@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.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@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?
Lol Steve okay.
Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.
I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Well, I don't know why I came here tonight
I got the feeling that something ain't right
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs
[Chorus]
Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you
[Verse 2]
Yes, I'm stuck in the middle with you
And I'm wondering what it is I should do
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face
Losing control, yeah, I'm all over the place
Unfortunately, the general populace doesn’t, (insert for whatever reason you choose), do a deep dive on policy, character, competence, history, eligibility etc etc, like most of us on this forum, regarding leadership positions in our country’s political leadership.
Rather, the populace hinges their decisions on a few key talking points that resonate with their personal or social groups interests.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
Regarding Hegseth, preferably, I would lean towards an individual with a military pedigree, experience and expertise in the political game process, that goes along with this position. That being said, the jury is still out on this one. Considering, the people of the US don’t believe the head shed of our political system necessarily needs aforementioned experience and expertise. Take for example our most recent election.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
I presume that was part of the deal to step down? Also, I heard murmuring that the premise of this case wasn’t an isolated incident???
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
I presume that was part of the deal to step down? Also, I heard murmuring that the premise of this case wasn’t an isolated incident???
Maybe Trump doesn't really want Gaetz for AG but actually did want him out of congress because of all the drama over the speaker of the house position and also the ethics investigation. Maybe Trump is betting that there's enough hate for Geatz inside the party that he will fail to be confirmed and then he'll ask Gaetz to serve elsewhere in an unofficial capacity similar to Musk and Ramaswamy.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
I presume that was part of the deal to step down? Also, I heard murmuring that the premise of this case wasn’t an isolated incident???
Not sure really. I guess if he fuçked a teenage girl one time, that's one time too many for me.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
I presume that was part of the deal to step down? Also, I heard murmuring that the premise of this case wasn’t an isolated incident???
Maybe Trump doesn't really want Gaetz for AG but actually did want him out of congress because of all the drama over the speaker of the house position and also the ethics investigation. Maybe Trump is betting that there's enough hate for Geatz inside the party that he will fail to be confirmed and then he'll ask Gaetz to serve elsewhere in an unofficial capacity similar to Musk and Ramaswamy.
If that's true then amen.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@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?
Lol Steve okay.
Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.
I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.
I don't think I said anywhere that he sacrificed one for the other, nor did I imply that. Neither did I imply that there was no one else qualified, or better qualified. I merely said that I believe he made his choice based on loyalty.
To add to that, I suspect the status of Hesgeth as an outsider probably factored in. I don't pretend to understand the mind of Trump.
You are certainly correct that he could have chosen otherwise, perhaps better. But, the point here, so everyone will know, no disingenuousness on my part. I'm not trying to hide anything, or mislead anyone. Rather the opposite, in case that wasn't clear. It's his choice.
I'm curious to see what will happen. I'm sure the media is working around the clock to find out if Hesgeth ever stuck his gum under the seat at the theater, or whatever else they can dig up. I don't know anything at all about him, except that it appears from the quick reviews of his books that he understands that unity, not diversity, is a military's strength. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll change my mind on that.
E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unity.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@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?
Lol Steve okay.
Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.
I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.
I don't think I said anywhere that he sacrificed one for the other, nor did I imply that. Neither did I imply that there was no one else qualified, or better qualified. I merely said that I believe he made his choice based on loyalty.
To add to that, I suspect the status of Hesgeth as an outsider probably factored in. I don't pretend to understand the mind of Trump.
You are certainly correct that he could have chosen otherwise, perhaps better. But, the point here, so everyone will know, no disingenuousness on my part. I'm not trying to hide anything, or mislead anyone. Rather the opposite, in case that wasn't clear. It's his choice.
I'm curious to see what will happen. I'm sure the media is working around the clock to find out if Hesgeth ever stuck his gum under the seat at the theater, or whatever else they can dig up. I don't know anything at all about him, except that it appears from the quick reviews of his books that he understands that unity, not diversity, is a military's strength. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll change my mind on that.
E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unity.
Yeah you didn't say it but you implied it or at least I translated your message as implying it and or preferring one to the other instead of finding someone who is both.
I think it's a bad choice for the country, especially coming from my point of view as a DOD lifer. The dod is the most important and complex organization in America, if not the world. It's no position for an outsider or someone who needs on the job training or someone who has spent the majority of his current career writing books and talking on TV in a way that divides people.
This organization has to have unity to be successful. The armed forces are chock full of young people who are politically aware and active. Their preferences fall across the entire political spectrum. I supervise about 220 of these members, and I've heard everything about this particular pic, good and bad. The bottom line is that this pic is divisive.
I personally don't care how much gum someone has stuck under a desk if they are qualified and I think the vast majority of people agree with me on that point. When they are not, opposition will use the gum under the desk to render him an ineffective leader. Another reason not to choose him.
Also we cannot just ignore this choice in the context of all of his other choices. An AG who is not an attorney, an HHS secretary who ostensibly doesn't understand what fluoride and water does or at the very least is very divisive. A dni secretary who has some iffy history with one of our perceived adversaries. The narrative of the entire cabinet is as important as any one candidate.
Any one of these candidates, other than the child rapist, may have passed without much scrutiny or with the usual amount of scrutiny. All of them put together form a narrative that I don't like.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
I presume that was part of the deal to step down? Also, I heard murmuring that the premise of this case wasn’t an isolated incident???
Maybe Trump doesn't really want Gaetz for AG but actually did want him out of congress because of all the drama over the speaker of the house position and also the ethics investigation. Maybe Trump is betting that there's enough hate for Geatz inside the party that he will fail to be confirmed and then he'll ask Gaetz to serve elsewhere in an unofficial capacity similar to Musk and Ramaswamy.
If that's true then amen.
Also, the possible deal I outlined could include Gaetz partial or total knowledge of it. He gets a shot at AG in exchange for his resignation. His longshot bet is that he can get confirmed, if not there is a consolation prize, and he avoids the ethics thing while serving as a current house member.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
I presume that was part of the deal to step down? Also, I heard murmuring that the premise of this case wasn’t an isolated incident???
Maybe Trump doesn't really want Gaetz for AG but actually did want him out of congress because of all the drama over the speaker of the house position and also the ethics investigation. Maybe Trump is betting that there's enough hate for Geatz inside the party that he will fail to be confirmed and then he'll ask Gaetz to serve elsewhere in an unofficial capacity similar to Musk and Ramaswamy.
If that's true then amen.
Also, the possible deal I outlined could include Gaetz partial or total knowledge of it. He gets a shot at AG in exchange for his resignation. His longshot bet is that he can get confirmed, if not there is a consolation prize, and he avoids the ethics thing while serving as a current house member.
My apologies if too redundant.
Yeah that's a good point and worth mentioning outright.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@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?
Lol Steve okay.
Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.
I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.
I don't think I said anywhere that he sacrificed one for the other, nor did I imply that. Neither did I imply that there was no one else qualified, or better qualified. I merely said that I believe he made his choice based on loyalty.
To add to that, I suspect the status of Hesgeth as an outsider probably factored in. I don't pretend to understand the mind of Trump.
You are certainly correct that he could have chosen otherwise, perhaps better. But, the point here, so everyone will know, no disingenuousness on my part. I'm not trying to hide anything, or mislead anyone. Rather the opposite, in case that wasn't clear. It's his choice.
I'm curious to see what will happen. I'm sure the media is working around the clock to find out if Hesgeth ever stuck his gum under the seat at the theater, or whatever else they can dig up. I don't know anything at all about him, except that it appears from the quick reviews of his books that he understands that unity, not diversity, is a military's strength. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll change my mind on that.
E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unity.
Yeah you didn't say it but you implied it or at least **I translated your message as implying it **and or preferring one to the other instead of finding someone who is both.
I think it's a bad choice for the country, especially coming from my point of view as a DOD lifer. The dod is the most important and complex organization in America, if not the world. It's no position for an outsider or someone who needs on the job training or someone who has spent the majority of his current career writing books and talking on TV in a way that divides people.
This organization has to have unity to be successful. The armed forces are chock full of young people who are politically aware and active. Their preferences fall across the entire political spectrum. I supervise about 220 of these members, and I've heard everything about this particular pic, good and bad. The bottom line is that this pic is divisive.
I personally don't care how much gum someone has stuck under a desk if they are qualified and I think the vast majority of people agree with me on that point. When they are not, opposition will use the gum under the desk to render him an ineffective leader. Another reason not to choose him.
Also we cannot just ignore this choice in the context of all of his other choices. An AG who is not an attorney, an HHS secretary who ostensibly doesn't understand what fluoride and water does or at the very least is very divisive. A dni secretary who has some iffy history with one of our perceived adversaries. The narrative of the entire cabinet is as important as any one candidate.
Any one of these candidates, other than the child rapist, may have passed without much scrutiny or with the usual amount of scrutiny. All of them put together form a narrative that I don't like.
truth
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@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?
Lol Steve okay.
Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.
I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.
I don't think I said anywhere that he sacrificed one for the other, nor did I imply that. Neither did I imply that there was no one else qualified, or better qualified. I merely said that I believe he made his choice based on loyalty.
To add to that, I suspect the status of Hesgeth as an outsider probably factored in. I don't pretend to understand the mind of Trump.
You are certainly correct that he could have chosen otherwise, perhaps better. But, the point here, so everyone will know, no disingenuousness on my part. I'm not trying to hide anything, or mislead anyone. Rather the opposite, in case that wasn't clear. It's his choice.
I'm curious to see what will happen. I'm sure the media is working around the clock to find out if Hesgeth ever stuck his gum under the seat at the theater, or whatever else they can dig up. I don't know anything at all about him, except that it appears from the quick reviews of his books that he understands that unity, not diversity, is a military's strength. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll change my mind on that.
E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unity.
Yeah you didn't say it but you implied it or at least **I translated your message as implying it **and or preferring one to the other instead of finding someone who is both.
I think it's a bad choice for the country, especially coming from my point of view as a DOD lifer. The dod is the most important and complex organization in America, if not the world. It's no position for an outsider or someone who needs on the job training or someone who has spent the majority of his current career writing books and talking on TV in a way that divides people.
This organization has to have unity to be successful. The armed forces are chock full of young people who are politically aware and active. Their preferences fall across the entire political spectrum. I supervise about 220 of these members, and I've heard everything about this particular pic, good and bad. The bottom line is that this pic is divisive.
I personally don't care how much gum someone has stuck under a desk if they are qualified and I think the vast majority of people agree with me on that point. When they are not, opposition will use the gum under the desk to render him an ineffective leader. Another reason not to choose him.
Also we cannot just ignore this choice in the context of all of his other choices. An AG who is not an attorney, an HHS secretary who ostensibly doesn't understand what fluoride and water does or at the very least is very divisive. A dni secretary who has some iffy history with one of our perceived adversaries. The narrative of the entire cabinet is as important as any one candidate.
Any one of these candidates, other than the child rapist, may have passed without much scrutiny or with the usual amount of scrutiny. All of them put together form a narrative that I don't like.
truth
.... And let's be honest, it's not an interpretation that is unreasonable 😁
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@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?
Lol Steve okay.
Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.
I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.
I don't think I said anywhere that he sacrificed one for the other, nor did I imply that. Neither did I imply that there was no one else qualified, or better qualified. I merely said that I believe he made his choice based on loyalty.
To add to that, I suspect the status of Hesgeth as an outsider probably factored in. I don't pretend to understand the mind of Trump.
You are certainly correct that he could have chosen otherwise, perhaps better. But, the point here, so everyone will know, no disingenuousness on my part. I'm not trying to hide anything, or mislead anyone. Rather the opposite, in case that wasn't clear. It's his choice.
I'm curious to see what will happen. I'm sure the media is working around the clock to find out if Hesgeth ever stuck his gum under the seat at the theater, or whatever else they can dig up. I don't know anything at all about him, except that it appears from the quick reviews of his books that he understands that unity, not diversity, is a military's strength. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll change my mind on that.
E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unity.
Yeah you didn't say it but you implied it or at least **I translated your message as implying it **and or preferring one to the other instead of finding someone who is both.
I think it's a bad choice for the country, especially coming from my point of view as a DOD lifer. The dod is the most important and complex organization in America, if not the world. It's no position for an outsider or someone who needs on the job training or someone who has spent the majority of his current career writing books and talking on TV in a way that divides people.
This organization has to have unity to be successful. The armed forces are chock full of young people who are politically aware and active. Their preferences fall across the entire political spectrum. I supervise about 220 of these members, and I've heard everything about this particular pic, good and bad. The bottom line is that this pic is divisive.
I personally don't care how much gum someone has stuck under a desk if they are qualified and I think the vast majority of people agree with me on that point. When they are not, opposition will use the gum under the desk to render him an ineffective leader. Another reason not to choose him.
Also we cannot just ignore this choice in the context of all of his other choices. An AG who is not an attorney, an HHS secretary who ostensibly doesn't understand what fluoride and water does or at the very least is very divisive. A dni secretary who has some iffy history with one of our perceived adversaries. The narrative of the entire cabinet is as important as any one candidate.
Any one of these candidates, other than the child rapist, may have passed without much scrutiny or with the usual amount of scrutiny. All of them put together form a narrative that I don't like.
truth
.... And let's be honest, it's not an interpretation that is unreasonable 😁
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
So we're supposed to be ok with error repeating because the last administration did the same? What we should not be OK with is that Congress cannot do their job properly. But you know, I had this conversation with my son. Just because little Billy down the street is throwing rocks through windows doesn't mean it's OK if he does it.
Personally, I'm ok with whoever Trump puts in a cabinet position. He has no problem firing people who don't work out. Also, he's not putting in deep-state lackeys.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
So we're supposed to be ok with error repeating because the last administration did the same? What we should not be OK with is that Congress cannot do their job properly. But you know, I had this conversation with my son. Just because little Billy down the street is throwing rocks through windows doesn't mean it's OK if he does it.
Well, in the last few days I've been accused of being disingenuous. Dishonestly, unfairly and incorrectly I might add, several times. I thought y'all might like to see what it would look like if I were to actually be disingenuous. So, there you go.
Also, speaking of disingenuous, I don't recall any objections to the Biden picks from those who accused me. Were there? Perhaps my memory is just failing me there?
And then, I'm pretty sure that a Harris/Walz administration would have tried to out-woke the "conservative democrat" Unka Joe.
On a different note, and more importantly, Biden's now authorizing long range missiles to Ukraine. I can only guess that since the woke team didn't get in, they're trying to hurry the onset of WW III that was in the works.
Has anyone else noticed this? Or, is it just me? It seems that all of the sky-is-falling events that the Left spread fear about the Trump election, loss of freedoms, onset of foreign wars etc., are being put in place by the Left before Trump even takes office.
Maybe it's just me.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
So we're supposed to be ok with error repeating because the last administration did the same? What we should not be OK with is that Congress cannot do their job properly. But you know, I had this conversation with my son. Just because little Billy down the street is throwing rocks through windows doesn't mean it's OK if he does it.
Well, in the last few days I've been accused of being disingenuous. Dishonestly, unfairly and incorrectly I might add, several times. I thought y'all might like to see what it would look like if I were to actually be disingenuous. So, there you go.
Also, speaking of disingenuous, I don't recall any objections to the Biden picks from those who accused me. Were there? Perhaps my memory is just failing me there?
And then, I'm pretty sure that a Harris/Walz administration would have tried to out-woke the "conservative democrat" Unka Joe.
On a different note, and more importantly, Biden's now authorizing long range missiles to Ukraine. I can only guess that since the woke team didn't get in, they're trying to hurry the onset of WW III that was in the works.
Has anyone else noticed this? Or, is it just me? It seems that all of the sky-is-falling events that the Left spread fear about the Trump election, loss of freedoms, onset of foreign wars etc., are being put in place by the Left before Trump even takes office.
Maybe it's just me.
Sorry I hurt your feelings, buddy ☹️.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
So we're supposed to be ok with error repeating because the last administration did the same? What we should not be OK with is that Congress cannot do their job properly. But you know, I had this conversation with my son. Just because little Billy down the street is throwing rocks through windows doesn't mean it's OK if he does it.
Well, in the last few days I've been accused of being disingenuous. Dishonestly, unfairly and incorrectly I might add, several times. I thought y'all might like to see what it would look like if I were to actually be disingenuous. So, there you go.
Also, speaking of disingenuous, I don't recall any objections to the Biden picks from those who accused me. Were there? Perhaps my memory is just failing me there?
And then, I'm pretty sure that a Harris/Walz administration would have tried to out-woke the "conservative democrat" Unka Joe.
On a different note, and more importantly, Biden's now authorizing long range missiles to Ukraine. I can only guess that since the woke team didn't get in, they're trying to hurry the onset of WW III that was in the works.
Has anyone else noticed this? Or, is it just me? It seems that all of the sky-is-falling events that the Left spread fear about the Trump election, loss of freedoms, onset of foreign wars etc., are being put in place by the Left before Trump even takes office.
Maybe it's just me.
Sorry I hurt your feelings, buddy ☹️.
Not hurt at all, but thanks for the concern. We all tend to get a little carried away from time to time, and bring our preconceived perceptions into the conversation.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Whoa! As I was ruminating, the sheer brilliance of Biden's cabinet picks flashed into my mind. No worries about some obscure woman mysteriously appearing out of the distant past with allegations of being groped by some male, and the LGBTQ+ crowd already learned their lesson after having Kevin Spacey cancelled. No one ever got to find out what would have happened on House of Cards.
Genius!
For those who keep track of these things, this is me being facetious. Just so you know. You know?
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Comments
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.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Lol Steve okay.
Yes loyalty counts, to your point. You say he sacrificed one for the other, making it appear like he had no choice, like there was nobody loyal who was qualified.
I say that's untrue, even disingenuous, because he could have had both. There are millions of lawyers who voted for trump. Hundreds of retired four-stars. In my opinion he chose incompetence over competence.
Stuck in the Middle with You
Stealers Wheel
Well, I don't know why I came here tonight
I got the feeling that something ain't right
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs
[Chorus]
Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you
[Verse 2]
Yes, I'm stuck in the middle with you
And I'm wondering what it is I should do
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face
Losing control, yeah, I'm all over the place
Unfortunately, the general populace doesn’t, (insert for whatever reason you choose), do a deep dive on policy, character, competence, history, eligibility etc etc, like most of us on this forum, regarding leadership positions in our country’s political leadership.
Rather, the populace hinges their decisions on a few key talking points that resonate with their personal or social groups interests.
Regarding Geatz, doesn’t he still have legal issues as @VegasFrank eluded to, or did that magically disappear when he stepped down?
Regarding Hegseth, preferably, I would lean towards an individual with a military pedigree, experience and expertise in the political game process, that goes along with this position. That being said, the jury is still out on this one. Considering, the people of the US don’t believe the head shed of our political system necessarily needs aforementioned experience and expertise. Take for example our most recent election.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
I think his troubles are over. The AG declined to prosecute and the ethics committee investigation has no criminal weight. The fact that he doesn't want the report to come out makes me think that there's something in the report he doesn't want us to see.
I presume that was part of the deal to step down? Also, I heard murmuring that the premise of this case wasn’t an isolated incident???
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
Maybe Trump doesn't really want Gaetz for AG but actually did want him out of congress because of all the drama over the speaker of the house position and also the ethics investigation. Maybe Trump is betting that there's enough hate for Geatz inside the party that he will fail to be confirmed and then he'll ask Gaetz to serve elsewhere in an unofficial capacity similar to Musk and Ramaswamy.
Not sure really. I guess if he fuçked a teenage girl one time, that's one time too many for me.
If that's true then amen.
I don't think I said anywhere that he sacrificed one for the other, nor did I imply that. Neither did I imply that there was no one else qualified, or better qualified. I merely said that I believe he made his choice based on loyalty.
To add to that, I suspect the status of Hesgeth as an outsider probably factored in. I don't pretend to understand the mind of Trump.
You are certainly correct that he could have chosen otherwise, perhaps better. But, the point here, so everyone will know, no disingenuousness on my part. I'm not trying to hide anything, or mislead anyone. Rather the opposite, in case that wasn't clear. It's his choice.
I'm curious to see what will happen. I'm sure the media is working around the clock to find out if Hesgeth ever stuck his gum under the seat at the theater, or whatever else they can dig up. I don't know anything at all about him, except that it appears from the quick reviews of his books that he understands that unity, not diversity, is a military's strength. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll change my mind on that.
E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. Unity.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Yeah you didn't say it but you implied it or at least I translated your message as implying it and or preferring one to the other instead of finding someone who is both.
I think it's a bad choice for the country, especially coming from my point of view as a DOD lifer. The dod is the most important and complex organization in America, if not the world. It's no position for an outsider or someone who needs on the job training or someone who has spent the majority of his current career writing books and talking on TV in a way that divides people.
This organization has to have unity to be successful. The armed forces are chock full of young people who are politically aware and active. Their preferences fall across the entire political spectrum. I supervise about 220 of these members, and I've heard everything about this particular pic, good and bad. The bottom line is that this pic is divisive.
I personally don't care how much gum someone has stuck under a desk if they are qualified and I think the vast majority of people agree with me on that point. When they are not, opposition will use the gum under the desk to render him an ineffective leader. Another reason not to choose him.
Also we cannot just ignore this choice in the context of all of his other choices. An AG who is not an attorney, an HHS secretary who ostensibly doesn't understand what fluoride and water does or at the very least is very divisive. A dni secretary who has some iffy history with one of our perceived adversaries. The narrative of the entire cabinet is as important as any one candidate.
Any one of these candidates, other than the child rapist, may have passed without much scrutiny or with the usual amount of scrutiny. All of them put together form a narrative that I don't like.
Also, the possible deal I outlined could include Gaetz partial or total knowledge of it. He gets a shot at AG in exchange for his resignation. His longshot bet is that he can get confirmed, if not there is a consolation prize, and he avoids the ethics thing while serving as a current house member.
My apologies if too redundant.
Yeah that's a good point and worth mentioning outright.
****> @VegasFrank said:
truth
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
.... And let's be honest, it's not an interpretation that is unreasonable 😁
And, this scenario, this is politics at its core.
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
For those who have wondered how to go about picking "qualified" candidates for Cabinet positions, here's a primer:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-furor-over-unqualified-trump-214747163.html
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
So we're supposed to be ok with error repeating because the last administration did the same? What we should not be OK with is that Congress cannot do their job properly. But you know, I had this conversation with my son. Just because little Billy down the street is throwing rocks through windows doesn't mean it's OK if he does it.
Personally, I'm ok with whoever Trump puts in a cabinet position. He has no problem firing people who don't work out. Also, he's not putting in deep-state lackeys.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list.
Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
It'll be fine once the swelling goes down.
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list.
Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
It'll be fine once the swelling goes down.
No we aren't
Like them or not these are not pusillanimous picks.
Let me get out my thesaurus....
I think it was @Wylaff that schooled us on that word a while back. I've been waiting to use it ever since.
Well, in the last few days I've been accused of being disingenuous. Dishonestly, unfairly and incorrectly I might add, several times. I thought y'all might like to see what it would look like if I were to actually be disingenuous. So, there you go.
Also, speaking of disingenuous, I don't recall any objections to the Biden picks from those who accused me. Were there? Perhaps my memory is just failing me there?
And then, I'm pretty sure that a Harris/Walz administration would have tried to out-woke the "conservative democrat" Unka Joe.
On a different note, and more importantly, Biden's now authorizing long range missiles to Ukraine. I can only guess that since the woke team didn't get in, they're trying to hurry the onset of WW III that was in the works.
Has anyone else noticed this? Or, is it just me? It seems that all of the sky-is-falling events that the Left spread fear about the Trump election, loss of freedoms, onset of foreign wars etc., are being put in place by the Left before Trump even takes office.
Maybe it's just me.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Sorry I hurt your feelings, buddy ☹️.
Not hurt at all, but thanks for the concern. We all tend to get a little carried away from time to time, and bring our preconceived perceptions into the conversation.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Whoa! As I was ruminating, the sheer brilliance of Biden's cabinet picks flashed into my mind. No worries about some obscure woman mysteriously appearing out of the distant past with allegations of being groped by some male, and the LGBTQ+ crowd already learned their lesson after having Kevin Spacey cancelled. No one ever got to find out what would have happened on House of Cards.
Genius!
For those who keep track of these things, this is me being facetious. Just so you know. You know?
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain