Who will be the first to go?

[dimreepr]

Ok, so two MEAGA's, one dark and one light aren't going to fall out, got it.

On that very tentative premise, if we can get back to the topic question; who, from Trump's initial choice's will be absent by the midterms?

Edited November 29 by dimreepr

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

who, from Trump's initial choice's will be absent by the midterms?

Will likely be simpler to name who will still be around at that time 

[Peterkin]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

from Trump's initial choice's will be absent by the midterms?

 Are you keeping a tally of predictions? Mine is Trump, followed by all of his cabinet and advisors. 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 Are you keeping a tally of predictions?

nope...

it's more a bet of foundations. 

[TheVat]

 Gabbard will stick around, if confirmed. Trump likes having Russian assets around.  

He has applauded her sympathetic takes on Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and Putin.  Her complete lack of qualifications on national intelligence will make Trump feel more secure - easier to mold to his own shape, especially on Deep State loathing.

[dimreepr]

Isn't it strange that we all see 'the on coming storm', but no logic can explain why we believe...

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't it strange that we all see 'the on coming storm', but no logic can explain why we believe...

....what?

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

....what?

Sorry, my friend thought he was being funny when my back was turned 😣; it was on the back of a half digested thought we were discussing.

The oncoming storm, we know it's coming bc it's happened before; but it's seen through the filter of our elders, who 'survived it'  but tend to exaggerate (I nearly died, if I stood over there) for the sake of a good story.

The reality was, for most of them; it rained a lot and if I was outside I would have got very very wet.

It's the old why can't we learn from history and apply it today?

 

 

 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The oncoming storm, we know it's coming bc it's happened before;

Well, all right then; the thread's been changed to a weather forecast. I'm old and have seen storms enough to know this one has never happened before.  

[swansont]

On 11/29/2024 at 8:48 AM, dimreepr said:

if we can get back to the topic question; who, from Trump's initial choice's will be absent by the midterms?

Gaetz is already gone, and others who have been named might not be in consideration come January 20th. Are we including them?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Gaetz is already gone, and others who have been named might not be in consideration come January 20th. Are we including them?

That wouldn't be fair. The race shouldn't start until they're all in the gate.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That wouldn't be fair. The race shouldn't start until they're all in the gate.

I agree, which means this is all premature. But for “who will be the first to go” of people named (not actually taking their post) then the answer is Gaetz, game over, all done.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Well, all right then; the thread's been changed to a weather forecast. I'm old and have seen storms enough to know this one has never happened before.  

Not intentionally. but ok; no storm has ever happened before, but we can certainly see similar patters and extrapolate, they do it everyday on morning TV.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

I agree, which means this is all premature. But for “who will be the first to go” of people named (not actually taking their post) then the answer is Gaetz, game over, all done.

Fair enough, you win... 🙂 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

but ok; no storm has ever happened before, but we can certainly see similar patters and extrapolate

I did. I stand by my prediction that the first casualty will be Trump - I'm thinking March 15 - shortly followed by all of his appointees, to be replaced by the understudy and his appointments. And that storm can't readily be extrapolated from precedent. Johnson was a well-known quantity; Vance is a cypher.

[iNow]

I suspect SecDef nominee Hegseth will be next given stories of significant and serious alcoholism problems on top of stories about his own mother saying he was a horrible man (tho Trump a teetotaler himself looked passed drinking problems with Rudy Giuliani). 

[iNow]

Trump already replaced his White House lawyer. 

Also today his pick for DEA withdrew from consideration. 

My previous mention of Hegseth seems likely to be announced within the next 24-48 hours and the chatter suggests his primary opponent Florida Governor Ron DeSantis may be the SecDef replacement nominee (or Iowas Senator Joni Ernst). 

[Sensei]

On 11/29/2024 at 2:35 AM, iNow said:

They’re trying to get more returns on smaller investments.

This is understandable and desirable.

On 11/29/2024 at 2:35 AM, iNow said:

It costs less to pay the billionaires for access to their various rocket programs than it costs to fund government programs like NASA. 

It doesn't make sense because you previously said the government enormously enriched Musk through these contracts. This is mutually exclusive. How could he get rich on the microscopic margin from the product/service he sold?

Unless you are suggesting that NASA is embezzling taxpayer money?

Why can't NASA make something as cheap as a private millionaire?

Is NASA paying 10x more to the same engineers and 10x more for components and fuel?

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, Sensei said:

It doesn't make sense because you previously said the government enormously enriched Musk through these contracts. This is mutually exclusive. How could he get rich on the microscopic margin from the product/service he sold?

The subsidies and contracts ensure profitability. The money is made by the appreciation of the stocks in publicly-traded companies, or selling his stake in the profitable companies.

 

40 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 Why can't NASA make something as cheap as a private millionaire?

The government has to follow the rules. SpaceX has been known to cut certain regulatory corners

40 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Is NASA paying 10x more to the same engineers and 10x more for components and fuel?

Not 10x, but likely more. Plus you need to have the expertise in-house. Once you stop building rockets (or anything in tech, really) and people leave, it’s hard to reassemble the expertise.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

This is understandable and desirable.

Only, if we can get back on topic, if you want a pension... 😉