Questioning the Fantasy Team

Is there at least some chance that not every single one of President Trump's picks for the Fantasy Team are the absolute best people possible to take office and do whatever job that office requires on behalf of Trump, MAGA, and the American people?

Let's see...

First, many of the positions to which he has nominated people should not and/or cannot constitutionally exist.

Their positions should be removed by Trump. Appointing someone we know virtually nothing about but nonetheless "like" is not an acceptable second option when a position/agency/department should not exist.

In some cases, as with Linda McMahon, Trump has made it explicitly clear that her job is to eliminate her job (Secretary of Education) after dismantling the Department, which should and must be removed.

A Senate whose members cannot prove their own legitimacy in office cannot legitimately confirm nominees to Trump's administration, and there's at least some argument that he doesn't need them to. There are people fulfilling many duties in 'acting' roles already.

Then there is the example of Morgan Ortagus, Trump's appointee as Ambassador to Lebanon, of whom he wrote in the Truth Social announcement of her nomination, "Early on Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson. These things usually don't work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing it for them. Let's see what happens."

Trump said, in no uncertain terms, that this was a selection for the Republican establishment. It is historically common for Presidential appointments to be the product of 'horse-trading'. Here we have an admission of that and an expression of doubt that the move will be successful. Is that just for posturing? Maybe. Impossible to know.

Then there's the case of Chad Chronister, whose appointment lasted for a matter of hours. Chronister withdrew his name and Trump responded that Chronister "didn’t pull out, I pulled him out, because I did not like what he said to my pastors and other supporters."

So at minimum we have:

- Trump picks to faithfully serve

- picks whose job is to eliminate their own job/agency

- picks by someone other than Trump, for unknown reasons

- picks that are rescinded for, ostensibly, their low quality

- picks made of people that are entirely unknown by us for reasons that are entirely unknown by us

Understanding this, why should we default to assuming that a given pick is being made for the first reason, while knowing that the pick is to fill a job that should not constitutionally exist, by Senators who cannot prove their own legitimacy, as though the government is operating in some state of normalcy? It isn't.

It's entirely possible that giving the power back to you, the People, means systematically disposing of each and every one of the Uniparty's next generation of "rising stars" whose attachment to the system makes it impossible for the people to seize that power.

Whether or not that's happening, it's certainly true that if the People expect to take an active role in self-governance, giving the power right back to authorities is not the way to go about it.

Why are we told to be happy with whatever is chosen and applaud because the TV has shown us "liberal heads exploding"?

Why are the people demanding our full, committed grovel simultaneously proclaiming to be "the News now" and also certain that John Bolton or Mike Pompeo or Mike Pence, etc... betrayed Trump and were evil all along?

Maybe Tulsi Gabbard is one of the most competent, most patriotic Americans to ever walk the face of the earth and her friendship with Uniparty traitor John McCain’s Trump-deranged, MAGA-hating daughter transcends these important differences. Maybe the other people in Uniparty-friendly TV/social media info ops attending Gabbard’s confirmation hearing with McCain really are our best friends. Maybe there’s nothing weird about so many selections for the Fantasy Team being former members of the cast of Fox News, or of Tucker Carlson’s TV show that is, once again, owned by the Murdochs. Maybe these oddities can be explained away as, with everything else, a chance to “wake up the normies.”

Or maybe there’s more going on. In that case, it would be irresponsible for a people committed to self-governance to assume that the most charitable possible position is the correct one without seriously weighing any other options.

Regardless, it is beneath the principles of our founding to cheer as politicians who cannot prove their own legitimacy give permission to bureaucrats to hold power over the People in offices those Founders would see as abominable, assuming the bureaucrats’ appointments to be the perfect product of a ‘plan’ we are not privy to.