|
|
Post by longtimereader on Nov 16, 2024 8:53:57 GMT -6
No that's not my belief Those people know the swamp and hate it And is simply hating a thing qualification for managing and improving it? Do you truly believe that each of the people I listed is fully qualified for the job to which they are being nominated or appointed? Do you believe each has been vetted? Do you believe that none were selected based on little more than loyalty anfd familiarity? Yes But I'm curious what would you consider valid qualifications for these positions |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 9:01:45 GMT -6
Do you truly believe that each of the people I listed is fully qualified for the job to which they are being nominated or appointed? what are the qualifications for DNI? Who wrote them and who approved them? Do you believe each has been vetted? Who is doing the vetting? I can imagine the vetting process, much like the Sec Clearance process, has been bastardized Do you believe that none were selected based on little more than loyalty anfd familiarity? Given what happened in his first term by appointing someone who turned DoJ over to his political enemies, Yeah, I think loyalty is pretty fucking important. Genuinely appreciate the reply. It reveals much, which is what dialogue always accomplishes. I am glad I provided the opportunity to delve into this topic. To recap, you are uninterested in discussing qualifications, blindly imagining a process is sufficient enough vetting, and the reason both of these are true for you is that personal loyalty is all that ultimately matters. For my part, I prefer to maintain my principled position that those who are appointed and/or confirmed should all be qualified and their greatest fidelity should be to the nation and its citizens. As I stated earlier, I was immediately aware of who moved this thread and why - which was confirmed by the post above. "All things Trump" indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 9:03:42 GMT -6
And is simply hating a thing qualification for managing and improving it? Do you truly believe that each of the people I listed is fully qualified for the job to which they are being nominated or appointed? Do you believe each has been vetted? Do you believe that none were selected based on little more than loyalty anfd familiarity? Yes But I'm curious what would you consider valid qualifications for these positions Happy to oblige. Pick any one of your choosing - particularly one in which you strongly disagree with the grade I provided. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 16, 2024 9:09:20 GMT -6
what are the qualifications for DNI? Who wrote them and who approved them? Who is doing the vetting? I can imagine the vetting process, much like the Sec Clearance process, has been bastardized Given what happened in his first term by appointing someone who turned DoJ over to his political enemies, Yeah, I think loyalty is pretty fucking important. To recap, you are uninterested in discussing qualifications, Simply not true. You offered no reason why the nominees you arbitrarily assigned an F to are not qualified. blindly imagining a process is sufficient enough vetting, and the reason both of these are true for you is that personal loyalty is all that ultimately matters. More projection For my part, I prefer to maintain my principled position that those who are appointed and/or confirmed should all be qualified and their greatest fidelity should be to the nation and its citizens. Of course. How is the view from your perch above it all? |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 9:09:28 GMT -6
what are the qualifications for DNI? Who wrote them and who approved them? Who is doing the vetting? I can imagine the vetting process, much like the Sec Clearance process, has been bastardized Given what happened in his first term by appointing someone who turned DoJ over to his political enemies, Yeah, I think loyalty is pretty fucking important.Dead on! So you are admitting Trump made numerous rash, foolish and ill-informed appointments during his first term. Why then would any reasonable person not want to scrutinize his appointments now? Seems self-evident that given his established poor judgement in this specific leadership skill, his supporters would want him to not repeat his mistakes. Apparently not. Very instructive. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 16, 2024 9:09:49 GMT -6
Yes But I'm curious what would you consider valid qualifications for these positions Happy to oblige. Pick any one of your choosing - particularly one in which you strongly disagree with the grade I provided. Sec Def |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 16, 2024 9:15:02 GMT -6
So you are admitting Trump made numerous rash, foolish and ill-informed appointments during his first term. Correct. Why then would any reasonable person not want to scrutinize his appointments now? His team have scrutinized them and hopefully eliminated any who would be eaten by the swamp Seems self-evident that given his established poor judgement in this specific leadership skill, his supporters would want him to not repeat his mistakes. Again, by going outside the swamp and nominating actual Change Agents rather than a different swamp creature, chances of much needed actual reform improve or just feeding into your superiority complex |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 9:18:10 GMT -6
To recap, you are uninterested in discussing qualifications, Simply not true. You offered no reason why the nominees you arbitrarily assigned an F to are not qualified. blindly imagining a process is sufficient enough vetting, and the reason both of these are true for you is that personal loyalty is all that ultimately matters. More projection For my part, I prefer to maintain my principled position that those who are appointed and/or confirmed should all be qualified and their greatest fidelity should be to the nation and its citizens. Of course. How is the view from your perch above it all? My view is free of bias, free of agenda, and free of rank partisanship in all things. Which is what allows me to analyze these appointments with complete impartiality. My grading of each would be exactly the same, regardless of which president was making the nomination. Ideally, something more substantive than "this person is loyal to my guy" would be the basis for approval. Otherwise, it is not one bit different than Biden appointing the incompetent Mayorkas and Buttigieg - who have certainly displayed great loyalty to him. It is interesting to see folks actively endorsing someone's greatest weakness - particularly after admitting that weakness was fully displayed 8 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 16, 2024 9:19:50 GMT -6
Simply not true. You offered no reason why the nominees you arbitrarily assigned an F to are not qualified. More projection Of course. How is the view from your perch above it all? My view is free of bias, free of agenda, and free of rank partisanship in all things. Which is what allows me to analyze these appointments with complete impartiality. My grading of each would be exactly the same, regardless of which president was making the nomination. are you trying to convince yourself of that or other posters? |
|
|
|
Post by Aesa on Nov 16, 2024 9:22:25 GMT -6
So you are admitting Trump made numerous rash, foolish and ill-informed appointments during his first term. Why then would any reasonable person not want to scrutinize his appointments now? Seems self-evident that given his established poor judgement in this specific leadership skill, his supporters would want him to not repeat his mistakes. Apparently not. Very instructive. Not at all. That is just your libtard interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Nov 16, 2024 9:31:49 GMT -6
Yes But I'm curious what would you consider valid qualifications for these positions Happy to oblige. Pick any one of your choosing - particularly one in which you strongly disagree with the grade I provided. You did not answer my question. I'm fine with the picks and feel they are more than qualified |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Nov 16, 2024 9:34:47 GMT -6
Happy to oblige. Pick any one of your choosing - particularly one in which you strongly disagree with the grade I provided. You did not answer my question. I'm fine with the picks and feel they are more than qualified Gatz, Tulsi and RFK Why are they not qualified? |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Nov 16, 2024 10:00:24 GMT -6
Chief of Staff Susie Wiles: A Secretary of State Rubio: C- Attorney General Matt Gaetz: F Deputy AG Todd Blanche: B Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: F Secretary of Health and Human Services RFK Jr.: C+ U.N Ambassador Elise Stefanik: B+ Border czar Tom Holman: A Secretary of VA Doug Collins: A National Security Advisor Michael Waltz: B Secretary of the Interion Doug Burgum: B CIA Director John Ratcliffe: A Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: D EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin: B Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee: D Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem: F "Department of Government Efficiency" Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: A I will provide the grades for others as they are announced - including those who replace some of the names above when they withdraw and/or are rejected. First, thanks to the Certified Current Affairs Fact Checker for moving the thread into the proper folder. That noted, why don't you explain why you've assigned failing grades for Gov Noem, Maj. Hegseth, and Congressman Gaetz; a D grade for Gov Huckabee and Congresswoman Gabbard; and a C+ grade for RFK, JR while giving Congresswoman Stefanik a B+ and former Congressman and head of DNI John Ratcliffe an A. After all, if your view is truly free of bias, free of agenda, and free of rank partisanship in all things, it shouldn't be difficult to explain actual reasons to support your arbitrary grading. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 12:22:03 GMT -6
My view is free of bias, free of agenda, and free of rank partisanship in all things. Which is what allows me to analyze these appointments with complete impartiality. My grading of each would be exactly the same, regardless of which president was making the nomination. are you trying to convince yourself of that or other posters? Simply stating truth. I have no need or desire to convince others. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 12:25:36 GMT -6
So you are admitting Trump made numerous rash, foolish and ill-informed appointments during his first term. Why then would any reasonable person not want to scrutinize his appointments now? Seems self-evident that given his established poor judgement in this specific leadership skill, his supporters would want him to not repeat his mistakes. Apparently not. Very instructive. Not at all. That is just your libtard interpretation. Again, I don't play the childish game of name calling and invective. I simply stay on topic at all times. Allow me to kindly steer you back on path. Do you believe all of Trump's appointments during his first term were well advised and productive - or did some prove to be mistakes? |
|
