As each nomination has rolled across my phone, I just keep thinking “you reap what you sow, America.” Can we really be surprised that a man who has spent his career amassing money, then fame, then power, then dominance over his “enemies” is picking people who are first and foremost loyal to him with their dollars (and children’s books, apparently)? I’m not naive enough to believe people in the Administration of any president get there solely by merit (my own time in DC is a product of knowing the right people). But when the top of any Administration looks like this one, it rarely means good things for us, the collective “we the people”, particularly the poor, the sick, children, the immigrant. As we say in my religious practice, Lord, have mercy.
(I’m by nature a very optimistic person, but Spicy Liz is having a moment this morning)
So well said, Liz! I feel my family and I are completely at the mercy of enormous egos who will walk on anyone that doesn't share their new vision for the US.
It’s ironic that Trump talks about “draining the swamp” while filling his administration through a pay-to-play model. He should clarify: “Drain, Refill, and Make America Swampier Again”— DRAMASA
Is picking cabinet members who donated extravagant amounts of money something that has historically happened in the past? What about picking cabinet members with no background in the position they are taking? Is that also something that happens frequently or rarely and what were the results of those cabinet members who did not have qualifications in the field they were taking leadership in?
"Obama's first Cabinet by and large did not include individuals of great wealth. Even by pre-Citizens United standards, their campaign contributions to him and others were modest.": https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/cabinet.php
There has always been a lot of money involved on both sides but I don't think ever to this extreme. Musk is just wrong! T's cabinet picks in the first administration didn't last because they were too much by the book instead of loyal to the man.
The idea that all of these appointees are essentially "yes" people with no real experience and extravagant amounts of money is concerning. It doesn't seen like this is normally how things are done. Is this normal? I am also very curious as to how they will be vetted by the Senate.
I learned about the Card Campaign from Heather Cox Richardson. They recommend writing to your senators and have a sample letter and addresses to follow.
I remember reading about this meeting and his pitch during the election. Nothing screams US Government For Sale more than this.
“In April, Trump held a private meeting at his Mar-a-Lago resort for several oil executives. At that meeting, Trump told the attendees they should donate $1 billion to his campaign, because as president he would be able to undo environmental rules that they disliked.”
It’s terrifying that our senators, some of whom also are for sale, are our line of defense. However, we have one lever we can pull to influence them: Our Vote! It’s what keeps them in power. Write to yours and tell them that!
The way I understand that quote is Trump is asking for donations (which every candidate does) from companies that he's explaining will benefit from his plans (which every candidate does) to cut back red environmental tape. He's not buying them, and he won't 'owe' them anything. He's explaining that their interests are similar. Nothing wrong with asking for donations right?
"The way I understand that quote is Trump is asking for donations (which every candidate does) from companies that he's explaining will benefit from his plans (which every candidate does) to cut back red environmental tape."
Yes, that's exactly what's troubling. This isn't a "Trump vs other candidates" issue, it's a "this is what's wrong with money in politics" issue.
"He's not buying them, and he won't 'owe' them anything."
If he takes their money and does not give them the promised benefits, they will likely back candidates that oppose Trump's goals or candidates that oppose Trump-endorsed candidates in the next election. That's the quid pro quo of it, and why it's bad for politics regardless of party: cross us and we'll give our big bags of money (big enough to sway an election!) to the other guys.
Ya I just don't see it as 'promised benefits' or quid pro quo. If Trump says: I'm going to cut taxes because I believe it's best for the economy; and they donate to his campaign because that would benefit them- how would he owe anyone? If Trump says: I'm going to cut taxes; and they donate to his campaign; and then he doesn't do it...then they would be very smart to back a different candidate next time. That's just wisdom. But, he's not cutting taxes in order to get their donations...he's planning to cut taxes because he's said for decades that he believes it is a tactic that benefits everyone, all the way down to the littlest guy.
The issue is money in politics: they're able to throw their influence around because they have money. Elon Musk has been threatening to fund primary challenges to any sitting House Rep or Senator who roadblocks Trump. This is not partisan (because both parties do it) but rather a matter of principle: should the opinions of the wealthy get more influence because they can afford to "invest" in candidates?
"he's planning to cut taxes because he's said for decades that he believes it is a tactic that benefits everyone, all the way down to the littlest guy."
This is going to be one of those areas of policy difference where there may not be one right answer, because another perspective is that tax cuts have been enacted increasingly over 50 years with very few measurable benefits to "the little guy" over that same span of time. Highly recommend checking out @kedits (an economist who writes here on Substack, but also releases longform videos on Instagram and TikTok). She breaks down why tax cuts as a policy have not had the promised benefits, but she also gets into the policies that could make a tangible difference, like universal school lunches.
It also allows unelected individuals access to making laws that benefit themselves. It is a lawmaker abdicating their responsibility to the common good. In this particular scenario, it is literally selling our future for short-term gain.
I would agree that money can influence all parties since the beginning of the USA. I guess I would just ask: why do we jump to the worst assumptions regarding this admin? Why do we assume they're going to abdicate their responsibilities? In the oil companies' case - Trump is merely reminding them that the Economic policies that he plans to implement would really benefit them. There's no 'if you donate, then I'll do such and such'. He's had these plans for a long time.
Melissa, you are right. These are his plans, and this is how he raises money.
“He told the executives that the amount of money they would save in taxes and legal expenses after he repealed regulations would more than cover a billion dollar contribution”
Yes! I can't read the article unfortunately - I'd have to subscribe to the NYT apparently. But that just sounds like he's explaining the logic. Like: 'because of the policies I plan to implement, policies I've believed in for a long time - you'll more than get your money back naturally.'
Aside from the massive conflicts of interest and the nightmare of this oligarchy, I can't help but think what a difference it would have made if each of these individuals had given or invested the amount they donated to the Trump campaign toward shelters and programs for the homeless and poor.
I keep getting stuck at McMahon spending 100 million (a drop in the bucket I guess to a billionaire) on a failed run. The staggering amount of money spent during elections (all elections, and by both parties) when it could potentially go toward fixing problems is tough to take.
Thank you Sharon. So so alarming. It IS reassuring to remember that these people have to go through congress for final approval. If only congress could be expected to do the right thing? There is a lot of corruption there as well.
Sharon please remind us (in simple terms, step by step) what we as citizens can do. Action is better than despair, right Sharon!?!! Thank you so much for being someone we can trust.
I can't find a direct comparison between Trump and Biden - or any credible source that supports Robn's claim about Biden - but if you or anyone else finds that, I do think it would be helpful to share!
The first link referenced, which is a left-leaning organization BYW, the author specifically stated he left out a number of individuals who served as President because the author did not deem their comprised acts significant, so there’s that…. The second link, is a part of the MSM and we all know how much their opinions matter these days. As for not finding references on Biden and his involvement on corrupt dealings including ( but not only) those with his now pardoned son, I am sure with your skilled research capacity you are able to find plenty of material detailing specifics. I would urge you start on the report available from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
Sorry, what do “we all know” about the main stream media? It just seems that if your tribe is the ultimate arbiter of what is true, and only you decide what is trustworthy, and it all happens to support your chosen political persuasion, maybe it’s time to take a step back and evaluate whether you’re being honest with yourself.
I am being very honest, TYVM! The mainstream media like many cable networks are bleeding viewership at the jugular currently due to their coverage and its lack of transparency, integrity and accountability. Thus the need for independent and less “owned” sources for news. Surely you have noticed.
Mainstream media is on its decline and on its way out. Thank goodness. I know it wasn’t asked of me- but here are some that are good and ranked in the middle (and reliable) by Ad Fontes:
Morning Wire and Smarther News.
The Free Press skews right
MoNews hasn’t been ranked yet but very non partisan. Love the daily podcast.
I love House Inhabit for behind the scenes but that isn’t a news source for me - same as Sharon isn’t a news source.
Exactly, Amy! Do we really want to point fingers at who is the MOST corrupt or corrupt at all given what is currently happening in the Democrat party and within the Biden family? The only difference here is the one/ones receiving the checks and which side of the check the signatures are on. I guess it’s OK when the other side blows through billions of dollars paying for “support” to big celebrities but not OK when donors make donations to the opposing party. And, let’s not ignore the bigger elephant in the room of the recent pardon by Biden of his son. The corruption by this family runs deeper and wider than we will probably ever know the full extent of. I wonder if Sharon will do an article on this subject?
I believe they meant to say most attacked…I guess we are supposed to ignore the three years he was wrongfully accused, targeted, investigated by the FBI not to mention the never-prosecuted Hillary Clinton who orchestrated much of it. Until the Clintons, Obamas, Biden’s are held accountable for all of their shenanigans I don’t want to hear about how Trump only nominates “loyalists” and how corrupt he was/is. Should we expect him to nominate dis-loyalists particularly given the incompetence or targeted attempts he has faced? IMO, many are afraid of what may actually be uncovered by these appointees. Kash Patel was instrumental in unraveling the whole Russian debacle. He has been both a DA and prosecutor. He is qualified and has the passion to do what needs to be done. Even many here still echo that Putin owns Trump. We need to not let hatred of all things Trump blind us to truth. I apprecia you in this group!
It’s truly horrifying that some of the most powerful and influential positions in this country are being bought by people who have no experience, and probably no interest in what the roles actually require. The people who voted for this either 1) don’t think this will affect them or 2) see this and don’t care.
We are about to enter the Find Out part of FAFO. We’re *all* going to be stuck with these highly unqualified people in charge of so many parts of our daily lives. When people I love who are on social security, medicare, and other social safety net programs are shocked by the loss of their protections because they voted for this and didn’t think it applied to them because they live in a blue state, it’ll be hard for me to watch them suffer while simultaneously not feeling bad because they did this to themselves.
When grocery costs go through the roof thanks to tarriffs (they don’t realize how much of our food is imported) and the loss of half of our agricultural workforce from mass deportations, it’s going to be hard for all of us, but again, it’ll be hard for me to watch people suffer while simultaneously thinking so many of them did this to themselves.
Those of us who got higher than a D+ in high school civics or economics classes tried to warn everyone, and we are not going to feel bad for the people who are surprised that they too are affected by these sweeping, irresponsible policies coming into place and regretting their vote.
Their dream of cheaper eggs and getting rid of all those foreigners (forgetting they too probably had illegal immigrants in their bloodline) or trans people in bathrooms (or from existence) is soon going to be a nightmare. And while we all will suffer if the plans they have are put into motion because the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all aligned with no road blocks, part of me is taking comfort in knowing that they wanted this without realizing what it is they acutally wanted.. They did this to themselves - and all of us.
Also, thank you Sharon for consistently breaking down the topics of today in a way that is easily understood and digestible by all, without bias or making anyone feel like they’re being lectured.
Just to address 'highly unqualified people' - do you know anything about them except what the media tells you (or doesn't tell you)? If they can run huge businesses and make wise business decisions...then they can certainly learn the details of the position. And why do assume Trump's going to destroy SS, Medicare and other social safety net programs. He knows their importance and how many people depend on them. And, I wish more people understood Trump's reason for shouting about raising Tariffs...it's not so he can actually do it; it's to bring the other countries to the table. Which is exactly what's happened: Mexico and Canada's leaders have had meetings at Mar-a-Lago in the past 2 weeks and are moving towards a more fair trade-deal that benefits everyone. So, it worked and you'll probably see the price of groceries go down (like they did in his first term). Again, media just trying to scare everyone.
Respectfully, Melissa, your comment here is full of a lot of assumptions that would be hard to prove (or disprove):
"Do you know anything about them except what the media tells you (or doesn't tell you)?"
It sounds like you're assuming that 'the media' must be hiding information. Could you share sources that you like? It could be helpful for all of us to learn more.
"If they can run huge businesses and make wise business decisions...then they can certainly learn the details of the position."
This could be true, or not, but it's an assumption to guess either way.
"And why do assume Trump's going to destroy SS, Medicare and other social safety net programs. He knows their importance and how many people depend on them."
Vivek Ramaswamy (one half of 'DOGE') has a history of calling for "reforms" for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, like privatizing Social Security. Dr. Mehmet Oz has called for increasing privatization of Medicare. This is where the adage "You don't just elect a President, you elect an administration" becomes more clear: Trump may not want to gut those programs, but he's hiring people who do (and might).
"And, I wish more people understood Trump's reason for shouting about raising Tariffs...it's not so he can actually do it; it's to bring the other countries to the table. Which is exactly what's happened: Mexico and Canada's leaders have had meetings at Mar-a-Lago in the past 2 weeks and are moving towards a more fair trade-deal that benefits everyone."
Again, this is a big assumption! Trump has been pretty clear about believing that tariffs will directly benefit the US budget without impacting consumers, and that is a wild lie to double-down on if you don't actually want to do tariffs at all. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but I don't think you can insist that we're all just misunderstanding the 10th dimensional chess he's playing with world markets and world leaders.
"So, it worked and you'll probably see the price of groceries go down (like they did in his first term)."
I promise I will totally address your good questions and requests for evidence! :) But just quickly, I think my first question would be: why do we assume reforming something means destroying it? Why do we assume the worst? Why can't it be that Vivek and Mehmet want to make SS and Medicare better and more efficient? Privatizing something, instead of the government being in charge of it, could lead to something better (ie UPS and FEDEX - way more efficient and faster than USPS)...and I'd just like to find out what their plans are instead of assuming they'll make it worse. Again - this is something that is so important to so many Americans! I do not think they are ignorant of that.
"Privatizing something, instead of the government being in charge of it, could lead to something better (ie UPS and FEDEX - way more efficient and faster than USPS)"
This is a really great example because of what it highlights about the risks vs. benefits of privatization: UPS and Fedex are efficient for large packages, but they don't handle the sheer volume of sorting and delivering small items like the Post Office does, so it's hard to compare them directly. One thing that the Post Office does, that UPS and Fedex do *not* do, is deliver to PO Boxes and military addresses. There are 160 million PO Boxes in the US, and well over 200 military addresses, which represents a lot of customers that UPS and Fedex simply do not service.
The same is true for Medicare privatization: if you have traditional Medicare, you are generally guaranteed to find an in-network provider wherever you go, because getting contracted with Medicare is one of the first things that almost every medical provider does upon opening up their business. Medicare private payors are an entirely different story. Their availability is subject to network contracts, and limitations, and they can significantly *limit* the provider choices that a patient has. (source: I am a healthcare compliance officer and I work with contracting & credentialing)
Please note: I am not making a blanket argument against privatization! I'm also not saying that it never works, or offers no benefits, but as someone who has been hearing about these "business make better choices than government" ideas for decades now, I think it should be pointed out that business can *choose* who they want to serve while increasing their own efficiency and profit margins. Governments are meant to serve all citizens, which may be less 'efficient'...but is that the only metric we're measuring?
Anyone who's worked for a large organization knows they are extremely inefficient and slow, often make unwise decisions, and treat employees and customers as expendable. Government can be inefficient for the same reason corporations are, because they're run by humans! USPS is one my favorite examples of why privatization doesn't always (or even often) work for public services.
The President of Mexico did not go to Mar-a-lago. They had a discussion and she wrote Trump a letter basically calling him out for lying about things like caravans and Fentanyl trafficking.
*EDIT* The county results map that Donald Trump shared doesn't even show that every state turned red: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/map-trump-red-blue-counties-2024/ Given the fact that Trump barely edged out the popular vote over Harris, this map is a fascinating look at population densities where those islands of Harris voters could account for nearly all of Trump's.
Is there hope? Maybe. As for DOGE, it is seriously doubtful that a majority of the House would accept more than a small percentage of cuts recommended by Musk/Ramaswamy. As for Senate confirmations: The Republican majority represents anything but a 'mandate.' And, a few of the Senate Republicans are there by virtue of being *moderate*, and serving Democratic states. Will their constituents tolerate a *yes* vote to confirm these unqualified nominees? We'll see. Of course, there is the down-the-road question: IF the Senate blocks confirmation of any of these 'first' picks...who is on the short list to follow? I don't foresee Trump coming to the realization that his first picks were bad--and sending super-qualified folks in their stead.
Is this fixable? I know it’s not the same but can the Citizen’s United decision be changed with legislation? Are we doomed to forever have money determine our leaders?
Good question. Unfortunately, I have heard more than one politician say that Citizens United cannot be reversed. I don't know why but something has to change that policy.
Based on a very brief search, it looks like the answer would be a Constitutional amendment (OR a future case coming before the SC that allows them to overturn their previous ruling)...so I kind of understand the sentiment that it "cannot" be reversed with such a monumental hurdle to overcome.
Yes. One of the 'checks' that the legislative branch has on the judicial branch is statutory law. A congressional act can overturn a Supreme Court decision (precedent law). Of course, the president at-the-time must sign the legislation. A veto would essentially uphold the SCOTUS decision in this scenario.
It's rather comforting to read that most of these nominees will not stay. I hope this information is inspiring regular citizens like you and me to write or call our representatives in Congress. These nominees must be watched and reined in.
Is it possible that these are wealthy people who agree with and support Trump's ideas, solutions and policies that he wants to implement? Why do we assume they are 'yes' people? If they agree, then they'll donate because they want the candidate to win. What Trump would see, is the people who truly agree with his solutions and therefore wants them on board in his admin. I would want people who agree with my goals to be on my team. And if they're wealthy, it's possible they are good at running things. It seems like they might not have experience in the exact area they are being nominated for, but I think leadership is more about how one makes wise/good decisions. You can always learn about the nature of the position...you can't always learn good leadership; decision making skills; intuition; people skills...
We 'assume' they are "yes people" because Trump has repeatedly stated that he is prioritizing loyalty above all else in his staffing and appointment choices, and so far his choices have reflected exactly that priority.
"What Trump would see, is the people who truly agree with his solutions and therefore wants them on board in his admin. I would want people who agree with my goals to be on my team."
Okay, but good leaders want people who agree on their goals AND who are independently-minded enough to both disagree and state clearly when that good leader is wrong or misguided. No one who is a good leader assumes that they are always going to be right, or always going to have the correct answer, but the people who disagreed with President Trump during his last administration didn't last long (and there's a reason Pence wasn't on the ticket this time around!). The people who disagreed with Trump have been vocally speaking out, some of them for years now, about Trump's desire to be agreed with and obeyed without question and how devastatingly bad it could be to give a person like that unchecked power.
No good leader wants to surround themselves with only "yes people": it's a short-sighted impulse that will only lead to them being further detached from grounded reality. Putin is actually a really great example of this, which is troubling when you consider how often Trump and other members of his administration have echoed pro-Putin sentiments.
Being loyal does not mean saying 'yes' to everything, IMO. And if you really look at the people who disagreed with President Trump last admin - they were opposite in goals. When you think of a soccer team, you have to have the same goal. You may have assistant coaches who suggest ideas for different strategies, but you need those coaches to at least have the same end-goal. Otherwise you fire. Most of those 'disagreers' did not want Trump's goals to succeed. This time he is surrounding himself with leaders who share the same goals...not 'yes' people. Big difference.
"And if you really look at the people who disagreed with President Trump last admin - they were opposite in goals. ...Most of those 'disagreers' did not want Trump's goals to succeed."
Could you expand a little more on those people? Because all of them accepted a role in the Trump administration, so I'm having a hard time understanding how that means they just didn't support Trump or his goals enough.
For instance, Trump's goal was to deny certification of the 2020 election results, and Pence (and the Constitution) disagreed with him. Does that mean that Pence never actually supported Trump's goals over the previous 3.5 years in office?
I guess the short answer is: yes there were many in the first Trump admin that accepted roles, that did not fully support many of his ideas and vision. Trump has spent his business life dealing with politicians, but never being an actual politician, so I believe he made nominations without being fully informed. This time around, he's not making that mistake. He's not surrounding himself with 'yes' robots; he's surrounding himself with leaders who share the same goals and values. I believe they will still challenge him, but they will not sabotage his agenda.
Vice President Pence is a faith-filled man of integrity and I have his book on my list of must-reads! I know he and President Trump had an excellent relationship and shared many, many goals and values...except of course when it came to the certification of the 2020 election results. That, I can't wait to read about from Vice President Pence's view.
"And if they're wealthy, it's possible they are good at running things." This actually highlights an interesting, and probably distinctly western, vision of meritocracy as being the purest system of power and wealth being an indicator of goodness (intelligence, wisdom, decision-making, etc). Do many wealthy people owe their financial situation to intelligence and hard work? Of course. But I think the best among them would admit that circumstances beyond their control and the help of friends and family contributed as much if not more than their own prowess. The worst among them stepped on people, lied, cheated and exploited their way into amassing riches. Wealth alone is simply not an indicator of a person's character or their capability. What it is certainly an indicator of is their power. And I think that's relevant to the topic at hand.
Summer I think you bring up some good thoughts, and I agree you're going to find both: wealthy leaders who are intelligent, wise, generous, and work hard; and wealthy leaders who lie and cheat and treat others poorly. Wealth and power do not indicate a person's character for sure, but it seems that a lot of Americans (even following Sharon) seem to jump immediately to the negative regarding these Admin choices. Why are we assuming these people are only in it for power? Why are we assuming these people can't be in the first camp: intelligent, wise, generous and hardworking? They're automatically 'unqualified', 'pay-to-play', power hungry... I just want to say instead: 'it's possible they are good at running things' (which includes treating others well and looking out for other people's best interest, like the American people).
Melissa, I know you have mentioned something to the effect of not trusting how the media is portraying the Cabinet nominees. What would it take to change your mind that these multiple sources (which include direct quotations from the nominees themselves) may be accurate?
My hope is that you watch the Senate confirmation hearings (if they take place) and are brutally honest in asking yourself if you would support these nominees if Biden had chosen them.
Thanks for your responses on this article and for being patient with questions!
Jessica - I so appreciate the back and forth! To be honest, I've seen way too many lies from our mainstream media (multiple sources) over the years, and I've learned to read and research even the 'direct quotes'. To be fair, I also read right-leaning media with a grain of salt because I can tell when they also try to twist a quote. I will be watching the confirmations, although my main highlight is that even the title 'pay-to-play' already misleads people. There's no proof, only accusations. And I don't think that benefits the American people. I just wanted to bring up that just because the nominee's might be wealthy donors, does not automatically mean they are unqualified leaders. Why does the media have to assume the worst? Can they be both wealthy donors because they believe in the plan, policies and solutions AND great leaders? I mean - time will tell. I don't know everything about these people...I just don't like assumptions and accusations...on either side.
Well regarding Sharon's piece, IMO proof would be a nominee admitting that there was a conversation and a hand shake, that if they donated huge amounts of money- then they would receive a place in Trump's cabinet...for no other reason except that they donated money. One of the media reports that was sent to me:
This article is very misleading. They get to 'print' this piece that has all kinds of accusations, but then quietly say: by the way, none of this has been verified. Someone just 'said an accusation' but there's no concrete evidence. Then the next paragraph says: 'IF this were the case'...then it would be bad. And then they just use the word 'allegedly' throughout the rest of the piece. Also, it's important to note in the article that the investigation into the allegations is being led by the Trump operation. In other words, 'if' this guy is actually doing what he's accused of, Trump's team is holding him accountable.
Oh okay. Interesting. So you think it’s just as likely that these wealthy donors just happen to be wealthy, but are *also* good choices for leadership. Am I understanding correctly?
Well time will tell for sure. I just don't like the assumption a lot of people are making that these people are only being nominated because they donated lots of money. There is no proof of this, and I'd like to leave room for: they are possibly wise leaders who have a lot of money and donated to a party that shares (at least some of) their goals.
Understood. I think what the article is pointing out is the existence of strong connections between large contributors to the campaign and positions of power in DC. Please point it out if I’m mistaken, but I don’t see anywhere that Sharon made a values judgment or drew conclusions about the fitness of any of these nominees. She simply reported the relationships. I think what has many people in the comments section upset (and justifiably so, in my opinion), is that the *only* qualifying factor for these individuals seems to be their monetary contribution. It seems like it may be your opinion that a lack of relevant experience is a positive (or at least not a negative), and I can understand your reasoning to a point (that some skill sets may transfer). I think what many people take issue is with the sum total of information. Many, if not most of the nominees are large financial donors with little to no relevant experience who also have a collective history of lawbreaking and sexual predation.
Yes, most of these wealthy people do support Trump’s ideas because they directly benefit them. When Trump asked for money from the oil execs, he promised something in return - that is not a donation. Also, the donations Sharon is talking about in this piece are not for candidates. Trump already won the election. These “donations” are to earn a spot in his Cabinet.
Most are ‘yes’ people as evidenced by their public support of conspiracy theories, such as the 2020 election was “stolen”, or promising retribution for individuals who prosecuted Trump, or even journalists who reported negative stories.
Most of these people Trump has nominated are wholly unqualified and would place citizens at risk. Maybe they have decent leadership skills, but you don’t hire people for the most important jobs in the US because they are wealthy and potentially have leadership skills - these are jobs that historically have been earned through rising in the ranks and proving oneself.
I'm afraid you won't find any 'promise of something in return' in that quote. He asked for money from companies he knew would benefit from initiatives he had ALREADY told the whole country he would be implementing. Also, the donations Sharon is talking about in this piece are absolutely and only regarding the candidates during the campaign. Maybe re-read her piece. Nobody has donated to Trump after the election. Only party asking for money right now is the Democrats because Kamala put the campaign in so much debt.
You’re correct - I jumped ahead with my own thoughts on something else I had previously read. However, there has been evidence that potential nominees are paying Trump aides to boost themselves as nominees:
Actually - I'm afraid I feel like that article is very misleading. They get to 'print' this piece that has all kinds of accusations, but then quietly say: by the way, none of this has been verified. Someone just 'said an accusation' but there's no concrete evidence. Then the next paragraph says: 'if this were the case'...then it would be bad. And then they just use the word 'allegedly' throughout the rest of the piece. Also, it's important to note in the article that the investigation into the allegations is being led by the Trump operation. In other words, 'if' this guy is actually doing what he's accused of, Trump's team is holding him accountable.
And regarding who has historically earned their positions in politics...Americans have repeatedly shouted about the corruption in our government; and the benefits of term limits. IMO career politicians are the unqualified leaders. Let's try something new. Let's try some average Americans who has proven themselves in different arenas; have great leadership skills and are not in their positions to benefit themselves. They are there to benefit the American people.
I’m not talking about career politicians. I’m talking about the Cabinet nominees, for example, Kash Patel who will potentially replace Wray as Director of the FBI. This role has a 10 year term, and other Cabinet positions are 4-8 years depending upon the President’s term.
I have not found anything to support that the following nominees would be good choices: Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’m happy to read it.
But wealth does not automatically mean one is good at running things. Not at all. Many many many wealthy people have demonstrated a lack of leadership skills and good decision making. And there is little to indicate these nominees have the skills needed to lead and implement his goals. (And I personally take great comfort in that.)
Well, I would suggest there's little to indicate from the media. My guess is that those nominees have many skills no one wants to report on. And I just don't think you can build big businesses by being bad at decision making. I'm specifically saying 'business decisions'.
IMO, one of the biggest misconceptions that Trump has insisted upon is that business skills are translatable to and beneficial for governing. Setting aside the myth that being wealthy or running a company means that you have business skills at all (luck, connections, and inheritance are rarely given the credit they are due) the fact is that countries are not corporations. We also need leaders who can demonstrate an understanding of democracy, cooperation, and civic responsibility.
Running a huge business, I think, definitely includes the things you mentioned. In order to be a successful business, you can care about wealth and your employees and your community all at the same time...if done right. I think business skills can absolutely translate to great governing.
Time will tell with these nominees. But, it is just not true that you must have sound business skills and decision making skills to build a big business or amass wealth. I have an accounting background and have worked as a consultant for businesses of all sizes. I also have studied business extensively. Leaders can accumulate a lot of wealth and power in our country (and world) despite demonstrably terrible decision making and leadership skills. And this has been true for a very long time. Having wealth is not a guarantee of having business (or otherwise) acumen. While there is room to have differing opinions about whether business skills translate to governing skills (I can tell we disagree about that, and that’s of course welcome), its wise to examine the automatic assumption that someone with wealth is automatically a good leader/decision maker.
Hi Jen - many points I agree with, that we can't assume wealth automatically equals great leadership! I think I just wanted to highlight that it seems many are automatically assuming the opposite: that the only reason these leaders are getting nominated are because they are wealthy donors, and therefore can't possibly be good leaders/decision makers. I don't think either is fair...and you are correct: Time will tell!
The "perspective" was literally just a veiled and subtle accusation that the media is withholding information on the nominees' qualifications. That is not fact, or analysis, it's just a baseless accusation.
There is a quote in the book Swim With the Sharks. It is from the 1980s so feel free to update the numbers.
"To a normal person 10 million dollars would seem like enough. But anyone who thinks like that is not the type to accumulate 10 million dollars."
People are starting to get fed up with it. A health insurance CEO was just murdered in the street. I think that it may be only the beginning of the backlash.
As each nomination has rolled across my phone, I just keep thinking “you reap what you sow, America.” Can we really be surprised that a man who has spent his career amassing money, then fame, then power, then dominance over his “enemies” is picking people who are first and foremost loyal to him with their dollars (and children’s books, apparently)? I’m not naive enough to believe people in the Administration of any president get there solely by merit (my own time in DC is a product of knowing the right people). But when the top of any Administration looks like this one, it rarely means good things for us, the collective “we the people”, particularly the poor, the sick, children, the immigrant. As we say in my religious practice, Lord, have mercy.
(I’m by nature a very optimistic person, but Spicy Liz is having a moment this morning)
So well said, Liz! I feel my family and I are completely at the mercy of enormous egos who will walk on anyone that doesn't share their new vision for the US.
Yep, this
It’s ironic that Trump talks about “draining the swamp” while filling his administration through a pay-to-play model. He should clarify: “Drain, Refill, and Make America Swampier Again”— DRAMASA
Is picking cabinet members who donated extravagant amounts of money something that has historically happened in the past? What about picking cabinet members with no background in the position they are taking? Is that also something that happens frequently or rarely and what were the results of those cabinet members who did not have qualifications in the field they were taking leadership in?
Looking at the financials of the other two most recent Presidential administrations, Trump appears to be an outlier:
"Together, these political appointees, along with their immediate families, delivered $51,023 to Biden and his allied super PACs in the 2020 election cycle": https://www.opensecrets.org/biden/political-appointees
"Obama's first Cabinet by and large did not include individuals of great wealth. Even by pre-Citizens United standards, their campaign contributions to him and others were modest.": https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/cabinet.php
I always appreciate your well-researched and documented comments, Emily ❤️
Thank you, Emily, for sharing and citing that info.
There has always been a lot of money involved on both sides but I don't think ever to this extreme. Musk is just wrong! T's cabinet picks in the first administration didn't last because they were too much by the book instead of loyal to the man.
Samantha I love this question. Just the background we love from Sharon!
The idea that all of these appointees are essentially "yes" people with no real experience and extravagant amounts of money is concerning. It doesn't seen like this is normally how things are done. Is this normal? I am also very curious as to how they will be vetted by the Senate.
https://www.bigwin2024.com/
I learned about the Card Campaign from Heather Cox Richardson. They recommend writing to your senators and have a sample letter and addresses to follow.
I just mailed my first two letters. I hope many more do the same.
It is so easy.
Governerds, assemble!
We are becoming an oligarchy 😢 thank you for spotlighting this Sharon.
I remember reading about this meeting and his pitch during the election. Nothing screams US Government For Sale more than this.
“In April, Trump held a private meeting at his Mar-a-Lago resort for several oil executives. At that meeting, Trump told the attendees they should donate $1 billion to his campaign, because as president he would be able to undo environmental rules that they disliked.”
It’s terrifying that our senators, some of whom also are for sale, are our line of defense. However, we have one lever we can pull to influence them: Our Vote! It’s what keeps them in power. Write to yours and tell them that!
The way I understand that quote is Trump is asking for donations (which every candidate does) from companies that he's explaining will benefit from his plans (which every candidate does) to cut back red environmental tape. He's not buying them, and he won't 'owe' them anything. He's explaining that their interests are similar. Nothing wrong with asking for donations right?
"The way I understand that quote is Trump is asking for donations (which every candidate does) from companies that he's explaining will benefit from his plans (which every candidate does) to cut back red environmental tape."
Yes, that's exactly what's troubling. This isn't a "Trump vs other candidates" issue, it's a "this is what's wrong with money in politics" issue.
"He's not buying them, and he won't 'owe' them anything."
If he takes their money and does not give them the promised benefits, they will likely back candidates that oppose Trump's goals or candidates that oppose Trump-endorsed candidates in the next election. That's the quid pro quo of it, and why it's bad for politics regardless of party: cross us and we'll give our big bags of money (big enough to sway an election!) to the other guys.
Ya I just don't see it as 'promised benefits' or quid pro quo. If Trump says: I'm going to cut taxes because I believe it's best for the economy; and they donate to his campaign because that would benefit them- how would he owe anyone? If Trump says: I'm going to cut taxes; and they donate to his campaign; and then he doesn't do it...then they would be very smart to back a different candidate next time. That's just wisdom. But, he's not cutting taxes in order to get their donations...he's planning to cut taxes because he's said for decades that he believes it is a tactic that benefits everyone, all the way down to the littlest guy.
The issue is money in politics: they're able to throw their influence around because they have money. Elon Musk has been threatening to fund primary challenges to any sitting House Rep or Senator who roadblocks Trump. This is not partisan (because both parties do it) but rather a matter of principle: should the opinions of the wealthy get more influence because they can afford to "invest" in candidates?
"he's planning to cut taxes because he's said for decades that he believes it is a tactic that benefits everyone, all the way down to the littlest guy."
This is going to be one of those areas of policy difference where there may not be one right answer, because another perspective is that tax cuts have been enacted increasingly over 50 years with very few measurable benefits to "the little guy" over that same span of time. Highly recommend checking out @kedits (an economist who writes here on Substack, but also releases longform videos on Instagram and TikTok). She breaks down why tax cuts as a policy have not had the promised benefits, but she also gets into the policies that could make a tangible difference, like universal school lunches.
Good advice. Reagan started the "trickle down economics" and it has only served to increase the wealth gap.
It also allows unelected individuals access to making laws that benefit themselves. It is a lawmaker abdicating their responsibility to the common good. In this particular scenario, it is literally selling our future for short-term gain.
I would agree that money can influence all parties since the beginning of the USA. I guess I would just ask: why do we jump to the worst assumptions regarding this admin? Why do we assume they're going to abdicate their responsibilities? In the oil companies' case - Trump is merely reminding them that the Economic policies that he plans to implement would really benefit them. There's no 'if you donate, then I'll do such and such'. He's had these plans for a long time.
Melissa, you are right. These are his plans, and this is how he raises money.
“He told the executives that the amount of money they would save in taxes and legal expenses after he repealed regulations would more than cover a billion dollar contribution”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/09/climate/trump-oil-gas-mar-a-lago.html
Yes! I can't read the article unfortunately - I'd have to subscribe to the NYT apparently. But that just sounds like he's explaining the logic. Like: 'because of the policies I plan to implement, policies I've believed in for a long time - you'll more than get your money back naturally.'
I think you are correct but I think that the most return goes to the already wealthy and not the middle class. I would like to know more about that.
Aside from the massive conflicts of interest and the nightmare of this oligarchy, I can't help but think what a difference it would have made if each of these individuals had given or invested the amount they donated to the Trump campaign toward shelters and programs for the homeless and poor.
I keep getting stuck at McMahon spending 100 million (a drop in the bucket I guess to a billionaire) on a failed run. The staggering amount of money spent during elections (all elections, and by both parties) when it could potentially go toward fixing problems is tough to take.
Thank you Sharon. So so alarming. It IS reassuring to remember that these people have to go through congress for final approval. If only congress could be expected to do the right thing? There is a lot of corruption there as well.
Sharon please remind us (in simple terms, step by step) what we as citizens can do. Action is better than despair, right Sharon!?!! Thank you so much for being someone we can trust.
The most corrupt President will bring in his corrupt cronies. The only hope(?) I have is that they are also as incompetent.
The most corrupt President? How so?
These accounts from 2019 have some interesting perspectives - both were written by historians:
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/blog/154295
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/nixon-trump-historical-arc-presidential-misconduct-deeply-troubling-ncna1079081
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, also summarized Trump's financial conflicts of interest during his last term. It's particularly relevant for this Preamble post discussion, as they've amassed a significant body of evidence that Trump used the Presidency to enrich himself: https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/
I can't find a direct comparison between Trump and Biden - or any credible source that supports Robn's claim about Biden - but if you or anyone else finds that, I do think it would be helpful to share!
The first link referenced, which is a left-leaning organization BYW, the author specifically stated he left out a number of individuals who served as President because the author did not deem their comprised acts significant, so there’s that…. The second link, is a part of the MSM and we all know how much their opinions matter these days. As for not finding references on Biden and his involvement on corrupt dealings including ( but not only) those with his now pardoned son, I am sure with your skilled research capacity you are able to find plenty of material detailing specifics. I would urge you start on the report available from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
Sorry, what do “we all know” about the main stream media? It just seems that if your tribe is the ultimate arbiter of what is true, and only you decide what is trustworthy, and it all happens to support your chosen political persuasion, maybe it’s time to take a step back and evaluate whether you’re being honest with yourself.
I am being very honest, TYVM! The mainstream media like many cable networks are bleeding viewership at the jugular currently due to their coverage and its lack of transparency, integrity and accountability. Thus the need for independent and less “owned” sources for news. Surely you have noticed.
Mainstream media is on its decline and on its way out. Thank goodness. I know it wasn’t asked of me- but here are some that are good and ranked in the middle (and reliable) by Ad Fontes:
Morning Wire and Smarther News.
The Free Press skews right
MoNews hasn’t been ranked yet but very non partisan. Love the daily podcast.
I love House Inhabit for behind the scenes but that isn’t a news source for me - same as Sharon isn’t a news source.
Curious who’s your favorite news source.
Thank you- you answered better than I would have.
Exactly, Amy! Do we really want to point fingers at who is the MOST corrupt or corrupt at all given what is currently happening in the Democrat party and within the Biden family? The only difference here is the one/ones receiving the checks and which side of the check the signatures are on. I guess it’s OK when the other side blows through billions of dollars paying for “support” to big celebrities but not OK when donors make donations to the opposing party. And, let’s not ignore the bigger elephant in the room of the recent pardon by Biden of his son. The corruption by this family runs deeper and wider than we will probably ever know the full extent of. I wonder if Sharon will do an article on this subject?
I believe they meant to say most attacked…I guess we are supposed to ignore the three years he was wrongfully accused, targeted, investigated by the FBI not to mention the never-prosecuted Hillary Clinton who orchestrated much of it. Until the Clintons, Obamas, Biden’s are held accountable for all of their shenanigans I don’t want to hear about how Trump only nominates “loyalists” and how corrupt he was/is. Should we expect him to nominate dis-loyalists particularly given the incompetence or targeted attempts he has faced? IMO, many are afraid of what may actually be uncovered by these appointees. Kash Patel was instrumental in unraveling the whole Russian debacle. He has been both a DA and prosecutor. He is qualified and has the passion to do what needs to be done. Even many here still echo that Putin owns Trump. We need to not let hatred of all things Trump blind us to truth. I apprecia you in this group!
Agree Robn. Thank you- appreciate your voice on here too.
“The most corrupt”? Are you aware of the current office holder? Just saying…
You hope for incompetent people in positions of authority?
I find most of his policies abhorrent. So, in this situation, yes-I hope they are not competent.
😔
It’s truly horrifying that some of the most powerful and influential positions in this country are being bought by people who have no experience, and probably no interest in what the roles actually require. The people who voted for this either 1) don’t think this will affect them or 2) see this and don’t care.
We are about to enter the Find Out part of FAFO. We’re *all* going to be stuck with these highly unqualified people in charge of so many parts of our daily lives. When people I love who are on social security, medicare, and other social safety net programs are shocked by the loss of their protections because they voted for this and didn’t think it applied to them because they live in a blue state, it’ll be hard for me to watch them suffer while simultaneously not feeling bad because they did this to themselves.
When grocery costs go through the roof thanks to tarriffs (they don’t realize how much of our food is imported) and the loss of half of our agricultural workforce from mass deportations, it’s going to be hard for all of us, but again, it’ll be hard for me to watch people suffer while simultaneously thinking so many of them did this to themselves.
Those of us who got higher than a D+ in high school civics or economics classes tried to warn everyone, and we are not going to feel bad for the people who are surprised that they too are affected by these sweeping, irresponsible policies coming into place and regretting their vote.
Their dream of cheaper eggs and getting rid of all those foreigners (forgetting they too probably had illegal immigrants in their bloodline) or trans people in bathrooms (or from existence) is soon going to be a nightmare. And while we all will suffer if the plans they have are put into motion because the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all aligned with no road blocks, part of me is taking comfort in knowing that they wanted this without realizing what it is they acutally wanted.. They did this to themselves - and all of us.
Also, thank you Sharon for consistently breaking down the topics of today in a way that is easily understood and digestible by all, without bias or making anyone feel like they’re being lectured.
Just to address 'highly unqualified people' - do you know anything about them except what the media tells you (or doesn't tell you)? If they can run huge businesses and make wise business decisions...then they can certainly learn the details of the position. And why do assume Trump's going to destroy SS, Medicare and other social safety net programs. He knows their importance and how many people depend on them. And, I wish more people understood Trump's reason for shouting about raising Tariffs...it's not so he can actually do it; it's to bring the other countries to the table. Which is exactly what's happened: Mexico and Canada's leaders have had meetings at Mar-a-Lago in the past 2 weeks and are moving towards a more fair trade-deal that benefits everyone. So, it worked and you'll probably see the price of groceries go down (like they did in his first term). Again, media just trying to scare everyone.
Respectfully, Melissa, your comment here is full of a lot of assumptions that would be hard to prove (or disprove):
"Do you know anything about them except what the media tells you (or doesn't tell you)?"
It sounds like you're assuming that 'the media' must be hiding information. Could you share sources that you like? It could be helpful for all of us to learn more.
"If they can run huge businesses and make wise business decisions...then they can certainly learn the details of the position."
This could be true, or not, but it's an assumption to guess either way.
"And why do assume Trump's going to destroy SS, Medicare and other social safety net programs. He knows their importance and how many people depend on them."
Vivek Ramaswamy (one half of 'DOGE') has a history of calling for "reforms" for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, like privatizing Social Security. Dr. Mehmet Oz has called for increasing privatization of Medicare. This is where the adage "You don't just elect a President, you elect an administration" becomes more clear: Trump may not want to gut those programs, but he's hiring people who do (and might).
"And, I wish more people understood Trump's reason for shouting about raising Tariffs...it's not so he can actually do it; it's to bring the other countries to the table. Which is exactly what's happened: Mexico and Canada's leaders have had meetings at Mar-a-Lago in the past 2 weeks and are moving towards a more fair trade-deal that benefits everyone."
Again, this is a big assumption! Trump has been pretty clear about believing that tariffs will directly benefit the US budget without impacting consumers, and that is a wild lie to double-down on if you don't actually want to do tariffs at all. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but I don't think you can insist that we're all just misunderstanding the 10th dimensional chess he's playing with world markets and world leaders.
"So, it worked and you'll probably see the price of groceries go down (like they did in his first term)."
Do you have evidence for this? Because what I could find does not support this claim: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-cost-grocery-staples-trump-230038598.html
I promise I will totally address your good questions and requests for evidence! :) But just quickly, I think my first question would be: why do we assume reforming something means destroying it? Why do we assume the worst? Why can't it be that Vivek and Mehmet want to make SS and Medicare better and more efficient? Privatizing something, instead of the government being in charge of it, could lead to something better (ie UPS and FEDEX - way more efficient and faster than USPS)...and I'd just like to find out what their plans are instead of assuming they'll make it worse. Again - this is something that is so important to so many Americans! I do not think they are ignorant of that.
"Privatizing something, instead of the government being in charge of it, could lead to something better (ie UPS and FEDEX - way more efficient and faster than USPS)"
This is a really great example because of what it highlights about the risks vs. benefits of privatization: UPS and Fedex are efficient for large packages, but they don't handle the sheer volume of sorting and delivering small items like the Post Office does, so it's hard to compare them directly. One thing that the Post Office does, that UPS and Fedex do *not* do, is deliver to PO Boxes and military addresses. There are 160 million PO Boxes in the US, and well over 200 military addresses, which represents a lot of customers that UPS and Fedex simply do not service.
The same is true for Medicare privatization: if you have traditional Medicare, you are generally guaranteed to find an in-network provider wherever you go, because getting contracted with Medicare is one of the first things that almost every medical provider does upon opening up their business. Medicare private payors are an entirely different story. Their availability is subject to network contracts, and limitations, and they can significantly *limit* the provider choices that a patient has. (source: I am a healthcare compliance officer and I work with contracting & credentialing)
Please note: I am not making a blanket argument against privatization! I'm also not saying that it never works, or offers no benefits, but as someone who has been hearing about these "business make better choices than government" ideas for decades now, I think it should be pointed out that business can *choose* who they want to serve while increasing their own efficiency and profit margins. Governments are meant to serve all citizens, which may be less 'efficient'...but is that the only metric we're measuring?
Anyone who's worked for a large organization knows they are extremely inefficient and slow, often make unwise decisions, and treat employees and customers as expendable. Government can be inefficient for the same reason corporations are, because they're run by humans! USPS is one my favorite examples of why privatization doesn't always (or even often) work for public services.
The President of Mexico did not go to Mar-a-lago. They had a discussion and she wrote Trump a letter basically calling him out for lying about things like caravans and Fentanyl trafficking.
Yep - I stand corrected! They did just have a phone call.
FYI, there are no blue states based on the last election, only blue cities.
Well that is patently untrue, even if we use the "Winner Takes All" approach to the Electoral College that negates a significant number of voters in each state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
*EDIT* The county results map that Donald Trump shared doesn't even show that every state turned red: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/map-trump-red-blue-counties-2024/ Given the fact that Trump barely edged out the popular vote over Harris, this map is a fascinating look at population densities where those islands of Harris voters could account for nearly all of Trump's.
This map has even more nuance, because even if you account for the fact that nearly half of American adults did not vote at all...America is mostly purple: https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/11/15/how-did-america-vote-2024-election-analysis/76292995007/ There are no red states, or blue states, and there are hardly any distinct strongholds for either party.
Is there hope? Maybe. As for DOGE, it is seriously doubtful that a majority of the House would accept more than a small percentage of cuts recommended by Musk/Ramaswamy. As for Senate confirmations: The Republican majority represents anything but a 'mandate.' And, a few of the Senate Republicans are there by virtue of being *moderate*, and serving Democratic states. Will their constituents tolerate a *yes* vote to confirm these unqualified nominees? We'll see. Of course, there is the down-the-road question: IF the Senate blocks confirmation of any of these 'first' picks...who is on the short list to follow? I don't foresee Trump coming to the realization that his first picks were bad--and sending super-qualified folks in their stead.
I sincerly hope there will actually be confirmation hearings. I worry that Trump will ram them through with recess appointments.
Is this fixable? I know it’s not the same but can the Citizen’s United decision be changed with legislation? Are we doomed to forever have money determine our leaders?
Good question. Unfortunately, I have heard more than one politician say that Citizens United cannot be reversed. I don't know why but something has to change that policy.
Based on a very brief search, it looks like the answer would be a Constitutional amendment (OR a future case coming before the SC that allows them to overturn their previous ruling)...so I kind of understand the sentiment that it "cannot" be reversed with such a monumental hurdle to overcome.
Yes. One of the 'checks' that the legislative branch has on the judicial branch is statutory law. A congressional act can overturn a Supreme Court decision (precedent law). Of course, the president at-the-time must sign the legislation. A veto would essentially uphold the SCOTUS decision in this scenario.
It's rather comforting to read that most of these nominees will not stay. I hope this information is inspiring regular citizens like you and me to write or call our representatives in Congress. These nominees must be watched and reined in.
Is it possible that these are wealthy people who agree with and support Trump's ideas, solutions and policies that he wants to implement? Why do we assume they are 'yes' people? If they agree, then they'll donate because they want the candidate to win. What Trump would see, is the people who truly agree with his solutions and therefore wants them on board in his admin. I would want people who agree with my goals to be on my team. And if they're wealthy, it's possible they are good at running things. It seems like they might not have experience in the exact area they are being nominated for, but I think leadership is more about how one makes wise/good decisions. You can always learn about the nature of the position...you can't always learn good leadership; decision making skills; intuition; people skills...
We 'assume' they are "yes people" because Trump has repeatedly stated that he is prioritizing loyalty above all else in his staffing and appointment choices, and so far his choices have reflected exactly that priority.
"What Trump would see, is the people who truly agree with his solutions and therefore wants them on board in his admin. I would want people who agree with my goals to be on my team."
Okay, but good leaders want people who agree on their goals AND who are independently-minded enough to both disagree and state clearly when that good leader is wrong or misguided. No one who is a good leader assumes that they are always going to be right, or always going to have the correct answer, but the people who disagreed with President Trump during his last administration didn't last long (and there's a reason Pence wasn't on the ticket this time around!). The people who disagreed with Trump have been vocally speaking out, some of them for years now, about Trump's desire to be agreed with and obeyed without question and how devastatingly bad it could be to give a person like that unchecked power.
No good leader wants to surround themselves with only "yes people": it's a short-sighted impulse that will only lead to them being further detached from grounded reality. Putin is actually a really great example of this, which is troubling when you consider how often Trump and other members of his administration have echoed pro-Putin sentiments.
Being loyal does not mean saying 'yes' to everything, IMO. And if you really look at the people who disagreed with President Trump last admin - they were opposite in goals. When you think of a soccer team, you have to have the same goal. You may have assistant coaches who suggest ideas for different strategies, but you need those coaches to at least have the same end-goal. Otherwise you fire. Most of those 'disagreers' did not want Trump's goals to succeed. This time he is surrounding himself with leaders who share the same goals...not 'yes' people. Big difference.
"And if you really look at the people who disagreed with President Trump last admin - they were opposite in goals. ...Most of those 'disagreers' did not want Trump's goals to succeed."
Could you expand a little more on those people? Because all of them accepted a role in the Trump administration, so I'm having a hard time understanding how that means they just didn't support Trump or his goals enough.
For instance, Trump's goal was to deny certification of the 2020 election results, and Pence (and the Constitution) disagreed with him. Does that mean that Pence never actually supported Trump's goals over the previous 3.5 years in office?
I guess the short answer is: yes there were many in the first Trump admin that accepted roles, that did not fully support many of his ideas and vision. Trump has spent his business life dealing with politicians, but never being an actual politician, so I believe he made nominations without being fully informed. This time around, he's not making that mistake. He's not surrounding himself with 'yes' robots; he's surrounding himself with leaders who share the same goals and values. I believe they will still challenge him, but they will not sabotage his agenda.
Vice President Pence is a faith-filled man of integrity and I have his book on my list of must-reads! I know he and President Trump had an excellent relationship and shared many, many goals and values...except of course when it came to the certification of the 2020 election results. That, I can't wait to read about from Vice President Pence's view.
Agree Melissa!
"And if they're wealthy, it's possible they are good at running things." This actually highlights an interesting, and probably distinctly western, vision of meritocracy as being the purest system of power and wealth being an indicator of goodness (intelligence, wisdom, decision-making, etc). Do many wealthy people owe their financial situation to intelligence and hard work? Of course. But I think the best among them would admit that circumstances beyond their control and the help of friends and family contributed as much if not more than their own prowess. The worst among them stepped on people, lied, cheated and exploited their way into amassing riches. Wealth alone is simply not an indicator of a person's character or their capability. What it is certainly an indicator of is their power. And I think that's relevant to the topic at hand.
Summer I think you bring up some good thoughts, and I agree you're going to find both: wealthy leaders who are intelligent, wise, generous, and work hard; and wealthy leaders who lie and cheat and treat others poorly. Wealth and power do not indicate a person's character for sure, but it seems that a lot of Americans (even following Sharon) seem to jump immediately to the negative regarding these Admin choices. Why are we assuming these people are only in it for power? Why are we assuming these people can't be in the first camp: intelligent, wise, generous and hardworking? They're automatically 'unqualified', 'pay-to-play', power hungry... I just want to say instead: 'it's possible they are good at running things' (which includes treating others well and looking out for other people's best interest, like the American people).
Melissa, I know you have mentioned something to the effect of not trusting how the media is portraying the Cabinet nominees. What would it take to change your mind that these multiple sources (which include direct quotations from the nominees themselves) may be accurate?
My hope is that you watch the Senate confirmation hearings (if they take place) and are brutally honest in asking yourself if you would support these nominees if Biden had chosen them.
Thanks for your responses on this article and for being patient with questions!
Jessica - I so appreciate the back and forth! To be honest, I've seen way too many lies from our mainstream media (multiple sources) over the years, and I've learned to read and research even the 'direct quotes'. To be fair, I also read right-leaning media with a grain of salt because I can tell when they also try to twist a quote. I will be watching the confirmations, although my main highlight is that even the title 'pay-to-play' already misleads people. There's no proof, only accusations. And I don't think that benefits the American people. I just wanted to bring up that just because the nominee's might be wealthy donors, does not automatically mean they are unqualified leaders. Why does the media have to assume the worst? Can they be both wealthy donors because they believe in the plan, policies and solutions AND great leaders? I mean - time will tell. I don't know everything about these people...I just don't like assumptions and accusations...on either side.
Interesting. What constitutes “proof” in your mind?
Well regarding Sharon's piece, IMO proof would be a nominee admitting that there was a conversation and a hand shake, that if they donated huge amounts of money- then they would receive a place in Trump's cabinet...for no other reason except that they donated money. One of the media reports that was sent to me:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/top-trump-aide-accused-seeking-money-boost-potential-nominees-rcna181804
This article is very misleading. They get to 'print' this piece that has all kinds of accusations, but then quietly say: by the way, none of this has been verified. Someone just 'said an accusation' but there's no concrete evidence. Then the next paragraph says: 'IF this were the case'...then it would be bad. And then they just use the word 'allegedly' throughout the rest of the piece. Also, it's important to note in the article that the investigation into the allegations is being led by the Trump operation. In other words, 'if' this guy is actually doing what he's accused of, Trump's team is holding him accountable.
Oh okay. Interesting. So you think it’s just as likely that these wealthy donors just happen to be wealthy, but are *also* good choices for leadership. Am I understanding correctly?
Well time will tell for sure. I just don't like the assumption a lot of people are making that these people are only being nominated because they donated lots of money. There is no proof of this, and I'd like to leave room for: they are possibly wise leaders who have a lot of money and donated to a party that shares (at least some of) their goals.
Understood. I think what the article is pointing out is the existence of strong connections between large contributors to the campaign and positions of power in DC. Please point it out if I’m mistaken, but I don’t see anywhere that Sharon made a values judgment or drew conclusions about the fitness of any of these nominees. She simply reported the relationships. I think what has many people in the comments section upset (and justifiably so, in my opinion), is that the *only* qualifying factor for these individuals seems to be their monetary contribution. It seems like it may be your opinion that a lack of relevant experience is a positive (or at least not a negative), and I can understand your reasoning to a point (that some skill sets may transfer). I think what many people take issue is with the sum total of information. Many, if not most of the nominees are large financial donors with little to no relevant experience who also have a collective history of lawbreaking and sexual predation.
Yes, most of these wealthy people do support Trump’s ideas because they directly benefit them. When Trump asked for money from the oil execs, he promised something in return - that is not a donation. Also, the donations Sharon is talking about in this piece are not for candidates. Trump already won the election. These “donations” are to earn a spot in his Cabinet.
Most are ‘yes’ people as evidenced by their public support of conspiracy theories, such as the 2020 election was “stolen”, or promising retribution for individuals who prosecuted Trump, or even journalists who reported negative stories.
Most of these people Trump has nominated are wholly unqualified and would place citizens at risk. Maybe they have decent leadership skills, but you don’t hire people for the most important jobs in the US because they are wealthy and potentially have leadership skills - these are jobs that historically have been earned through rising in the ranks and proving oneself.
I'm afraid you won't find any 'promise of something in return' in that quote. He asked for money from companies he knew would benefit from initiatives he had ALREADY told the whole country he would be implementing. Also, the donations Sharon is talking about in this piece are absolutely and only regarding the candidates during the campaign. Maybe re-read her piece. Nobody has donated to Trump after the election. Only party asking for money right now is the Democrats because Kamala put the campaign in so much debt.
Donald Trump is literally soliciting donations on his home page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
This is not unusual, and both parties do it, but Trump is making it a talking point because it serves a partisan goal. If he wants to use his campaign's "leftover" money, he could start by paying off his own bills: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/cities-seek-750k-unpaid-bills-trump-campaign-events-rcna174757
You’re correct - I jumped ahead with my own thoughts on something else I had previously read. However, there has been evidence that potential nominees are paying Trump aides to boost themselves as nominees:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/top-trump-aide-accused-seeking-money-boost-potential-nominees-rcna181804
Actually - I'm afraid I feel like that article is very misleading. They get to 'print' this piece that has all kinds of accusations, but then quietly say: by the way, none of this has been verified. Someone just 'said an accusation' but there's no concrete evidence. Then the next paragraph says: 'if this were the case'...then it would be bad. And then they just use the word 'allegedly' throughout the rest of the piece. Also, it's important to note in the article that the investigation into the allegations is being led by the Trump operation. In other words, 'if' this guy is actually doing what he's accused of, Trump's team is holding him accountable.
And regarding who has historically earned their positions in politics...Americans have repeatedly shouted about the corruption in our government; and the benefits of term limits. IMO career politicians are the unqualified leaders. Let's try something new. Let's try some average Americans who has proven themselves in different arenas; have great leadership skills and are not in their positions to benefit themselves. They are there to benefit the American people.
I’m not talking about career politicians. I’m talking about the Cabinet nominees, for example, Kash Patel who will potentially replace Wray as Director of the FBI. This role has a 10 year term, and other Cabinet positions are 4-8 years depending upon the President’s term.
I have not found anything to support that the following nominees would be good choices: Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’m happy to read it.
But wealth does not automatically mean one is good at running things. Not at all. Many many many wealthy people have demonstrated a lack of leadership skills and good decision making. And there is little to indicate these nominees have the skills needed to lead and implement his goals. (And I personally take great comfort in that.)
Well, I would suggest there's little to indicate from the media. My guess is that those nominees have many skills no one wants to report on. And I just don't think you can build big businesses by being bad at decision making. I'm specifically saying 'business decisions'.
IMO, one of the biggest misconceptions that Trump has insisted upon is that business skills are translatable to and beneficial for governing. Setting aside the myth that being wealthy or running a company means that you have business skills at all (luck, connections, and inheritance are rarely given the credit they are due) the fact is that countries are not corporations. We also need leaders who can demonstrate an understanding of democracy, cooperation, and civic responsibility.
Running a huge business, I think, definitely includes the things you mentioned. In order to be a successful business, you can care about wealth and your employees and your community all at the same time...if done right. I think business skills can absolutely translate to great governing.
Of course, lots of skills can translate to governing! The mistake is assuming that running a business = being skilled = good at governing.
IMO the mistake is to assume that career politicians are good at governing.
Time will tell with these nominees. But, it is just not true that you must have sound business skills and decision making skills to build a big business or amass wealth. I have an accounting background and have worked as a consultant for businesses of all sizes. I also have studied business extensively. Leaders can accumulate a lot of wealth and power in our country (and world) despite demonstrably terrible decision making and leadership skills. And this has been true for a very long time. Having wealth is not a guarantee of having business (or otherwise) acumen. While there is room to have differing opinions about whether business skills translate to governing skills (I can tell we disagree about that, and that’s of course welcome), its wise to examine the automatic assumption that someone with wealth is automatically a good leader/decision maker.
Hi Jen - many points I agree with, that we can't assume wealth automatically equals great leadership! I think I just wanted to highlight that it seems many are automatically assuming the opposite: that the only reason these leaders are getting nominated are because they are wealthy donors, and therefore can't possibly be good leaders/decision makers. I don't think either is fair...and you are correct: Time will tell!
Great perspective, Melissa!
The "perspective" was literally just a veiled and subtle accusation that the media is withholding information on the nominees' qualifications. That is not fact, or analysis, it's just a baseless accusation.
Endless greed.
There is a quote in the book Swim With the Sharks. It is from the 1980s so feel free to update the numbers.
"To a normal person 10 million dollars would seem like enough. But anyone who thinks like that is not the type to accumulate 10 million dollars."
People are starting to get fed up with it. A health insurance CEO was just murdered in the street. I think that it may be only the beginning of the backlash.
"The boys of DOGE" made me laugh. Boys indeed.
DOGE = Devious Oligarchs Get Everything