The Biden team/administration

[gowlerk 2,192]

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of reading about Miller, DeVos, Barr, and the like.So how about some talk about some new faces. Like Osterholm from MN.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/11/09/osterholm-on-biden-coronavirus-task-force

[yoink 321]

I hope he finds some really good Republicans to include. Not just a token one.

[wmw999 2,447]

He might ought to find a way to include Tulsi Gabbard, or at least seek to meet with her. Because she was the one stated Democrat that a lot of my conservative FB and skydiving friends really liked. 
Isolationism and America First is attractive to a lot of folks. They might think Trump went a little far, but he’s at least telling them they and their (ahem) ilk matter. 
Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

26 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

He might ought to find a way to include Tulsi Gabbard, or at least seek to meet with her. Because she was the one stated Democrat that a lot of my conservative FB and skydiving friends really liked. 
Isolationism and America First is attractive to a lot of folks. They might think Trump went a little far, but he’s at least telling them they and their (ahem) ilk matter. 
Wendy P. 

She has too much negative perception. But I agree the deplorable's need a dose of pandering.

[ryoder 1,590]

How many GOP senators are serving states which have Democrat governors?

Appoint them to the Biden administration, and the governor will likely replace them with a Democrat. [evil grin]

[gowlerk 2,192]

10 minutes ago, ryoder said:

How many GOP senators are serving states which have Democrat governors?

Appoint them to the Biden administration, and the governor will likely replace them with a Democrat. [evil grin]

I don't understand why any Senator with a safe seat would give it up to become a cabinet secretary. I mean, it completely wrecked Hillary. And look what happened to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. 

[headoverheels 333]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

How many GOP senators are serving states which have Democrat governors?

Appoint them to the Biden administration, and the governor will likely replace them with a Democrat. [evil grin]

My understanding is that the governor selects the new senator from a list of three choices, picked by the incumbent party.  Details vary by state, of course, but I don't think you would see any senators from one party replaced by another.

[ryoder 1,590]

8 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

My understanding is that the governor selects the new senator from a list of three choices, picked by the incumbent party.  Details vary by state, of course, but I don't think you would see any senators from one party replaced by another.

The state makes its own rules. What you described is not universal:

https://www.senate.gov/senators/AppointedSenators.htm

ETA: 17th Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Edited November 10, 2020 by ryoder

[wmw999 2,447]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

She has too much negative perception. But I agree the deplorable's need a dose of pandering.

It's easy to ignore what you think it stupid; it's even easier just to call it stupid and not deal with it. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it go away, and holding it down by force is the banana republic approach.

No way you can convince everyone, but if you can bring 1/4 of the people tentatively onboard for some projects, then you've wedged that "your team sucks" wall, and can begin to gain some trust, and can begin to get stuff done. Might not start with what you wanted most, but something is, in fact, better than nothing.

I used to be a project manager, and the most valuable lesson I learned is that you should plan a project for the resources (personnel, time, materials) that you actually have, not the best that you can possibly do with a dream team that you don't have. There lies failure and demoralization.

Wendy P.

[rifleman 70]

There's a rumour going round this side of the pond that Biden may nominate Obama as US Ambassador to the UK which would get up the nose of Boris Johnson.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

It's easy to ignore what you think it stupid; it's even easier just to call it stupid and not deal with it. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it go away, and holding it down by force is the banana republic approach.

No way you can convince everyone, but if you can bring 1/4 of the people tentatively onboard for some projects, then you've wedged that "your team sucks" wall, and can begin to gain some trust, and can begin to get stuff done. Might not start with what you wanted most, but something is, in fact, better than nothing.

I used to be a project manager, and the most valuable lesson I learned is that you should plan a project for the resources (personnel, time, materials) that you actually have, not the best that you can possibly do with a dream team that you don't have. There lies failure and demoralization.

Wendy P.

The first half was about team building and the last bit was about making best use of the team you have. I personally wouldn't choose Tulsi Gabbard any sooner than I would choose Marriane Williamson because my gut tells me the risk of either trying to insert their own agenda into the system is too great. I don't see either as purpose built for a leadership role on a leadership team. Could be wrong but that would be my call. On the other hand I'd be looking hard at Gretchen Whitmer, John Kasich, Stacy Abrams and Val Demmings to name a few.

Edited November 10, 2020 by JoeWeber

[wmw999 2,447]

If those people have the confidence of a group you want, then you need to at least hear them out -- their input is valuable. They're consultants, and consultants don't command.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

If those people have the confidence of a group you want, then you need to at least hear them out -- their input is valuable. They're consultants.

Wendy P.

No, you don't. That goes double if you already don't want them on your team. Why risk damaging esprit by overriding group think? Better to choose and require trust in your decision.

[wmw999 2,447]

I'm one of those "there is no such thing as too much information -- sometimes there's too little time to look at it all" people. So yeah, I'd listen to the asshole, too. Might not have him an integral part of my team, but if  he's influential, then I want to be able to point at how I incorporated some concern or another.

Yeah, they'll just find others. But it peels away the intellectually honest, one at a time.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,991]

49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

No, you don't. That goes double if you already don't want them on your team. Why risk damaging esprit by overriding group think? Better to choose and require trust in your decision.

If you have a corps whose esprit is in danger of damage from hearing outside/unwelcome/incorrect opinions - there's a good chance you have a problem with your corps to begin with.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

If you have a corps whose esprit is in danger of damage from hearing outside/unwelcome/incorrect opinions - there's a good chance you have a problem with your corps to begin with.

I didn't perceive the discussion was about including a potentially controversial hire in an operating organization where buy off and demonstrating inclusiveness was an advantage and time was unlimited. I thought it was about building an initial team. Right or wrong I think that's a time for decisions not group think. Of course I believe in inclusiveness. You've seen packers, right?

Edited November 10, 2020 by JoeWeber

[gowlerk 2,192]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You've seen packers, right?

No. Please send pics of your packing team!

[billvon 2,991]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I didn't perceive the discussion was about including a potentially controversial hire in an operating organization where buy off and demonstrating inclusiveness was an advantage and time was unlimited. I thought it was about building an initial team. 

Time is never unlimited - in either case.

Let's use a more concrete example.  Let's say you want to start a cellphone company that makes completely different cellphones from anyone else out there.  Lives in an earbud, heads up display instead of a screen, long distance wireless charging etc.   You are going to try to hire the best people out there, of course.  If some of those people are from, say, Apple, it's still going to be a VERY good idea to bring them in and talk to them.  Even if their vision of what a cellphone is is completely different from yours, and even if they are assholes.  If nothing else, they are going to know OTHER people at Apple who may be interested in a job.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Time is never unlimited - in either case.

Let's use a more concrete example.  Let's say you want to start a cellphone company that makes completely different cellphones from anyone else out there.  Lives in an earbud, heads up display instead of a screen, long distance wireless charging etc.   You are going to try to hire the best people out there, of course.  If some of those people are from, say, Apple, it's still going to be a VERY good idea to bring them in and talk to them.  Even if their vision of what a cellphone is is completely different from yours, and even if they are assholes.  If nothing else, they are going to know OTHER people at Apple who may be interested in a job.

Let's use a more on point example. Say you're in a garage with your wizard buddy and you need a half dozen or two people to start a company. Different process.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

No. Please send pics of your packing team!

In the spring. Currently they are all off to their winter jobs in second hand stores, dye shops and tattoo parlors.

[billvon 2,991]

57 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Let's use a more on point example. Say you're in a garage with your wizard buddy and you need a half dozen or two people to start a company. Different process.

Absolutely.  But the US government isn't really in that position, is it?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Absolutely.  But the US government isn't really in that position, is it?

Agreed. But Biden is, as I understood the original point.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

There's a huge advantage in having 'oppositional voices' in any discussion. 

If for no other reason that the fact that they point out 'inconvenient' facts and force the discussion to deal with reality.

A 'real world' example is the run-up to the Iraq war in 02. Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld decided that there was going to be a war, and that we could & would win handily.

Anyone who questioned the presence of WMDs or the idea that it would turn into a huge quagmire was silenced. In a couple cases, very aggressively. 
If those voices had been valued, if those in charge had been forced to address those concerns, we may have been able to save thousands of US lives (hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives) and BILLIONS of dollars.

Edited November 10, 2020 by wolfriverjoe

[Phil1111 1,149]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

There's a huge advantage in having 'oppositional voices' in any discussion. 
..., we may have been able to save thousands of US lives (hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives) and BILLIONS of dollars.

America has spent $6.4 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001, a new study says

[obelixtim 150]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

There's a huge advantage in having 'oppositional voices' in any discussion. 

If for no other reason that the fact that they point out 'inconvenient' facts and force the discussion to deal with reality.

A 'real world' example is the run-up to the Iraq war in 02. Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld decided that there was going to be a war, and that we could & would win handily.

Anyone who questioned the presence of WMDs or the idea that it would turn into a huge quagmire was silenced. In a couple cases, very aggressively. 
If those voices had been valued, if those in charge had been forced to address those concerns, we may have been able to save thousands of US lives (hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives) and BILLIONS of dollars.

I've been in many discussions at national level meetings with skydiving, (and work as well) where I have argued a contrary view when the rest of the quorum has been unanimous, often not because I necessarily disagreed with them, but because an opposing view promotes further examination and discussion of the issue. In some cases I flipped the whole room.

I found that in lots of situations, many people just follow the accepted ideas, because they don't have the critical thinking skills to fully analyse the issue, or they don't want to be seen to disagree with the powerful voices in the room.  I was a little unpopular at times, not that I gave a shit about that. It was no surprise that lots of times, I was approached by people after meetings who confided they agreed with me but were afraid to speak up. Ridiculous.

People who  take it personally when people disagree with them, really shouldn't be in decision making positions.