Political Discussions

I still can’t get past @Vision said ‘Bruh’ lmao.

What a surprise!

New York
CNN
—
Wednesday wasn’t just a good day for Donald Trump. The wealth of the world’s 10 richest people also soared by a record amount, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index.

The biggest gainer was Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and one of Trump’s most outspoken and dedicated supporters, whose wealth jumped $26.5 billion to $290 billion Wednesday, according to Bloomberg. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ wealth grew $7.1 billion a week after defending his decision to withhold the Washington Post’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison, another Trump supporter, saw his net worth rose $5.5 billion Wednesday.

@dirtdude said:
Wow

Oh Randy keep your pants on bro lol. I'm just doing what the great orange hope always does. Saying the quiet part out loud. I dug out my grandmother's old rosary last Wednesday and prayed on the whole thing My wish comes true soon, like before he takes office.. I'm allowed to pray for someone to bite it. I'm a fuçking American. I'm allowed to wish someone dead. I've been doing it to my abusive father for years.

By the way, if he decides not to become president then he can live to be 200 for all I care.

He's literally installing a row of puppets into his cabinet to make a mockery of it and so that he can have complete control over everything. A guy who was a major in the national guard for defense secretary? Till she gabbard for dni? Matt Gaetz the human trafficker for attorney general?

You can go ahead and call me how I'm full of hyperbole, but this is precisely what Adolf Hitler did in 1933. Precisely. Installed his butt buddy lackeys as his advisors so he could rule them all. When it doesn't come to pass you can come back to this thread and call me a dope. If it does, this thread forum site and hobby will no longer exist. I'm hoping you're right.

OH NOOOOO!!! Everyone pack your bags and get ready for the train ride!!!!! OH NOOOO!!!!

@Vision said:

@Stubble said:
OH NOOOOO!!! Everyone pack your bags and get ready for the train ride!!!!! OH NOOOO!!!!

Hopefully it's only Lucy pulling the football back and not the government.

Too late!!!

Which is more dangerous to the mission for a leader

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. 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.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-press-biden-protect-executive-110000465.html

The real deep state?

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

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. 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.

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

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. 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.

To be fair, Amos, Lincoln went through half-a-dozen generals before promoting U.S. Grant to the position of General-in-Chief of the Armies, and was not just a saddle-maker or merchant any longer. He had won +/- 17 battles by that time. Also, McClellan was neither a coward nor disloyal, but he wouldn't do the hard math required for beating the South.

@TRayB said:

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

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. 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.

To be fair, Amos, Lincoln went through half-a-dozen generals before promoting U.S. Grant to the position of General-in-Chief of the Armies, and was not just a saddle-maker or merchant any longer. He had won +/- 17 battles by that time. Also, McClellan was neither a coward nor disloyal, but he wouldn't do the hard math required for beating the South.

Including Shilo and Vicksburg, and he was a general and career military man, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story lol.

@TRayB said:

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

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. 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.

To be fair, Amos, Lincoln went through half-a-dozen generals before promoting U.S. Grant to the position of General-in-Chief of the Armies, and was not just a saddle-maker or merchant any longer. He had won +/- 17 battles by that time. Also, McClellan was neither a coward nor disloyal, but he wouldn't do the hard math required for beating the South.

Agreed, but I didn't know I had to provide the whole history.

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

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

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. 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.

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@VegasFrank said:

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

1. Incompetent subordinates?
2. 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.