Jump to content
270soft Forum

Price Resigns & Trump Poll


Trump Poll, following Price resignation  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Tom Price has resigned as Health Secretary after his scandal and failure at helping get Obamacare Repealed and Replaced. How do you rate Tom Price's tenure?

    • Great -- Media unfairly covered him
      0
    • Good -- Media unfairly covered him
    • Average -- He wasn't that bad, and the media unfairly covered him.
    • Bad -- Media somewhat accurately captured his incompetence
    • Terrible -- He was thoroughly incompetent.
  2. 2. Considering Trump's high turnover rate in his cabinet and cabinet-level positions, you give Trump the following score for his executive appointments

    • A - Even those that have resigned/fired were terrific choices.
    • B - Those that resigned are a small fraction of his otherwise stellar appointments
    • C - He's made great picks and obviously some terrible choices, but they balance each other out.
    • D - He's made some good choices, but mostly bad choices, and I expect more to resign/get first or have crippling scandals eventually.
    • F - I expect the high turnover to occur continuously, highlighting Trump's terrible judgment in making appointments.
  3. 3. Who would make a good replacement for Tom Price?

    • I know someone (name below)
    • I don't know anyone to replace him


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Kingthero said:

Also, take into account that Mattis and Tillerson are relatively great picks for his cabinet, which save him from failing bigly.

I think Mattis is good, and think General Kelly at Chief of Staff might become a good choice. I'm not sold on Tillerson yet. Most reports describe him as ineffective, unconfortable with the Trump administration, and still trying to learn the ropes. He could improve for sure, however. I think Perry and Carson are terrible picks, when smarter people for these positions were available. I think his appointment for NASA is terrible. DeVos is awful. While I don't agree with Sessions as an Att Gen, he's at least qualified and capable of some independent thought. 

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

I don't know anything about Tom Price. Does he have a background in health care, out of curiosity?

He was a US Rep and a surgeon. He served on health committees whiles as a US Rep. He wasn't unqualified, but there were certainly better options. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiring is important, but firing is also very important. Much worse than firing is not firing someone who ought to be. Filling out even just the cabinet level with appointees is a difficult job, especially given Trump's preference for non-career-politicians.

I remember when people thought his shuffling of people in his campaign was a sign of chaos and incompetence on his part. Retrospectively, it looks like he hired the right people for certain parts of the campaign, and then moved to other people for other parts of the campaign.

Politicos tend to think that firing is problematic, but in business it's often the right move - it's like pruning a tree. As long as he effectively identifies problematic appointees and removes them quickly, and given the steep learning curve with initial appointees, I think it signals more competence than the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Hiring is important, but firing is also very important. Much worse than firing is not firing someone who ought to be. Filling out even just the cabinet level with appointees is a difficult job, especially given Trump's preference for non-career-politicians.

I remember when people thought his shuffling of people in his campaign was a sign of chaos and incompetence on his part. Retrospectively, it looks like he hired the right people for certain parts of the campaign, and then moved to other people for other parts of the campaign.

Politicos tend to think that firing is problematic, but in business it's often the right move - it's like pruning a tree. As long as he effectively identifies problematic appointees and removes them quickly, and given the steep learning curve with initial appointees, I think it signals more competence than the opposite.

But you can't run a government like a business. The adminsitrative model, purposes, and very foundational theories are just so different. This is the big reason that, though I liked the idea of a siginificant Presidential contender in the day from outside the Duopoly, Ross Perot, who campaigned on (among other things) to "run the Federal Government like a business" (also a campaign plank of Kevin O'Leary in the recent Canadian Conservative Party Leadership Race) would have been utterly disastrous.

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

His cabinet picks are like a D-. You can't get any closer than failing. DeVos and Pruitt alone put him on the edge of failing. He has a couple of decent picks for a republican president like Mattis and Haley. If they weren't there, it would be an F

Yeah, I'd agree that Mattis, Haley are good. As are Kelly, and Amb. Huntsman. 

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

Yeah, I'd agree that Mattis, Haley are good. As are Kelly, and Amb. Huntsman. 

Wasn't Mattis the one who apparently refused to lift a finger to order a reescue of several stranded soldiers in Afghanistan when he was commanding the nearest base? Or am I mistaken?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q3: I'd consider Bobby Jindal.

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

Wasn't Mattis the one who apparently refused to lift a finger to order a reescue of several stranded soldiers in Afghanistan when he was commanding the nearest base? Or am I mistaken?

I haven't heard that story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Q3: I'd consider Bobby Jindal.

What is his medical background. I'd probably pick someone that chairs one of the various committees focused on health. So one of these US Reps probably, Pat Tiberi, Tom Cole, Jim Jordan--all Republicans. I don't know their opinions on Healthcare, but they have the right experience. Tom Cole is part Native American, and a registered member of a tribe, so he might be easier to pass through a Congress since Democrats are often sympathetic to minorities, especially Native Americans. 

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

I think Mattis is good, and think General Kelly at Chief of Staff might become a good choice. I'm not sold on Tillerson yet. Most reports describe him as ineffective, unconfortable with the Trump administration, and still trying to learn the ropes. He could improve for sure, however. I think Perry and Carson are terrible picks, when smarter people for these positions were available. I think his appointment for NASA is terrible. DeVos is awful. While I don't agree with Sessions as an Att Gen, he's at least qualified and capable of some independent thought. 

I think carson should replace price.

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

What is his medical background. I'd probably pick someone that chairs one of the various committees focused on health. So one of these US Reps probably, Pat Tiberi, Tom Cole, Jim Jordan--all Republicans. I don't know their opinions on Healthcare, but they have the right experience. Tom Cole is part Native American, and a registered member of a tribe, so he might be easier to pass through a Congress since Democrats are often sympathetic to minorities, especially Native Americans. 

INteresting ideas. I did not know them very well.

12 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

I think carson should replace price.

Carson was my very first pick. I would have chosen him instead of Price for this office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

 

Carson was my very first pick. I would have chosen him instead of Price for this office.

 

Agreed, my preferential pick after Carson would be Ron Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Agreed, my preferential pick after Carson would be Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is too old. I think Rand Paul would be better. I think Ben Carson fits Health better than HUD. Keep in mind, I disagree with these people ideologically, but they are technically qualified. 

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

 I think Ben Carson fits Health better than HUD. 

True. I do not know a good replacement for HUD, however. I have looked into

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Donald_Trump's_Cabinet#Secretary_of_Housing_and_Urban_Development

The only one I know is Scott Brown. I cannot elaborate whether he is qualified or not..

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

INteresting ideas. I did not know them very well.

Carson was my very first pick. I would have chosen him instead of Price for this office.

 

40 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Agreed, my preferential pick after Carson would be Ron Paul.

 

27 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Ron Paul is too old. I think Rand Paul would be better. I think Ben Carson fits Health better than HUD. Keep in mind, I disagree with these people ideologically, but they are technically qualified. 

I'm very leary of Carson. A neurosurgeon who openly denies and refutes foundational principles of science seems very sketchy to me, just by nature of such a concept...

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

 

 

I'm very leary of Carson. A neurosurgeon who openly denies and refutes foundational principles of science seems very sketchy to me, just by nature of such a concept...

I agree. I'm just saying he would be, on paper, more suitable for Heath than HUD. I can't think of many Republicans that would make a good Health Secretary, since their healthcare ideology is almost fundamentally opposed to making healthcare easily accessible for those that need it most -- elderly, handicapped, pre-existing demographic, the poor, etc. 

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

I agree. I'm just saying he would be, on paper, more suitable for Heath than HUD. I can't think of many Republicans that would make a good Health Secretary, since their healthcare ideology is almost fundamentally opposed to making healthcare easily accessible for those that need it most -- elderly, handicapped, pre-existing demographic, the poor, etc. 

What's your evidence for this?

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...