votes, and thought "equality" was more important than "popularity"

 

So yes, the minority should be given a bigger voice to adjust for their "minority" conditions,

 

so technically, a Grand Voter should go Red come to Dec 14th, not Blue. Now, they usually follow the "popular" votes, but they are in direct violation of their "original mission".

 

You can't silent Trump votes just become you don't like him. No matter how much of a pig he is ????

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, GrandPapillon said:

I think you are missing one yourself, the founding fathers didn't like "popular" votes, and thought "equality" was more important than "popularity"

 

So yes, the minority should be given a bigger voice to adjust for their "minority" conditions,

 

so technically, a Grand Voter should go Red come to Dec 14th, not Blue. Now, they usually follow the "popular" votes, but they are in direct violation of their "original mission".

 

You can't silent Trump votes just become you don't like him. No matter how much of a pig he is ????

 

The minority has a bigger voice, hence the Electoral College. But for the electoral college to ignore the votes as cast in the state and go for the minority because they are spread out better, as you claim should be done, is simply nonsense.

[Sujo]

Nice to see biden acting presidential and getting things done.

 

As opposed to trump deciding which club to hit from the first tee.

[GrandPapillon]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The minority has a bigger voice, hence the Electoral College. But for the electoral college to ignore the votes as cast in the state and go for the minority because they are spread out better, as you claim should be done, is simply nonsense.

it's exactly the same thing, the Grand Electors take the decision based on the "concentration" of the state, the "minority" is the red in this case, not the blue. The Blue won the popular votes because of the vote concentration, the red are spread all over in small quantities. The Red is the "minority"

 

How do you "equalize" that when you have to cast a vote to "represent" all votes equally,

[GrandPapillon]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Nice to see biden acting presidential and getting things done.

 

As opposed to trump deciding which club to hit from the first tee.

Biden will certainly be more Presidential, but don't expect him to do anything

 

and how long before allegations of rapes and sexual abuses to young women will surface so the News organizations can maintain their level of interests in politics after 4 wonderful years under Trump ????

Edited December 6, 2020 by GrandPapillon

[Sujo]

22 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Biden will certainly be more Presidential, but don't expect him to do anything

 

and how long before allegations of rapes and sexual abuses to young women will surface so the News organizations can maintain their level of interests in politics after 4 wonderful years under Trump ????

When trump is gone those allegations of his gropings will go to court. Not long to wait.

[Shot]

Hope to see Hillary Clinton get a position, she deserves it, and who doesn't love Hillary?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Shot

[Venom]

On 12/5/2020 at 7:58 PM, billd766 said:

You cannot be serious, man.

 

The Swamp Creature is on his way out and will gone by 20 January 2021.

 

Oh that's right, sorry I almost forgot. ????

[onthedarkside]

Several posts making false statements regarding Biden's status as president-elect and a challenge to a fact-checking finding on that have been removed.

 

President-elect in the U.S. is not principally a legal-designation, and the fact-check challenge at issue was an internal appeal to the fact checker and did not involve any filed lawsuit.

 

Quote

There is no explicit indication in the Constitution when that person actually becomes president-elect, although the Twentieth Amendment uses the term "President elect", giving the term some constitutional justification.^[1][2] As an unofficial term, president-elect has been used by the media for decades. Politicians have applied the term to the declared winner, even soon after election night.^[3]

Since 1963, the Presidential Transition Act has empowered the General Services Administration to determine who the apparent election winner is and to help facilitate the basic functioning of the president-elect's transition team, including the provision of "office space" for the "apparent successful candidates".^[4]

By convention, during the period between the election and the inauguration, the president-elect actively prepares to carry out the duties of the office of president and works with the outgoing (or lame duck) president to ensure a smooth handover of presidential responsibilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect_of_the_United_States

 

Also:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/biden-did-not-invent-the-office-of-president-elect/