Best Of

Re: Political Discussions

@Vision said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:
Which is more dangerous to the mission for a leader

Incompetent subordinates?

Competent but disloyal subordinates?

The first, maybe you can teach them, carefully delineate what you want from them, replace them if necessary.

The second, maybe they'll carry out the mission? Maybe they'll undermine you at every turn, stab you in the back, destroy your hope of success?

What did Abe Lincoln do when it turned out that the golden boy McClellan was known to be competent, but apparently either disloyal or cowardly? Replaces him with a saddle-maker no one has ever heard of with known character flaws, and wins the war.

I remain hopeful, if skeptical, for the coming days.

Pray for your enemies.

Comparing Matt Gaetz to U.S. Grant is wild af, lol.

I didn't think Gaetz was up for Secretary of Defense, or General of the Army, is he? I thought it was the schmo from Fox Network. So, I wasn't comparing Gaetz to anyone.

At any rate, I notice no one's addressed the point I was making.

At all.

Loyalty counts to a leader. That's the point, in case you missed it.

Yeah I thought you were talking Gaetz but the same applies to the **** who is gonna be my secdef.

So, comparing that fuçko to Grant is also wild AF.

And no you don't have to provide the whole history, but your connotations were that Grant was an average "saddle maker" when he made saddles for 24 months of his life and he was a soldier for 40 years, including 17 before he was promoted as general of the army.

It would be like calling me a dishwasher because I had an after school job as one.

We all know that you are smart enough to know the difference between a truncated version and a dishonest connotation.

And there's a difference between valuing loyalty over expertise (obviously an ok virtue) and claiming that's what's going on when there are literally 2500 more qualified candidates who would ALSO be loyal...

this is a dishonest comparison also because this isn't valuing loyalty over expertise. It's demanding loyalty in lieu of competence.

I wasn't comparing any individual to Grant as I'm sure you realize. I'd never heard of Hesgeth until the selection, as I don't watch FOX news. Again you miss the point, in favor of personality politics. I stand by my statement, loyalty counts. I'd rather go to war in the company of loyal soldiers of whatever competency level rather than someone I'm sure will stab be in the back or run away.

But, you knew that. Didn't you?

I asked this above but would like to add to this as well.

Loyalty or mindless fanatical obedience?

One can be an asset, the other, a detriment.

I think I've been more than crystal clear. Time will tell the outcome.

On a side note, I found myself in the same position as you. I have a R by my name at the polls, but I couldn't bring myself to actively vote FOR Trump. He lost my confidence on Jan 6th. He had a chance to regain it when he was asked if he could have done anything differently, all he had to do was admit his mistakes. But, he has orange hair and cannot admit when he's wrong.

I also couldn't in good conscience vote for Kamala. I guess that if I wanted to be one of those people I could call her the Krowned Kackling Klown Kween, but I don't. Like so many Democrats today, she doesn't seem to understand the job of President. Fire away, but I'll stand by that assessment as well.

Second side note, for the history buffs. My reference to Grant as a saddle maker was an echo of one of the many things that his detractors said about him when Lincoln got around to choosing him to lead. All his known flaws and some that were merely impugned were aired in the public forums of the day. Lincoln made his choice based on Grants loyalty.

@CalvinAndHobo 's post above hits the nail on the head. We're in either/or territory. That's just where we are. My hope rests in the fact that Trump doesn't like to lose. Probably too much so, but, it is what it is. One of my sisters rants about his election included "NATO doesn't like him at all". Well, yeah, he told them they'd have to start paying their fair share. That's an example of why I have hope.

Third side note, no thank you, I don't want any cheese right now.

Amos_Umwhat

2

Re: Political Discussions

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:
Which is more dangerous to the mission for a leader

Incompetent subordinates?

Competent but disloyal subordinates?

The first, maybe you can teach them, carefully delineate what you want from them, replace them if necessary.

The second, maybe they'll carry out the mission? Maybe they'll undermine you at every turn, stab you in the back, destroy your hope of success?

What did Abe Lincoln do when it turned out that the golden boy McClellan was known to be competent, but apparently either disloyal or cowardly? Replaces him with a saddle-maker no one has ever heard of with known character flaws, and wins the war.

I remain hopeful, if skeptical, for the coming days.

Pray for your enemies.

Comparing Matt Gaetz to U.S. Grant is wild af, lol.

I didn't think Gaetz was up for Secretary of Defense, or General of the Army, is he? I thought it was the schmo from Fox Network. So, I wasn't comparing Gaetz to anyone.

At any rate, I notice no one's addressed the point I was making.

At all.

Loyalty counts to a leader. That's the point, in case you missed it.

Yeah I thought you were talking Gaetz but the same applies to the **** who is gonna be my secdef.

So, comparing that fuçko to Grant is also wild AF.

And no you don't have to provide the whole history, but your connotations were that Grant was an average "saddle maker" when he made saddles for 24 months of his life and he was a soldier for 40 years, including 17 before he was promoted as general of the army.

It would be like calling me a dishwasher because I had an after school job as one.

We all know that you are smart enough to know the difference between a truncated version and a dishonest connotation.

And there's a difference between valuing loyalty over expertise (obviously an ok virtue) and claiming that's what's going on when there are literally 2500 more qualified candidates who would ALSO be loyal...

this is a dishonest comparison also because this isn't valuing loyalty over expertise. It's demanding loyalty in lieu of competence.

I wasn't comparing any individual to Grant as I'm sure you realize. I'd never heard of Hesgeth until the selection, as I don't watch FOX news. Again you miss the point, in favor of personality politics. I stand by my statement, loyalty counts. I'd rather go to war in the company of loyal soldiers of whatever competency level rather than someone I'm sure will stab be in the back or run away.

But, you knew that. Didn't you?

Amos_Umwhat

1

Re: Political Discussions

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:
Which is more dangerous to the mission for a leader

Incompetent subordinates?

Competent but disloyal subordinates?

The first, maybe you can teach them, carefully delineate what you want from them, replace them if necessary.

The second, maybe they'll carry out the mission? Maybe they'll undermine you at every turn, stab you in the back, destroy your hope of success?

What did Abe Lincoln do when it turned out that the golden boy McClellan was known to be competent, but apparently either disloyal or cowardly? Replaces him with a saddle-maker no one has ever heard of with known character flaws, and wins the war.

I remain hopeful, if skeptical, for the coming days.

Pray for your enemies.

Comparing Matt Gaetz to U.S. Grant is wild af, lol.

I didn't think Gaetz was up for Secretary of Defense, or General of the Army, is he? I thought it was the schmo from Fox Network. So, I wasn't comparing Gaetz to anyone.

At any rate, I notice no one's addressed the point I was making.

At all.

Loyalty counts to a leader. That's the point, in case you missed it.

Amos_Umwhat

2

Re: Political Discussions

@Amos_Umwhat Making a metaphor to try to explain a theme is dangerous in this thread. If I make a metaphor about billionaires controlling both sides of the aisle, I would expect to be criticized for the fact that there is more than one aisle in congress, and I should have said aisles, therefore my entire point is mute.

I understood what you meant though, even if I partly disagree with the black and white nature of it, while agreeing overall if it was an either/or choice I had to make, and couldn't have both.