Trump Re-Nominates Billionaire Jared Isaacman To Run NASA (cbsnews.com) 133
President Trump has re-nominated tech billionaire and private astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead NASA, reversing his earlier withdrawal over concerns about Isaacman's political affiliations. CBS News reports: Mr. Trump nominated Isaacman to the Senate-confirmed post last year, but announced in late May he had decided to withdraw Isaacman after a "thorough review" of his "prior associations." Weeks after the withdrawal, the president went further in expressing his concerns about Isaacman's credentials. At the time, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he thought Isaacman "was very good," but had been "surprised to learn" that Isaacman was a "blue-blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before." [...]
Mr. Trump made no mention of his previous decision to nominate and then withdraw Isaacman in his Tuesday evening announcement of the re-nomination on his Truth Social platform. "This evening, I am pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of NASA," Trump posted. "Jared's passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era."
Mr. Trump made no mention of his previous decision to nominate and then withdraw Isaacman in his Tuesday evening announcement of the re-nomination on his Truth Social platform. "This evening, I am pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of NASA," Trump posted. "Jared's passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era."
Secular (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Secular (Score:5, Insightful)
Just reads to me like an indication that Isaacman has sold out for the chance to lead NASA, and will be doing whatever his master wants.
Remember that J.D. Vance once referred to Trump as a Nazi, and look what tune he's singing now.
Re:Secular (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Secular (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is an oversimplification. Musk dreams of a sci-fi future. Isaacman does too (and is friends with Musk). Duffy wants to gut NASA. Hence, Musk strongly supported Isaacman. It's not too complicated; you don't need to search for subtext when what's out in the open makes perfect sense.
Re: Secular (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Secular (Score:4, Insightful)
Calling everyone a Nazi doesn't work any longer, except in the crowds that don't care about diminishing the horrors of 1930's Germany. But you don't care about history, so you hurl epithets all around hoping something sticks.
See: Boy who cried wolf parable.
There's a paradox in discussing Nazism in today's context. Indiscriminately calling someone or something a Nazi can indeed diminish the recognition of the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. However, refusing to consider, discuss, or relate anything in today's world to Nazi Germany also reduces those crimes to a quickly fading academic note, which effectively neuters the power of that lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
How does one discern the difference between someone hurling an epithet randomly based on topical knowledge versus someone wanting to discuss actual Nazi doctrine from 1930s?
How much influence do you think FDR had on Nazi politics before the bad stuff started? Most Americans have no clue how closely FDR aligned with Adolf before it went sideways.
Re: (Score:2)
WWII was a weird time. Many Allied or soon to be Allied leaders supported either the Germans or the Soviets. American support for Germany stemmed from both a large population of German ancestry and a desire to stay out of the war. Support for Stalin came from an acknowledgement of the need for Stalin's help in the war, as well as a much higher regard for Stalin in the West than he current enjoys. Note that Orwell struggled mightily to publish Animal Farm until after the war ended.
There was also lingering an
Re:Secular (Score:5, Funny)
Remember that J.D. Vance once referred to Trump as a Nazi, and look what tune he's singing now.
Vance meant that as a compliment you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
Only joke on the rich target? I was looking for some kind of joke about Isaacman being too smart to accept the job.
The YOB's actual intention is to demolish NASA like the East Wing and route the money to Musk, who will then donate "appropriately" for the 2028 campaign. No quid pro quo there! It really is hilarious, but I lack the funny bone to make the joke sound funny.
Re:Secular (Score:5, Informative)
"Remember that J.D. Vance once referred to Trump as a Nazi"
Don't damn JD with faint praise. He didn't merely call Trump a Nazi, he said Trump was "America's Hitler"
Re:Secular (Score:5, Informative)
Trump called Ted Cruz's wife ugly https://www.refinery29.com/en-... [refinery29.com] and Cruz still rides Trump's dick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Just reads to me like an indication that Isaacman has sold out for the chance to lead NASA, and will be doing whatever his master wants.
Remember that J.D. Vance once referred to Trump as a Nazi, and look what tune he's singing now.
And Harris called Biden a racist before joining him as his VP
Re:Secular (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that J.D. Vance once referred to Trump as a Nazi, and look what tune he's singing now.
And Harris called Biden a racist before joining him as his VP
Inaccurate.
Here's what Kamala Harris actually said [cbsnews.com]: ... [But] it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputation and careers on the segregation of race in this country."
"I do not believe you are a racist," Harris said, looking straight at Biden. "I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground
She was complaining about the fact that, as a senator, he worked with other senators who were racists. But that's what senators are supposed to do, work with other senators. The flaw is in the people who voted the racists into office.
Re: (Score:1)
you cant say that without "I believe you are a racist,"
just ask 60 minutes if ok to edit
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that quote is inaccurate, cite a source to a more accurate source.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the joke, which was that you can delete two words from the quote and get "I believe you are a racist."
Re: (Score:2)
you cant say that without "I believe you are a racist,"
just ask 60 minutes if ok to edit
And you can't post that if you understand nuance.
Re:Secular (Score:5, Insightful)
Just reads to me like an indication that Isaacman has sold out for the chance to lead NASA, and will be doing whatever his master wants.
Alternatively, Trump and his handlers realized that once you reach billionaire status, any difference between Democrat and Republican is both very small and entirely cosmetic.
To be clear here, billionaires are almost universally the enemies of a viable, democratic, civil society.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
sounds good. but this sounds better: "Trump acknowledged that he thought Isaacman "was very good," but had been "surprised to learn" that Isaacman was a "blue-blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.".
trump has the rare quality to blurp out the rot of the us political system in the most crude ways. democracy is the best form of government that money can buy! if i say that every single congressman or senator in the us is a sellout, if not directly a criminal, i think the margin of
Re: Secular (Score:3)
What if the debt is a distraction used cynically by the rich to strike fear into the hearts of democrats and make them think you can't just print money to end poverty, when money-printing is how the rich get rich?
Re: (Score:3)
And we know that you "can't just print money to end poverty", because it has been tried. Every time it has been tried, the result was an economic collapse. Most of which led to very unpleasant people being able to take over. Germany and Italy in the 1920's are particularly important examples, but you'll also find examples in South America, Africa and China.
Re: (Score:3)
Because if you own capital, its value goes up with inflation. But wages effectively go down with inflation. They are not going to end poverty with inflation, but they certainly won't lose anything. Their property is fungible to other currencies if necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the "very unpleasant people" have already taken over and now control the US Mint presses. Do you really think they aren't going to fire up those presses to their own advantage, after seeing that they have no problem putting tens of millions of people into starvation risk to save a few bucks on their own taxes?
This administration has no moral center. Stop acting like they do - they're literally using hunger as a political weapon.
Re: Secular (Score:2)
What if the world's number one currency prints the dollars of which an artificial, imposed shortage caused Weimar's hyperinflation? Is the psychological, arbitrary, fickle nature of inflation revealed by how hyperinflation in Germany ended in a week upon news of the Dawes plan to supply more US Dollars? Did the Marshall Plan after WWII basically print money to give to Germany to prevent another Hitler?
What if prices are so noisy that you can defeat inflation by printing faster than prices rise? And isn't th
Re: (Score:1)
What if the debt is a distraction used cynically by the rich to strike fear into the hearts of democrats and make them think you can't just print money to end poverty, when money-printing is how the rich get rich?
What if the debt is a distraction used cynically by rich democrats:
- to strike fear into the hearts of republicans who know exactly what this playbook means
- to temporarily and misleadingly boost the living standards of the poor until inflation inevitably kicks in and wipes out their gains
- where the democrats can then blame the wipe-out on republicans for not printing enough money
?
Rinse-repeat until we reach Venezuela levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do a little Occam's Razor analysis of your theory:
Which is more probable:
- Democrats have entered into a half-century spanning "we hope we're right" conspiracy to do a double fake-out on apparently easily manipulated Republicans to bitch and moan about debt and deficits for the last 50 years (and not doing anything about it while in power until *this year*) while temporarily speaking to the needs of impoverished and working class people until they eventually unravel the entire global economy into a co
Re: (Score:1)
Your premises are wrong. Don’t forget that the MAJORITY of billionaires, and in fact earners over 300k, vote Dem, AND the MAJORITY of government dependents vote Dem - specifically those on three or more government programs, teachers, and government employees. The rich get their inflation pumped stock portfolios, and government dependents get “free stuff” plus automatic cost of living adjustments.
So, revisiting the premises behind your two false choices, keep in mind:
1 - Democrats haven
Re: (Score:1)
Correction:
> - objective reasoning instead of
Should be:
> - objective reasoning instead of narrative
(Critical Theory incorporates Foucault and postmodernism, which means its adherents philosophically believe that narrative trumps objectivity. Don’t believe me? Read CT’s Delgado.)
Re: Secular (Score:2)
What if you can use inflation-indexing to maintain real purchasing power no matter how silly inflation gets? What if Paul Volcker was wrong about COLAs?
Re: Secular (Score:2)
Why not use indexation to negate any real pur chasing power effects of nominal inflation?
Re: Secular (Score:2)
Does an inflation-indexed printed strong basic income give the poor a way to get out of poverty once and for all (if they want)?
As for your better way: why not legalize suicide as a cost effective way to let nonviolently non-cooperative people like myself out of your nightmarish control fresk society?
Re: Secular (Score:2)
How come Japan's been printing like mad for decades without suffering the imminent predicted collapse into a hyperinflationary failed state?
Re: Secular (Score:2)
Are you claiming if Japan had spent printed money on a basic income, they would be experiencing hyperinflation right now? How is that different from predictions of hyperinflation due to a 250% debt-to-GDP ratio where they spent printed money on things like trying to encourage fertility (which failed)? In short, why isn't the takeaway that printing money doesn't necessitate hyperinflation as claimed?
Re: Secular (Score:2)
If money printing didn't cause hyperinflation in Japan contrary to the predictions of standard economic models, can we do a better job of money printing a basic income so that everyone benefits?
Do you understand that trying to make me economically productive will just drive me to suicide (like my brother who tried climbing the corporate ladder and killed himself at 49)? Why not legalize suicide? Wouldn't it be cheaper to give me a way out (basic income, suicide, free camping) than to spend money trying to
Re: Secular (Score:2)
Wait, why strawman me as a Marxist? What if I'm a Groucho Marxist, not a Karl Marxist?
What if I don't hurt you by raising taxes to pay for basic income and even offer you an option to put savings in a Fed account that will index it to inflation?
What if the American Indians just wanted to be left alone? Sitting Bull refused to sell land; why did capitalists have to take it by force? If people want to stay "poor" shouldn't they have that choice without capitalists enclosing everything and forcing dependence o
Re: Secular (Score:2)
As for the little red hen, what if I don't like cake?
Re: (Score:2)
Without them, you just look like you're too emotionally wrought to slow down your rant, which does not reflect well upon you.
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders and Ocasio are 'pressure valves' for the Left, the way that Tucker Carlson and Ron Paul are for the Right. They channel discussion down acceptable paths and let those whose opinions don't conform to the current narrative (like you) think that they actually have a voice and are being listened to. Have Sanders or Ocasio (Cortez is her maternal last name) uttered the words "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" in reference to Gaza yet? Because at least as recently as March or April they hadn't, even thou
Re: (Score:2)
Have Sanders or Ocasio (Cortez is her maternal last name) uttered the words "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" in reference to Gaza yet?
Yes they have. [senate.gov]
Try to keep up.
Also, why do you get to decide what her name is? I'm pretty sure that self-determination is one of those core values we share as Americans, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. If she wants to have a last name of Occasio-Cortez, that's her decision - not yours.
Jesus H. Christ.
Re: (Score:2)
She doesn't hyphenate it, so a lot of people think her name is Alexandria Cortez if they don't know Latino naming conventions. I was just mentioning it for those who don't know (plus, in her place I would find "AOC" to be annoying as hell. It's mentally lazy, which is why the rightwingnuts started calling her that.)
Did you look at the date on your link? September 17, **2025**. So it took him almost TWO FRACKING YEARS to acknowledge what every frelling sentient being on the planet knew by Christmas of 202
Re: (Score:2)
She doesn't hyphenate it
Uh. You sure about that? [wikipedia.org] I'm having trouble finding a credible instance of her last name not being hyphenated. Her own campaign website [ocasiocortez.com] has it hyphenated. As does her Congressional page.
Re: (Score:2)
Than she changed it at some point, she didn't used to.
Re: Secular (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, my bad then. Not sure why I was so convinced she didn't. Now I know better.
Re: Secular (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No one currently elected stands for the rule of law. The law is simply a tool used to punish people those in power do not like. Law exists only to be weaponized and the last 5 years has proven that.
Re: (Score:2)
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition; There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Re:Secular (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever. If you listen to what he's said about his plans for NASA, it is clear he wants to turn it into an arm of private business. No science for you or the rest of Americans. If he gets confirmed, the only missions will be ones backed by some company or coalitions of companies. Which coalitions? The ones who will kickback money to el Bunko. . . .selling off the U.S. Government one agency at a time for his own personal gain.
Re:Secular (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never discount the power of Trump simply repeats "whatever the last person who talked to him suggested" it has huge predictive power.
Also the pool of people the admin has to select from is small and getting smaller all the time. It's not like the first term where every Republican wonk was willing to join the admin, theres a reason pretty much nobody from the first term is in the second term.
Re:Receipts confirmed! (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.fec.gov/data/recei... [fec.gov]
Jared Isaacman donated $1 million to "MAGA INC" back in June.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Secular (Score:5, Informative)
Trump doesn't know anything beyond what his handlers (Heritage Group) tell him. Like his latest pardon.
https://thehill.com/opinion/li... [thehill.com]
Trump has no clue who the guy is or what crime he was even convicted of.
Re:Secular (Score:4, Interesting)
I feel that it is good news that in these time is possible for republican to nominate a democrat to be head of anything
Donald nominated him, realized he was a Democratic supporter, , pulled his nomination, publicly announced that he needed to start kicking some money at the Republicans, and now he's renominated. That's not good news. It's just news that, once again, the only thing that actually matters to Donnie is getting fat stacks of fucking cash shoveled at him. And this "nominee" is a fuckhead who's completely willing to throw cash at the shitheel in chief.
Re: (Score:3)
So we should be congratulating the guy who sews division at every chance he gets for reluctantly continuing to nominate a singular Democrat to head an agency with no political clout whatsoever?
All this does is prove that the label "billionaire" means more than either political party label to this President, which should come as news to absolutely nobody.
Re:Secular (Score:4, Insightful)
It's oligarchs all the way down.
Re: Secular (Score:2)
Trump himself was a Democrat until about 5 minutes before he decides to run for the Republican nomination. His whole family were Democrats and donors too. His cabinet has Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr, both Democrats until Trump.
Trump has really turned the Republican party quite blue, both in terms of staff and economic policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump himself was a Democrat until about 5 minutes before he decides to run for the Republican nomination. His whole family were Democrats and donors too. His cabinet has Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr, both Democrats until Trump.
None of them were/are Democrats. Neither are they Republican; they are all opportunists. They just discovered that conservatives (especially the religious ones) are easier to gaslight.
Trump has really turned the Republican party quite blue, both in terms of staff and economic policy.
Dear Leader and his GOP's policy has exactly zero to do with anything Democrats advocate.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue it's not that Trump is an opportunist. It's that he's a narcissist. And the Dems refused to suck up to him or even give him an ounce of respect. They had the opportunity to advance so much of their agenda by just kissing his ass a bit, but they were too proud. Foreign leaders have generally leaned this lesson as
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Leader and his GOP's policy has exactly zero to do with anything Democrats advocate.
Yes and no. Someone on Slashdot a few months back had a great summary of this issue: He said something like
I love that take! For example, from the far left he took ideas like his anti-vaxx and anti-science views that led to nominating RFK Jr, plus his general fiscal irresponsibility. From the far right, he takes nationalism, racism, trickle-down economics, and yet another source of anti-science views on climate. H
Re: (Score:2)
All you have to do is donate $1 million or more to the latest Trump Org legalized bribery program. Previously it was the meme coin or inauguration fund, now it's the great GREAT ballroom they're building on the white house.
What’s changed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut
Yep.
Kiss the ring, Jared (Score:2)
Now, assume the position...
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmed. https://www.fec.gov/data/recei... [fec.gov]
Wonderful headlines every day (Score:2)
Seems like he made a donation now (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Right here. https://www.fec.gov/data/recei... [fec.gov]
Same price as a pardon. https://thehill.com/homenews/a... [thehill.com]
Re:Seems like he made a donation now (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Greg Palast, one of the few actual investigative reporters left in the world, wrote a book back in 2002 with that title, 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy'. A bit dated but still a good read. Things have only continued downhill at an ever-increasing rate since then.
https://www.amazon.com/Best-De... [amazon.com]
Remember when...? (Score:4, Informative)
First he's nominated, then he's not, and now he is again. Remember when our country had decisive leadership? Where they'd say what they were going to do and then just do it.
The ineptness of this current administration is ridiculous. From tariffs, to layoffs, to appointments nothing being said by this administration can be trusted to remain consistent even a day after it is said. Tomorrow this guy could be back on the outs again and that wouldn't be at all unusual for these people. Their incompetence is appalling.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully the Democrats will support the working class, males, and not the far left academic, biology denying, misandric group they have been obeying for some years. A group that is actually in its zeal has a strong anti-woman aspect. All idiocy is not the sole province of Republicans. We have to learn that again.
Yes, we all know you're bigoted against trans people. Oh but "think of the women!" right? Do you mean the same women who by a solid margin are fine with trans people being let into their bathrooms? https://www.pewresearch.org/re... [pewresearch.org] .
It's hilarious how central you put all this with Democrats "obeying" these supposedly awful people as if supporting trans rights is the only thing Democrats do anymore too. There's a lot more to the Democratic party then issues pertaining to your obsession and dislike of trans p
Re: (Score:2)
If you can show being trans is a choice then those are equivalent.
Fact is political ideology is *not* a protected class, because it's a choice.
Re:Remember when...? (Score:4, Insightful)
When a collection of people decide to self-identify as deplorable shitbags that would like to starve people in order to gain political power, they might get a few nasty things said about them.
Don't want to be demonized? Stop using cruelty as leverage in politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing you read one thing and become spittle flecked enraged. I enjoy pissing you off, although it is too easy, sometimes I feel bad about it. But not too bad, There is a certain satisfaction in pissing of unhinged people.
Who says I was pissed off? I'm well aware of your bigotry, it's not like this was a surprise or anything. You got more of a "sigh.... more attributing Democratic party problems to your favorite source of bigotry".
You focus on the trans issue, yet ignore the other things
Because you had a point with the other things. Your trans bigotry was just that though.
I have no issue at all with an adult doing anything they like as long as it doesn't harm others. I've been clear on that.
Yes but you have also brought up in prior conversations your refusal to acknowledge these people as they are and you even claim the Democrats are being "anti-women" with supporting trans rights in your post above
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah democrats fault cheeto won blah blah blah.
Can't ever be the fault of the people who voted for him, can it?
Re: (Score:1)
Blah blah blah democrats fault cheeto won blah blah blah.
Can't ever be the fault of the people who voted for him, can it?
For that, you have to assume that the people who voted for Trump wanted exactly what Trump brought us. They didn't. And it was pretty historic that a terrible candidate and person such as Trump managed to win over what should have been a slam dunk. Blue wave.
You do understand that a large subset of people vote against a candidate, don't you? And those people contributed to the eroding demographics once solidly Democrat. Elections are almost always close. so demographic erosion is a bad thing. And some Dem
Re: (Score:2)
For that, you have to assume that the people who voted for Trump wanted exactly what Trump brought us. They didn't. And it was pretty historic that a terrible candidate and person such as Trump managed to win over what should have been a slam dunk. Blue wave.
He said exactly what he was going to do, and they voted for it. You aren't then allowed to say "oh my goodness, we had no idea that THIS is what he was going to do" - half the electorate saw it and voted against it. If 75 million people figured it out, what's wrong with the 77 million that couldn't?
VP Harris was saying what he was going to do, according to the Project 2025 manifesto. They were going to take a wrecking ball to government services writ large. And that's exactly what happened.
Trump himself
Re:Remember when...? (Score:5, Interesting)
The mayor-elect of NYC ran on a pro-immigrant, pro-working class, pro-trans-rights platform.
Exit polls show he won men ages 18-29 by 40 percentage points.
You can make some arguments about NYC not being an accurate bellwether, but it looks like telling weak, pathetic bigots to go fuck themselves is message that has some traction.
Re:Remember when...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mamdani was even running against a second much more moderate Democrat in addition to a Republican. If those young men didn't want what he was offering but still wanted to vote Democrat they had a very competitive option with Cuomo. Clearly they were onboard with Mamdani.
The very best (Score:2)
I hope this means the end of SLS and Orion (Score:1)
I think we will get to the moon with:
+ Dragon from Earth to Starship in LEO and back .
+ Starship from LEO to lunar orbit and back.
+ Blue Origin LEM2 for lunar orbit to lunar surface and back.
( Mainly constrained by Starship not being manrated for launches / landings in time. )
I hope they can do that in 4 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, best we can do is an AI slop whitehouse ballroom boondoggle while the country is shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
What can you expect from two programs generated by the Bush Madministration?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the double post, but that link is excellent. Long, but definitely worth reading.
So then... (Score:2)
Another TACO flip-flop?
TACO (Score:2)
Jobs for sale! (Score:2)
He is (Score:2)
Not an astronaut.
Who is "Mr. Trump"? (Score:2)
Is this where CBS journalism standards are in 2025?
Granted, I am on the downhill slide of life so perhaps this has changed, but in the USA sitting presidents are labeled with their title of office. I do not ever recall CBS political newscasters and commentators saying, "Mr. Clinton spoke to Congress today" or "Mr. Bush held a press conference".
You can drop the title for brevity and just say "Obama"; but if you use a title when referring to someone acting in their official capacity, it isn't "Mr. Obama".
Did
TACO (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
he was a lumberjack, and thats ok.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to post this. Left satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)