Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Democratic Cabinet 2021 Thought-Experiment

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

President: Joe Biden

VP: Stephanie Murphy

State: Alan Mulally

Treasury: Glenn Hubbard (R)

Defense: James Mattis (I)

Att Gen: Kamala Harris

Interior: Heidi Heitkamp

Agriculture: Butch Otter (R)

Commerce: Carlos Gutierrez (R)

Labor: Hilda Solis

HUD: Wayne Messam

Health, etc.: Ami Bera

Transportation: Harold Ford Jr.

Education: Michelle Rhee

Energy: Steven Chu

Veteran's Affairs: James G. Stavridis

Homeland Security: Kyrsten Sinema

Stavirdis has a very interesting book on Seapower. I doubt Sinema would be taken out of the Senate with a Republican governor in Arizona. Dems had to work hard to finally get a Dem in there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

It would be require some research to fill certain roles. Plus, I didn't check, but does @vcczar allow abolishing departments like Paul and Perry were talking about in the 2012 Primary Debate (where the "three-fingered cowboy" comes from - although I certainly wouldn't be up for abolishing the same departments as them, the overreach, intrusion, and "secret police" qualities of Homeland Defense would be something I'd eye)?

You can do that. For this exercise, you are in charge of building the cabinet for one of the 2021 Dems. Good question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

As much as I like @Patine and side with most of his political views, he commits one of the more annoying/aggravating habits I see among people in message boards. That is, he rarely takes part in the polls/exercises/games and is content to just criticize the results of these. While his criticisms are valid, and are often agreeable, this is a major forum social faux pas, in my opinion. It's one thing to be critical of an exercise, poll, and the results therefor if you partake in it. I'd assume Patine would also want to provide better alternatives to Harris, Buttigieg, and Gabbard. I'm also sincerely interested in his responses, alternatives, suggestions. While I disagree with a lot of your opinions on things (like some of these cabinet members), I appreciate your willingness to response to question, exercises, and polls that I put together. There are times when Patine gives his reasons for not answer polls. That's fine. For instance, when he states he needs to research further; however, that might also mean he needs to research some of his opinions a little further. For instance, I think his view on Buttigieg might be overlook some of the good traits about Buttigieg. He pants him like a neocon or a lightweight Heinrich Himmler. I'm not sure what he's done or what he says he will do that would make him either of these in comparison to about any other non-Progressive Democrat that could hold this position. Buttigieg is younger than all three of us too; he hasn't had much time to really build an argument for or against him, which might be one of the more appealing things about him. I share some of the same concerns of Buttigieg as Patine, but I find he lumps Buttigieg with Harris, which I don't think is accurate or even fair. 

I don't necessarily think Buttigieg is a neocon, and CERTAINLY not Heinrich Himmler (I don't tend to throw around Himmler comparison, and I made very clear that I only compared Trump to Hitler in the tenor of their electoral style, and nothing else - though, all Western war propaganda mechanisms are verifiably based on techniques devised by Goebbels - but many don't even know that). I do, however, believe Buttigieg would be among the most hawkish of those running - and even LBJ was a war hawk, for the record - and he has policies from being mayor where he cooperated in law-enforcement initiatives that contributed to what I complain about in Harris, even if he wasn't as intimately involved in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Stavirdis has a very interesting book on Seapower. I doubt Sinema would be taken out of the Senate with a Republican governor in Arizona. Dems had to work hard to finally get a Dem in there. 

Oh yes, the gamble for the senate might also be a crucial factor. I forget to think about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't necessarily think Buttigieg is a neocon, and CERTAINLY not Heinrich Himmler (I don't tend to throw around Himmler comparison, and I made very clear that I only compared Trump to Hitler in the tenor of their electoral style, and nothing else - though, all Western war propaganda mechanisms are verifiably based on techniques devised by Goebbels - but many don't even know that). I do, however, believe Buttigieg would be among the most hawkish of those running - and even LBJ was a war hawk, for the record - and he has policies from being mayor where he cooperated in law-enforcement initiatives that contributed to what I complain about in Harris, even if he wasn't as intimately involved in the process.

So I guess my next question then is, what is your evidence for suggesting that he would be more hawkish than most of those running. I think it will be obvious that he will be more hawkish than Sanders or Gabbard, and possibly Warren. What is the argument for him being more hawkish than most of the rest? That is, other than him having served in the military, something which Gabbard has done as well. In regards to his law-enforcement initiatives, which I agree is not stellar, what from this experience do you think will certainly translate to a similar response as president? I think a lot of this thinking is "If this, then...." when history has shown that a candidates past behavior rarely translates to how they handle the opportunities that arise. Trump is an exception to this, possibly because he's so old he can't be adaptive (he's also too dumb). But think about this:

- FDR ran as a moderate, governed more like a moderate, and ended up being our most progressive president (excluding some clear Civil Rights violations). He also was non-interventionist early one and broke from that, so a foreign policy change too. 

- Truman was a social moderate as a Senator, coming from Missouri, but he aimed to extend FDR's social policies. 

- Eisenhower was a political unknown so I'll skip him. 

- JFK campaigned as a social moderate; yet, his New Frontier proposals became the Great Society. 

- LBJ broke with basically all of his Southern Democrat social beliefs from before he was VP. Contrary to what some believe he didn't really want to get involved in Vietnam if it was going to be difficult, because he thought it would make it harder to afford his domestic agenda. He sought consensus on Vietnam, rather than make the decision himself. This was him acting like a Senator rather than like a president. When the majority seemed for intervention, he made the assumption that involvement would be relatively swift and successful. For comparison, JFK was arguably a greater warhawk than LBJ; however, there's evidence that JFK was starting to turn the corner for the better before he was killed. 

- Nixon was a social and economic conservative; however, as president he was almost as moderate as Eisenhower, socially speaking. Economically, he was more similar to Democrats today. Even Obama said in an interview that in some areas Nixon was left of him. Nixon was a very conservative Senator, conservative VP, and slightly less conservative candidate in 1960, and moderated quickly, socially speaking. Politicians adapt, they aren't fixed entities. In foreign policy, Nixon was worse than JFK or LBJ. He said he'd pull out troops, but didn't so so until he expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia and escalated bombing. 

- Ford. I'll skip him. He was pretty consistent with his past. 

- Carter was a conservative Dem as a Governor (although not as racist as most Southern Dems at the time). He campaign as a moderate and operated as a moderate president, despite seeking healthcare and alternate energy. He didn't become liberal until after his presidency. He evolved. He also evolved in regards to foreign policy. He was fairly hawkish, despite his reputation for peace. 

- Reagan tolerated social policies in ways that didn't match his rhetoric. Much of this was because of a Democratic Congress. He also cared way more about foreign policy than domestic policy. 

- Bush was fairly consistent with his past. 

- Clinton was fairly consistent with his past.

- GW Bush was consistent with his past but not with his campaign rhetoric, which was that of "A compassionate Conservative." He just went all out Conservative once the country was behind him after 9-11. 

- Obama was very inconsistent. He was much more moderate and hawkish than his rhetoric or his past suggestions.

- Trump hasn't evolved from his campaign rhetoric, but he has from past positions. 

This said, Buttigieg's experiences may not translate to how he operates. Even his rhetoric might not line up. I'd like to see your evidence of hawkish and for Harris-like concerns for him in the realm of criminal justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Patine said:

 intolerance of opinions and viewpoints you don't like.

You accuse me of this often.  Yet you are the only person on this forum that I actually have a consistently antagonistic relationship with, and it's usually because you've made another grand appearance to shit on something that someone else took the time to work on.

All you do here is criticize damned near everything that you see.  If you were just criticizing me, I would shrug and say "guess he doesn't like me, I'll somehow have to move on with my life despite this."  But you criticize everyone and everything.  All without ever coming out in FAVOR of something, because god forbid you be asked to defend your own ideas instead of attacking others'.  

Vcczar's cabinet is farther to the left than I'd like.  Reagan's is too far to the right.  But that's okay!  We're all allowed to come on here and say "Here's what I would do", and if that inspires an interesting conversation, great.  If it doesn't, fine.  But just saying "You're WRONG" over and over and over and over every goddamned day to every single person on here doesn't add anything to the conversation, until you're ready to step up and offer something that you believe is RIGHT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You accuse me of this often.  Yet you are the only person on this forum that I actually have a consistently antagonistic relationship with, and it's usually because you've made another grand appearance to shit on something that someone else took the time to work on.

All you do here is criticize damned near everything that you see.  If you were just criticizing me, I would shrug and say "guess he doesn't like me, I'll somehow have to move on with my life despite this."  But you criticize everyone and everything.  All without ever coming out in FAVOR of something, because god forbid you be asked to defend your own ideas instead of attacking others'.  

Vcczar's cabinet is farther to the left than I'd like.  Reagan's is too far to the right.  But that's okay!  We're all allowed to come on here and say "Here's what I would do", and if that inspires an interesting conversation, great.  If it doesn't, fine.  But just saying "You're WRONG" over and over and over and over every goddamned day to every single person on here doesn't add anything to the conversation, until you're ready to step up and offer something that you believe is RIGHT.

Do I really tell EVERY single person they're wrong on EVERYTHING EVERY SINGLE DAY. I'd like to a post chain evidence of this. That's a pretty heavy accusation you're levying. Very extreme indeed. Also, just because I don't produce an alternative IMMEDIATELY doesn't mean I wouldn't have one - I just believe that hasty ideas and alternatives put up instantly and thoughtlessly, even if the other proposals are going to be disaster, will be no less of a disaster. I have base beliefs on things, but these kinds of things have to be thought about. And, as for your comment at the top, when Siskel was just a newspaper movie critic back in his youth, before he went on TV and partnered with Ebert, he ruthlessly picked apart many flaws and faults in a lot of major Hollywood movies the day, that were quite defensible and legitimate flaws. A groups of movie directors and producers actually met with him and said to stop "slandering" and "smearing" their movies. He calmly replied that had they considered, it wasn't him that was the issue - but the movies they were making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is mine, and I know it may not be the most perfect Cabinet, but it is the most perfect for made on a Saturday afternoon with no vetting. 

 

President: Warren

VP: Castro

State:  Cherly MIlls (worked under Clinton when she was Sec of State)

Treasury:  Paul Krugman 

Defense:  Admiral Harry B Harris (Amazing name and is Asian-American)

Att Gen:  Kamala Harris 

Interior:  Steve Bullock

Agriculture:  Heidi Heitkamp

Commerce:   Andrew Yang

Labor:   Bernie Sanders (this might be a difficult pick to get through the Senate)     

HUD: Steve Benjamin (Mayor of Columbia, SC)

Health, etc.: Abdul El-Sayed (easiest pick under the guidelines)

Transportation:  Charlie Baker

Education:   Rebecca Blank( Chancellor of U of Wisconsin-Madison; previously worked under Obama)

Energy: Ernest Moniz

Veteran's Affairs: Tammy Duckworth

Homeland Security:  Lucille Royball-Allard (Chairwoman of House Homeland Security).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Here is mine, and I know it may not be the most perfect Cabinet, but it is the most perfect for made on a Saturday afternoon with no vetting. 

 

President: Warren

VP: Castro

State:  Cherly MIlls (worked under Clinton when she was Sec of State)

Treasury:  Paul Krugman 

Defense:  Admiral Harry B Harris (Amazing name and is Asian-American)

Att Gen:  Kamala Harris 

Interior:  Steve Bullock

Agriculture:  Heidi Heitkamp

Commerce:   Andrew Yang

Labor:   Bernie Sanders (this might be a difficult pick to get through the Senate)     

HUD: Steve Benjamin (Mayor of Columbia, SC)

Health, etc.: Abdul El-Sayed (easiest pick under the guidelines)

Transportation:  Charlie Baker

Education:   Rebecca Blank( Chancellor of U of Wisconsin-Madison; previously worked under Obama)

Energy: Ernest Moniz

Veteran's Affairs: Tammy Duckworth

Homeland Security:  Lucille Royball-Allard (Chairwoman of House Homeland Security).

Thanks for presenting your picks. Sanders is problematic too because the Gov of VT will likely pick a Republican to take Sanders's senate seat. Warren is already going to cost Dems a Senate seat if she is president. Would the Dems risk losing two senators? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You accuse me of this often.  Yet you are the only person on this forum that I actually have a consistently antagonistic relationship with, and it's usually because you've made another grand appearance to shit on something that someone else took the time to work on.

All you do here is criticize damned near everything that you see.  If you were just criticizing me, I would shrug and say "guess he doesn't like me, I'll somehow have to move on with my life despite this."  But you criticize everyone and everything.  All without ever coming out in FAVOR of something, because god forbid you be asked to defend your own ideas instead of attacking others'.  

Vcczar's cabinet is farther to the left than I'd like.  Reagan's is too far to the right.  But that's okay!  We're all allowed to come on here and say "Here's what I would do", and if that inspires an interesting conversation, great.  If it doesn't, fine.  But just saying "You're WRONG" over and over and over and over every goddamned day to every single person on here doesn't add anything to the conversation, until you're ready to step up and offer something that you believe is RIGHT.

And actually, if you read the post I made you were complaining about so fervently, I said your cabinet would be "almost as frightening as Reagan04's." There was no absolutist, high-and-mighty statement of objective "right and wrong," - I was OBVIOUSLY stating a VERY subjective opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Thanks for presenting your picks. Sanders is problematic too because the Gov of VT will likely pick a Republican to take Sanders's senate seat. Warren is already going to cost Dems a Senate seat if she is president. Would the Dems risk losing two senators? 

MA and VT are safe blue states, that I can see Democrats winning the special elections(baring a Martha Coakley style candidate). Also I will need to double check VT law, since some states require the appointed replacement to be of the same party as the one they are replacing. But assuming that  Warren wins, I can replace one old white guy, with a younger white guy; Andy Levin( Congressman from the blue collar suburbs of Detroit). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President: Sen. Bernie Sanders

VP: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

-------------------------------------------------

State: Former Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) 

Treasury: Fmr Labor Sec./Economist Robert Reich (Pennsylvania)

Defense: Rep. Barbara Lee (California)

Att Gen: Attorney General of NY Letitia James (New York)

Interior: Environmentalist Bill McKibben (California)

Agriculture: Rep. Kim Schrier (Washington)

Commerce: Businessman Andrew Yang (New York)

Labor: Former Director of the Office of Public Engagement Gabriela Lemus (Washington DC)

HUD: Mayor Jesse Arreguín (California)

Health, etc.: Chief Medical Officer Claudia Fegan (Illinois)

Transportation: Former FTA Official Carolyn Flowers (California)

Education: Gov. Tim Walz (Minnesota)

Energy: Former. Energy Sec. Steven Chu (Missouri)

Veteran's Affairs: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (Illinois)

Homeland Security: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas)

 

This was a challenge. It doesn't fit all the requirements, if I spent more time playing around I'm sure I could but this is the best I could do for now. I think for the most part it's pretty close. A good mix of elected and un-elected officials (with 15 positions it can't be perfectly balanced so this is the best I can do). Certainly some picks in there to energize Sanders' base but tried to balance some not to alienate moderate voters

Women: 8

Men: 7

 

Elected: 8

Un-elected 7

 

White: 6

African-American: 4

Asian: 3

Hispanic: 3

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

So I guess my next question then is, what is your evidence for suggesting that he would be more hawkish than most of those running. I think it will be obvious that he will be more hawkish than Sanders or Gabbard, and possibly Warren. What is the argument for him being more hawkish than most of the rest? That is, other than him having served in the military, something which Gabbard has done as well. In regards to his law-enforcement initiatives, which I agree is not stellar, what from this experience do you think will certainly translate to a similar response as president? I think a lot of this thinking is "If this, then...." when history has shown that a candidates past behavior rarely translates to how they handle the opportunities that arise. Trump is an exception to this, possibly because he's so old he can't be adaptive (he's also too dumb). But think about this:

- FDR ran as a moderate, governed more like a moderate, and ended up being our most progressive president (excluding some clear Civil Rights violations). He also was non-interventionist early one and broke from that, so a foreign policy change too. 

- Truman was a social moderate as a Senator, coming from Missouri, but he aimed to extend FDR's social policies. 

- Eisenhower was a political unknown so I'll skip him. 

- JFK campaigned as a social moderate; yet, his New Frontier proposals became the Great Society. 

- LBJ broke with basically all of his Southern Democrat social beliefs from before he was VP. Contrary to what some believe he didn't really want to get involved in Vietnam if it was going to be difficult, because he thought it would make it harder to afford his domestic agenda. He sought consensus on Vietnam, rather than make the decision himself. This was him acting like a Senator rather than like a president. When the majority seemed for intervention, he made the assumption that involvement would be relatively swift and successful. For comparison, JFK was arguably a greater warhawk than LBJ; however, there's evidence that JFK was starting to turn the corner for the better before he was killed. 

- Nixon was a social and economic conservative; however, as president he was almost as moderate as Eisenhower, socially speaking. Economically, he was more similar to Democrats today. Even Obama said in an interview that in some areas Nixon was left of him. Nixon was a very conservative Senator, conservative VP, and slightly less conservative candidate in 1960, and moderated quickly, socially speaking. Politicians adapt, they aren't fixed entities. In foreign policy, Nixon was worse than JFK or LBJ. He said he'd pull out troops, but didn't so so until he expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia and escalated bombing. 

- Ford. I'll skip him. He was pretty consistent with his past. 

- Carter was a conservative Dem as a Governor (although not as racist as most Southern Dems at the time). He campaign as a moderate and operated as a moderate president, despite seeking healthcare and alternate energy. He didn't become liberal until after his presidency. He evolved. He also evolved in regards to foreign policy. He was fairly hawkish, despite his reputation for peace. 

- Reagan tolerated social policies in ways that didn't match his rhetoric. Much of this was because of a Democratic Congress. He also cared way more about foreign policy than domestic policy. 

- Bush was fairly consistent with his past. 

- Clinton was fairly consistent with his past.

- GW Bush was consistent with his past but not with his campaign rhetoric, which was that of "A compassionate Conservative." He just went all out Conservative once the country was behind him after 9-11. 

- Obama was very inconsistent. He was much more moderate and hawkish than his rhetoric or his past suggestions.

- Trump hasn't evolved from his campaign rhetoric, but he has from past positions. 

This said, Buttigieg's experiences may not translate to how he operates. Even his rhetoric might not line up. I'd like to see your evidence of hawkish and for Harris-like concerns for him in the realm of criminal justice. 

Another thing of note - FDR also had the advantage that war came to him. All of the ones after him either instigated the war(s) of their administration, were talked into it by others in their administration, or it came to them as a result of the backlash of decades of badly-thought-out, paternalistic, counter-productive, cavalier, and criminal, in international sense, actions and policies as is, like George W. Bush (the U.S. foreign policy of the interwar era was not a significant factor in the rise of Japanese Imperialism or National Socialism, thus FDR's not in the same boat there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Patine said:

Another thing of note - FDR also had the advantage that war came to him. All of the ones after him either instigated the war(s) of their administration, were talked into it by others in their administration, or it came to them as a result of the backlash of decades of badly-thought-out, paternalistic, counter-productive, cavalier, and criminal, in international sense, actions and policies as is, like George W. Bush (the U.S. foreign policy of the interwar era was not a significant factor in the rise of Japanese Imperialism or National Socialism, thus FDR's not in the same boat there).

You don’t think the World Wars were the result of decades of badly thought out actions?

Did you guys have different world wars in Canada or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You don’t think the World Wars were the result of decades of badly thought out actions?

Did you guys have different world wars in Canada or something?

They were. But, to the Americans' credit, they were far from the worst contributors to the root causes. In fact, a fun fact - one of the biggest issues in the Weimar Republic that propelled the Nazis to power in the March, 1933 Reichstag election (not the only one, but this helps my point), was the economic downturn everyone in the world suffered. It was an American Secretary of State or Commerce that convinced the Allied Powers from WW1 to agree to a plan of leniency on payments of reparations from the Treaty of Versailles back in the 1920's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

Mayor Lumumba is alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokwe_Antar_Lumumba . I don't know what you're talking about. 

Oh his father, Mayor Chokwe Lumumba, died in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Patine said:

And, as for your comment at the top, when Siskel was just a newspaper movie critic...

Jesus Christ, you’re Siskel now?

Heres the difference between you and professional critics:

Sometimes, they say things are good!

If every single review from Siskel was just “this movie sucks,” then eventually people would say “Wait...this guy isn’t a critic.  He just doesn’t like movies.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Jesus Christ, you’re Siskel now?

Heres the difference between you and professional critics:

Sometimes, they say things are good!

If every single review from Siskel was just “this movie sucks,” then eventually people would say “Wait...this guy isn’t a critic.  He just doesn’t like movies.”

Siskel pretty much gave everything two thumbs up or so it seems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Sometimes, they say things are good!

If every single review from Siskel was just “this movie sucks,” then eventually people would say “Wait...this guy isn’t a critic.  He just doesn’t like movies.”

Just because YOU disagree with me doesn't mean NOTHING I say has a point and EVERYTHING I say is wrong and "shitting over everyone." You claim I'm the one who always insists I'm right in an arrogant way, but I think it's time to look in the mirror here. You're attitude is actually much more arrogant and self-righteous here than you ever admit to. And, as I pointed out above, this whole argument started because you attacked me for an obviously subjective opinion, declaring I was stating it as though in a manner of declaring it "objectively wrong." Declaring something "frightening" (which is the term I used in the post you pounced) is hardly self-righteous or a statement of "objective judgement." Although my insistence on the "war criminal President" issue initially may have indeed been pushed too far at the time by me, I admit (look, I admitted to error), you have since pounced on my like a hungry panther in several unwarranted and overblown attacks and unfounded accusations since, while claiming the rest of the forum community (who have practically never comment on these later issues) have your back, because "I'm the only one out of line." If I didn't know any better, I'd suggest an attempt at smear campaign, albeit a clumsy one, and certainly the type of personal attack (minus the colourful, signature epithets) your archnemesis Donald Trump engages in - nasty but baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Actinguy and @Patine I would suggest that you both block one another. If these kind of heated exchanges come up in every thread, then Anthony is likely to keep shutting them down, which will be no fun for anyone. These attacks, regardless of who starts them, end up being more personal than on topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Actinguy and @Patine I would suggest that you both block one another. If these kind of heated exchanges come up in every thread, then Anthony is likely to keep shutting them down, which will be no fun for anyone. These attacks, regardless of who starts them, end up being more personal than on topic. 

I concur and indeed did so some time ago.  Unfortunately, it still tells you when a blocked person has responded to one of your posts, and sometimes the temptation is too great depending on my mood at the time.

It may be helpful if @Patine would be so kind as to block me as well.  If he’s not responding to me directly, I will be less inclined to care what he is saying, and perhaps both of us would save a great deal of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

@Actinguy and @Patine I would suggest that you both block one another. If these kind of heated exchanges come up in every thread, then Anthony is likely to keep shutting them down, which will be no fun for anyone. These attacks, regardless of who starts them, end up being more personal than on topic. 

I suppose it is the only alternative here. Although it was likely too much to expect he would look at his posts more carefully, and how they read to others, and admit ANYTHING at all might be amiss, in any form or any way, with his conduct and how he presents his point-of-view, I will have to just block him without even that level of resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President: Sen. Elizabeth Warren

VP: Fmr. Sec. Julian Castro

State: Rep. Barbara Lee  D

Treasury: Fmr. State Auditor, Rebecca Otto   D

Defense: Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy

Att Gen: Sen. Amy Klobuchar   D

Interior: Ms. Winona LaDuke   G

Agriculture: Fmr. Sen. Tom Udall

Commerce: Mr. Andrew Yang    D

Labor: Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman     D

HUD: Rep. Katherine Clark   D

Health, etc.: Mr. Abdul El-Sayed  D

Transportation: Sec. Anthony Foxx  D

Education: Rep. Susie Lee   D

Energy: Gov. Jay Inslee   D

Veteran's Affairs: Rep. Anthony G. Brown      D

Homeland Security: Rep. Stephanie Murphy        D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, avatarmushi said:

President: Sen. Elizabeth Warren

VP: Fmr. Sec. Julian Castro

State: Rep. Barbara Lee  D

Treasury: Fmr. State Auditor, Rebecca Otto   D

Defense: Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy

Att Gen: Sen. Amy Klobuchar   D

Interior: Ms. Winona LaDuke   G

Agriculture: Fmr. Sen. Tom Udall

Commerce: Mr. Andrew Yang    D

Labor: Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman     D

HUD: Rep. Katherine Clark   D

Health, etc.: Mr. Abdul El-Sayed  D

Transportation: Sec. Anthony Foxx  D

Education: Rep. Susie Lee   D

Energy: Gov. Jay Inslee   D

Veteran's Affairs: Rep. Anthony G. Brown      D

Homeland Security: Rep. Stephanie Murphy        D

Thanks! Good list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...