Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen. That's what I said in general 2 or 3 years ago.

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen. That's what I said in general 2 or 3 years ago.

He;s the envoy to Ireland, WTF do you think he's going to do? Trump is going
to start a war with Ireland or something?

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen.

How has that worked out so far? Bad things have happened anyway.
Mulvaney might as well join the stampede.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 10:12:08 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen.
How has that worked out so far? Bad things have happened anyway.
Mulvaney might as well join the stampede.

Cindy Hamilton

I had that discussion with Micky in the first year Trump was in office. I said
people should just refuse to work for him, to be part of what Trump was and
what he was doing, to not enable him. Micky said they were just good govt
officials, doing what was needed to keep the country running.

It's also interesting how guys like Mulvaney were OK being chief of staff, until
Trump ditched them and then chose to take another position. And then
just two weeks from being out of their position anyway, suddenly they find
the fortitude to resign. The ones that did the right thing were all the CEOs
and other people on Trump's three committees that resigned right after
Charlottesville.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:59:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen. That's what I said in general 2 or 3 years ago.

He;s the envoy to Ireland, WTF do you think he's going to do? Trump is going
to start a war with Ireland or something?

I was unclear or at least incomplete when I said "better if HE didn't
resign". The discusion about it was not just about Mulvaney. It was
about him and all the others who were starting to resign.

It continued later in the day, after I had posted, with others saying
the same thing, that people in critical departments should not resign.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:38:07 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 10:12:08 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen.
How has that worked out so far? Bad things have happened anyway.
Mulvaney might as well join the stampede.

Cindy Hamilton

I had that discussion with Micky in the first year Trump was in office. I said
people should just refuse to work for him, to be part of what Trump was and
what he was doing, to not enable him. Micky said they were just good govt
officials, doing what was needed to keep the country running.

Again, I think you don't quite remember all that I said. I said they
could act as a restraing on the bad ideas of the president.


It's also interesting how guys like Mulvaney were OK being chief of staff, until
Trump ditched them and then chose to take another position. And then
just two weeks from being out of their position anyway, suddenly they find
the fortitude to resign. The ones that did the right thing were all the CEOs
and other people on Trump's three committees that resigned right after
Charlottesville.

That's the famous "honorable" thing, and it must be very unpleasant to
work for someone you despise, but being the long-regarded "honorable"
thing to do does not make it the right thing to do. One must look at
the consequences. It serves no good purpose to resign, esepecially when
your replacement doesn't have the very values, proper values, American
values, that you the person resigning has.

One can fairly resign if he's not in a position to restrain at all the
bad intentions of the person he works for, or if the boss has a clear
right to do the wrong thing, such as if often, usually the case with the
CEO of a private corporation. Or maybe even if he works in state
govenment, much of what it does is not that important or can reasonably
be expected to go back and forth every 4 years between two opposing
positions.

And if you're working for Stalin and you know if you disagree in a
cabinet meeting he'll have you shot or sent to the gulag, if he'll let
you resign, that can be a good idea. Trump never made it to the level
of Stalin, though I think he'd be willing.

But if he could be valuable either in cabinet meeting discussions or the
equivalent at whatever level he works at, or not involving discussions
but implementation, resigning can be the easy, in some cases cowardly
way out. For example, apparently some in the trump adminstration have
admitted that wrt illegal immigrants across the southern border, babies
and children were intentionally separated from their parents, not
because there was no place for them to stay, but to frighten others from
coming. That's horrendous enough, but they also apparently kept no
records of where the children were sent. Now maybe someone in charge
there didn't foresee that that would happen, but someone else with more
savvy could have made sure the blank on the form was present and filled
in, accurately, so that these children could be reunited with their
parents, even if they were back in Guatemala, etc. Could have contacted
the out-of-state agencies involved to make sure they were doing the
same. (Permanent separation might well have been the intention, in the
same way Canadian and American authorites stole babies from Indians to
give to white parents, even before legal abortion, when white babies
were available. How much more so now that infants are hard to find, why
not create some unattached infants.) That's an extreme example , but
when it comes to the DoD or the Attorney General's office or even the
Dept. of Education under de Vos, and other departments, there are plenty
of other places where the government has not been doing its duty and
someone who doesn't resign can partially remedy that.

Rules of honor such as this one were created for normal situations and
not for maliicious heads of state or departments. There are a lot of
cliche rules like that in other areas of life, (though of course now my
mind on that is a blank. :-( )

You can promote resignation based on disagreement all you want but in
cases where it's the wrong thing to do it just makes you look
short-sighted.

On Friday, January 8, 2021 at 6:12:52 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:38:07 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 10:12:08 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen.
How has that worked out so far? Bad things have happened anyway.
Mulvaney might as well join the stampede.

Cindy Hamilton

I had that discussion with Micky in the first year Trump was in office. I said
people should just refuse to work for him, to be part of what Trump was and
what he was doing, to not enable him. Micky said they were just good govt
officials, doing what was needed to keep the country running.
Again, I think you don't quite remember all that I said. I said they
could act as a restraing on the bad ideas of the president.

It's also interesting how guys like Mulvaney were OK being chief of staff, until
Trump ditched them and then chose to take another position. And then
just two weeks from being out of their position anyway, suddenly they find
the fortitude to resign. The ones that did the right thing were all the CEOs
and other people on Trump's three committees that resigned right after
Charlottesville.
That's the famous "honorable" thing, and it must be very unpleasant to
work for someone you despise,

Good grief, you actually think those cabinet members despise Trump? They
love Trump, they support his policies, they support most of what he's doing!
That's why he picked them.




but being the long-regarded "honorable"
thing to do does not make it the right thing to do. One must look at
the consequences. It serves no good purpose to resign,

If they did the right thing, if they had the right values, they never would have
accepted the positions to begin with. Trump picked them because they were
most like him, he knew their positions, that they supported him.

esepecially when
your replacement doesn't have the very values, proper values, American
values, that you the person resigning has.

ROFL



One can fairly resign if he's not in a position to restrain at all the
bad intentions of the person he works for, or if the boss has a clear
right to do the wrong thing, such as if often, usually the case with the
CEO of a private corporation. Or maybe even if he works in state
govenment, much of what it does is not that important or can reasonably
be expected to go back and forth every 4 years between two opposing
positions.

And if you're working for Stalin and you know if you disagree in a
cabinet meeting he'll have you shot or sent to the gulag, if he'll let
you resign, that can be a good idea. Trump never made it to the level
of Stalin, though I think he'd be willing.

But if he could be valuable either in cabinet meeting discussions or the
equivalent at whatever level he works at, or not involving discussions
but implementation, resigning can be the easy, in some cases cowardly
way out. For example, apparently some in the trump adminstration have
admitted that wrt illegal immigrants across the southern border, babies
and children were intentionally separated from their parents, not
because there was no place for them to stay, but to frighten others from
coming.

And did the Sec of HS prevent Trump from implementing it? No, he was
right there implementing it, explaining it, defending it. Now he's tied to
it forever. And no, there is no indication that he even opposed doing it.



That's horrendous enough, but they also apparently kept no
records of where the children were sent. Now maybe someone in charge
there didn't foresee that that would happen, but someone else with more
savvy could have made sure the blank on the form was present and filled
in, accurately, so that these children could be reunited with their
parents, even if they were back in Guatemala, etc. Could have contacted
the out-of-state agencies involved to make sure they were doing the
same. (Permanent separation might well have been the intention, in the
same way Canadian and American authorites stole babies from Indians to
give to white parents, even before legal abortion, when white babies
were available. How much more so now that infants are hard to find, why
not create some unattached infants.) That's an extreme example , but
when it comes to the DoD or the Attorney General's office or even the
Dept. of Education under de Vos, and other departments, there are plenty
of other places where the government has not been doing its duty and
someone who doesn't resign can partially remedy that.

Rules of honor such as this one were created for normal situations and
not for maliicious heads of state or departments. There are a lot of
cliche rules like that in other areas of life, (though of course now my
mind on that is a blank. :-( )

You can promote resignation based on disagreement all you want but in
cases where it's the wrong thing to do it just makes you look
short-sighted.

Once again, you're just confused on the facts. Oh, and now your honorable
people that were there for the good of the world, who stood there with Trump
through all his **** shows, well, suddenly only now are they resigning. Like
that "honorable" POS Mulvaney. He had no problems being chief of staff
for Trump, until Trump ditched him. He had no problems accepting another
position as envoy to Ireland. I suppose that's a real critical position, eh?
Ireland needs to be protected from Trump? But now, suddenly Trump has
gone to far, I quit! Has nothing to do with the fact that in two weeks Mulvaney
is out of that job anyway, right? That he's rode the Trump bus for as long as
possible and now at the last minute wants to make it look like he has some honor.
Same thing with Devos and Chao. Both of them eagerly supported Trump.
Chao is McConnell's husband, she knows politics and how to milk something
for all it's worth. No, they were not there because they were honorable,
saving the country. They were there for blind power, because they SUPPORTED
what Trump was doing and now they are leaving, bailing to try to fool people.

And the best argument, that puts your whole "honor" and "for the good of the
country" scenario out the window is that if that were the case, why are they
resigning now? What they could be doing is invoking the 25th, getting six
other of these "honorable" cabinet members together to remove Trump.
Instead they just helped Trump, taking two more chess pieces of the table,
making it all but impossible now to invoke the 25th. They just helped him again!
And they helped themselves by not having to **** off the Trumpets,
not having to take the blowback, hoping to slip away, save themselves and come
back for another go around in DC in another plum position. That's how it works.

On 1/8/2021 7:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, January 8, 2021 at 6:12:52 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:38:07 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 10:12:08 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen.
How has that worked out so far? Bad things have happened anyway.
Mulvaney might as well join the stampede.

Cindy Hamilton

I had that discussion with Micky in the first year Trump was in office. I said
people should just refuse to work for him, to be part of what Trump was and
what he was doing, to not enable him. Micky said they were just good govt
officials, doing what was needed to keep the country running.
Again, I think you don't quite remember all that I said. I said they
could act as a restraing on the bad ideas of the president.

It's also interesting how guys like Mulvaney were OK being chief of staff, until
Trump ditched them and then chose to take another position. And then
just two weeks from being out of their position anyway, suddenly they find
the fortitude to resign. The ones that did the right thing were all the CEOs
and other people on Trump's three committees that resigned right after
Charlottesville.
That's the famous "honorable" thing, and it must be very unpleasant to
work for someone you despise,

Good grief, you actually think those cabinet members despise Trump? They
love Trump, they support his policies, they support most of what he's doing!
That's why he picked them.

Did they truly support him or did they support their own ego? Publicly
they certainly did but I'd bet a few sold their soul just to be on staff
and prestige.

On Friday, January 8, 2021 at 9:20:54 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/8/2021 7:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, January 8, 2021 at 6:12:52 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:38:07 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 10:12:08 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2021 at 8:16:36 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Someone on CNN is saying about Mick Mulvaney, who resigned to day as
envoy to Ireland, thaat with only 13 days left, it woudl be better if he
didn't resign but stayed around to paraphrasing, make sure bad things
don't happen.
How has that worked out so far? Bad things have happened anyway.
Mulvaney might as well join the stampede.

Cindy Hamilton

I had that discussion with Micky in the first year Trump was in office. I said
people should just refuse to work for him, to be part of what Trump was and
what he was doing, to not enable him. Micky said they were just good govt
officials, doing what was needed to keep the country running.
Again, I think you don't quite remember all that I said. I said they
could act as a restraing on the bad ideas of the president.

It's also interesting how guys like Mulvaney were OK being chief of staff, until
Trump ditched them and then chose to take another position. And then
just two weeks from being out of their position anyway, suddenly they find
the fortitude to resign. The ones that did the right thing were all the CEOs
and other people on Trump's three committees that resigned right after
Charlottesville.
That's the famous "honorable" thing, and it must be very unpleasant to
work for someone you despise,

Good grief, you actually think those cabinet members despise Trump? They
love Trump, they support his policies, they support most of what he's doing!
That's why he picked them.

Did they truly support him or did they support their own ego? Publicly
they certainly did but I'd bet a few sold their soul just to be on staff
and prestige.

I agree. It's probably a combination in most cases. And even the ones that
really liked Trump going in, after a few incidents with Trump, where he
embarrassed them, made them look like idiots, shamed them with some
of his despicable acts, they had to lose their enthusiasm. But I don't think
they were still there protecting the country, they were there like you say,
for themselves in most cases. Like Chao. She's been Sec of Transportation
for 4 years, through everything, Charlottesville, impeachment, Covid, but
now suddenly this is too much? It's not because she's out of the job in
two weeks anyway? And then she leaks to the press that had she stayed,
she would have voted to remove him if the 25th was invoked? Give us
a break. She bailed hoping to try to resurface in another plum position
and to avoid having to take a position on the 25th.