Trump still has to fill nearly 2,000 vacancies

>Many current vacancies don't require Senate approval

>But the administration's ability to install political appointees goes far beyond those that require Senate confirmation. High-ranking roles like Cabinet officials draw the most public attention -- and at times, controversy. But every president also gets to fill hundreds of other jobs throughout the federal government.

>For many such roles, Senate opposition is a non-factor: Those appointees can be named directly by the president or his top officials.

>Yet, as of Thursday, Trump had at least 1,987 vacancies within his new administration, most of which did not require Senate confirmation, according to data from tracking service Leadership Directories reviewed by CNN.

>The White House did not respond to a request for comment on its pace of appointments, and the data did not include federal judges.

>The vacancies included direct presidential appointments as well as what are known as "Schedule C" appointments -- a class of political appointees the government describes as "making or approving substantive policy recommendations" and jobs that "can be performed successfully only by someone with a thorough knowledge of and sympathy with the goals, priorities, and preferences" of the administration.

>Those appointments are generally chosen by a president's aides or Cabinet officials. They do not require Senate approval.
According to the Leadership Directories data, there are more than 4,000 positions classified as direct presidential or Schedule C political appointments. About two-thirds of those roles are hired at the sole discretion of the president, while about a third require Senate confirmation.

>The nearly 2,000 current vacancies in the Trump administration mostly require no Senate confirmation. While Trump has only 14 new people confirmed by the Senate, other jobs requiring Senate approval are still being carried out by people left from the Obama administration, often serving on an interim basis.
...

>According to the data collected by Leadership Directories, the Trump administration currently has about 400 vacant roles that require Senate confirmation, another roughly 400 direct presidential appointments sitting empty that don't require confirmation, and about 1,200 Schedule C vacancies that similarly do not require Senate approval.

>Trump may be having difficulty filling slots because some Republicans are reluctant to serve, and others are being passed over because they were critical of Trump during the campaign
.
>Elliott Abrams, a veteran of the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, was nixed by Trump for the No. 2 job at the State Department after he found out about criticism Abrams made of Trump during the campaign. Until then, he had been a leading contender for the still unfilled position.

>Placing the blame

>Trump has blamed the slow pace of filling his Cabinet in particular on Senate Democrats, who have used procedural measures to force the full length of time allowed for nearly all confirmations, slowing down the process.

>"I still have people out there waiting to be approved and everyone knows they're gonna be approved. It's just a delay, delay, delay, it's really sad," Trump told the audience at the CPAC gathering on Friday. "We still don't have our Cabinet. I assume we're setting records for that. That's the only thing good about it is we're setting records. I love setting records. But I hate having a Cabinet meeting and I see all these empty seats."

>Unable to stop any nominees without Republican support given the move to a 51-vote threshold by former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid, Democrats have also resorted to tactics like refusing to show up for committee votes, forcing Republicans to reconvene and pass the nominee by suspending the rules the following day.
...

>Democrats counter that many of Trump's nominees have had trouble getting their paperwork in and have not answered questions in a timely manner.

>Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt was the most recent Trump nominee to receive Senate approval when he was confirmed last week over Democratic opposition.

>First choices fall out of favor

>But as Trump continues to search for more names to fill out his nascent administration, he's also already seeking replacements.

>This week, Trump named Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster to fill the role of national security adviser.

>Trump has also already named a replacement to be secretary of labor after the first nominee, fast food executive Andrew Puzder, withdrew his nomination in the face Republican opposition. Alexander Acosta, dean of the Florida International University College of Law, was named less than 24 hours after Puzder withdrew.

>The nominee for secretary of the Army, Vincent Viola, also withdrew from consideration, citing trouble disengaging from his business ties. A replacement has yet to be named.

>>115138
It's CNN reporting about Trump. It is all bullshit!

>>115496
t. /pol/

>>115138
Go figure
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/19/senate-democrats-vow-delays-on-votes-for-trumps-ca/

>>115505
hahaha
Yeah, like the Republicans were always co-operative
>Be GOP
>shut down the government
>cost taxpayers 8 billion dollars

>>115507

You guys need to stop with that stupid repub vs dems bullshit.

>>115138
non american here

is it always red -> blue -> red -> blue etc.?
if that's the case why even vote?

>>115510
There are some are different shades of red and blue. The point is to try and turn all the other red or blue people the same shade as you.

>>115508
I know right? Treating it like a goddamn football game. Saw some shitty old baby boomer say "Hah you libtards are still mad you got your ASSES kicked in November". Lol what the hell?

To be fair, baby boomers are self centered cunts anyways

>>115517
>Treating it like a goddamn football game.
>To be fair, baby boomers are self centered cunts anyways

If you were trying to provide an example of someone who echoes platitudes they don't understand or follow, congratulations, spot on.

>>115525
Not him but his point is spot on. Too many people, especially so on the right, treat politics like a perpetual pep rally before the 'big game' of the next election. The talking points and populist slogans they endlessly chant would fit on pennants. Look at any Sarah Palin event over the last 10 years as an example.

It isn't simply echoing platitudes, it's cheerleading for the team, and the 'with us or against us" mentality is in full effect with these people, discounting (totally negating for some) the fact that they are all Americans.

>>115510

Since the implementation of term limits, there has only been one time a party has held on to the presidency for more than 8 years (two terms): Reagan (1981-1989) to George H W Bush (1989-1993). Otherwise the white house changes hands at least every 8 years, if not faster (Jimmy Carter only held on for 4 years, 1977-1981).

To some degree it's because even the most popular president can't transfer all their goodwill to their same-party successor since they're still two different people. To another it's that there's a natural want to shift policies in the opposite direction, because the ruling party gets to complacent and the underdog party wants to regain control and thus has better turnout. You can see both of these factors at work in the 2016 election.

Even before switching from a de facto 2-term limit to a legal 2-term limit, there was a natural switch in presidential politics at every 4-12 years. However there were a few unusually long stretches before the true limit despite each individual president serving only 2 terms each. Before the true 2-term limit, you have one stretch of 28 years of Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson to John Quincy Adams, 1801-1829, though it helps that some of them ran effectively unopposed), 24 years of Republicans (from Abraham Lincoln to Chester A. Arthur, 1861-1885, though Andrew Johnson switched parties for his second term), and another 16 years of Republicans (William McKinley to William Howard Taft, 1897-1913, with Teddy god damn Roosevelt in the middle). Of course, we have to talk about the 20 years of Democrats: from FDR to Harry Truman, 1933-1953, with FDR being the only president to win 4 terms before his death in 1945, just a few months after his 4th inauguration. FDR is the reason the limits were put in place officially, though Republicans would end up kicking themselves because super-popular Eisenhower came right after, and could probably have served at least 3 terms.

They all assasinated?

>>115621
>...especially so on the right...
>...Look at any Sarah Palin event...

You're doing the "bias" thing again anon.
Someone could point out an equal or greater amount of Democrat offenses.

>>115638
Neither of them, but this two party system seems to breed such contempt doesn't it?

The left calls the right names, the right does the same, and instead of cooperation and representation there just seems to be posturing and greed

Is a better government possible? Even in multi party governments the win condition for each party is to capture the most votes, so the party/ies with the most middle of the road policies end up the most popular, and you end up with two big lemonade stands moving closer to the centre of the beach, so to speak

Can we hurry up and get to the star trek future already?

>>115638
There is no equivalent of a Sarah Palin event on the left. I'm so sick of this false equivalence. It isn't bias to point out the obvious differences.

>>115684
Leftists are literally incapable of doing that.

If you could discriminate, you'd be a conservative.

>>115689
>>115684
I agree that the left and right are both horrible but the differences are like dying slowly from the flu or dying slowly from radiation poisoning. The flu is bad enough, it's contagious (like SJWs and their viral causes), but the radiation is worse because it means there is a leak or contamination somewhere you have to go find (fake-grassroots corporate funded 501c4s that don't have to report anything to anyone).

>>115691
Hello leftist shill.

No. The left is worse.

All the right wants is for YOU to stop destroying the world. Leave my fucking country alone.

>>115712
Hey, you doing alright? Were they hard on you after you shot those two Indian dudes?

>>115724
Typical lefty. No understanding of patriotism.

>>115729
You are too far to the right to know who is a leftist.

>>115138
Please read the rules.

This board is for posting real news sources only.

>>115729

Guy if you were being honest you'd admit that people on the left are doing what they do because they genuinely believe it's for the betterment of the country, just as the people on the right are doing.

Stop with this nonsense about one side being more or less patriotic than the other.

The most patriotic thing one can do is whatever they believe will benefit our country the most, and uphold our ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It saddens me that people on both the left and right are too blinded by their own rhetoric and pride to recognize the faults of both of their parties and focus on what they can do to mend the gaps between them.

How is a country supposed to survive and thrive like this?

>>115689
>>115691
>>115712

>mfw too smart to be left or right

>>115772

Post a story that contradicts.

>>115791
It won't, politics devolved into a level of soccer hooliganism. Americans can overlook flaws for the sake of their team winning, and the losing side even went full riot like it was Brazil or something.

>>115772
how about instead you fuck off back to /pol/. CNN is a legit news source whether you like it or not.

>>115791
>Guy if you were being honest you'd admit that people on the left are doing what they do because they genuinely believe it's for the betterment of the country, just as the people on the right are doing.

I've been saying this for a long time. Both sides, at their core, believe they hold the keys to a better future for the US. On the other hand, both sides are so fanatical now though they can't see anything who's not 100% on board with them as being right at all.

Part of that comes from only really having two choices for leadership in the country. There's no real solution to this because if members of one party were to fragment off an form their own, it leaves us with one big party and two smaller parties who have no hope of winning, so disimilar groups stick together under one loosely united banner because it prevents the other side from winning. I have a feeling that, if offered the choice, there'd be a lot of economically social people jumping ship to a socially conservative side if a choice was available and a lot of socially liberal republicans that are perfectly fine with the democrats' social policies. It's just that one side of the issues take precedence over the other, so they're forced to choose only partially of what they want.

>>115843
Oh get off your high horse. You're just as bad as the other partisans because you keep insisting both sides are the same when they aren't.

>implying we need to spend money paying 2000 jerkoffs to do fuck all

>>115855
>implying they don't do the things the free market can't or won't
>implying the things they do and the leadership they provide aren't needed
>implying large populations of humans don't need to be governed

>>115859
>implying 5 people are needed to do the job of one
>implying the vague notion of "creating jobs" hasn't been just creating wasteful government positions
>implying cutting expenses and normalizing the economy shouldn't be the number one government priority at the moment

>>115855
Mm

>>115517
I'll have you know that I'm a self centered cunt and I resent being associated with baby boomers, thank you very much.