|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 12:27:42 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 Since the qualifications differ from one job to the next, you will need to select one in order for me to reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Aesa on Nov 16, 2024 12:32:50 GMT -6
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? First term there were definitely mistakes, no doubt. However he has had time to do adequate research this time. There may or may not be mistakes this time but I am willing to take the "wait and see" path before making any judgements. |
|
|
|
Post by keefdaman on Nov 16, 2024 12:33:19 GMT -6
Odd. This is not the category in which I started this topic. Wonder why it was moved? Actually, I know why. I would not be so quick to write off Gaetz, Hesgeth and Noem They could not be any worst than the ones that are there now. |
|
|
|
Post by Aesa on Nov 16, 2024 12:33:54 GMT -6
Odd. This is not the category in which I started this topic. Wonder why it was moved? Actually, I know why. I would not be so quick to write off Gaetz, Hesgeth and Noem They could not be any worst than the ones that are there now. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 16, 2024 12:36:19 GMT -6
You did not answer my question. I'm fine with the picks and feel they are more than qualified Since the qualifications differ from one job to the next, you will need to select one in order for me to reply. I already did. I said Sec Def Did I miss your qualifications for that? |
|
|
|
Post by keefdaman on Nov 16, 2024 12:38:58 GMT -6
I would not be so quick to write off Gaetz, Hesgeth and Noem They could not be any worst than the ones that are there now. +1 If the starbuck would take a closer look at the picks. They are all loyalist that are hard working, successful people. Go getters. That is Trump wants on his staff. Real go getters that get things done. Now the liberals usually are not hard working go getters. Trump picks may not be the "ideal" looking people whom the swamp think the qualifications should be. But, this an entirely different group that the swamp is not used to seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 12:56:55 GMT -6
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? You should note that in my OP, I merely assigned a grade to each selection. I did not reduce the matter to simply "qualified" or "unqualified". Others in this thread have raised the topic of "qualifications" - and thereby miss the larger picture. I have hired thousands of people over the course of my career - and being qualified was but one of many considerations when choosing to make a job offer. Now, from the list of individuals I graded, some are qualified - but not a good selection. Others are not qualified - and not a good selection. It is important to lay that groundwork for you, because those distinctions are important when evaluating the 3 specific names you listed. Let's begin with RFK Jr - to whom I assigned the grade C+, which is a solid score. Could prove to be better. Could be worse. Is he qualified? Yes. Are there, however, other issues? Yes. One, there is sad irony in appointing a staunch pro-abortionist to a position intended to promote "health" and "human services". Two, while he has bravely and consistently challenged our food safety and has openly questioned the obviously corrupt relationship between the drug manufactures and DC sewer rats, he also has a long history of making other unserious claims on a number of topics that are not supported by facts - to the detriment of his own effectiveness and credibility. Three, he has long been a green activist strongly opposed to fossil fuels and nuclear energy- far closer to Biden and Harris in his views than he is to the conservative plank - which certainly calls his judgment into question. There is more, but this will suffice to prove the accuracy of the grade assigned. We will see how he does. C+ is the perfect grade at this moment. See how "free of bias, free of agenda, free of rank partisanship" works? Next post, I will move on to Gabbard. |
|
|
|
Post by Aesa on Nov 16, 2024 13:02:35 GMT -6
Can't wait for the "Russian Asset" argument on Tulsi. That is a freakin joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by keefdaman on Nov 16, 2024 13:11:01 GMT -6
Gatz, Tulsi and RFK Why are they not qualified? You should note that in my OP, I merely assigned a grade to each selection. I did not reduce the matter to simply "qualified" or "unqualified". Others in this thread have raised the topic of "qualifications" - and thereby miss the larger picture. I have hired thousands of people over the course of my career - and being qualified was but one of many considerations when choosing to make a job offer. Now, from the list of individuals I graded, some are qualified - but not a good selection. Others are not qualified - and not a good selection. It is important to lay that groundwork for you, because those distinctions are important when evaluating the 3 specific names you listed. Let's begin with RFK Jr - to whom I assigned the grade C+, which is a solid score. Could prove to be better. Could be worse. Is he qualified? Yes. Are there, however, other issues? Yes. One, there is sad irony in appointing a staunch pro-abortionist to a position intended to promote "health" and "human services". Two, while he has bravely and consistently challenged our food safety and has openly questioned the obviously corrupt relationship between the drug manufactures and DC sewer rats, he also has a long history of making other unserious claims on a number of topics that are not supported by facts - to the detriment of his own effectiveness and credibility. Three, he has long been a green activist strongly opposed to fossil fuels and nuclear energy- far closer to Biden and Harris in his views than he is to the conservative plank - which certainly calls his judgment into question. There is more, but this will suffice to prove the accuracy of the grade assigned. We will see how he does. C+ is the perfect grade at this moment. See how "free of bias, free of agenda, free of rank partisanship" works? Next post, I will move on to Gabbard. It is my understanding the Gaetz is a very good lawyer and more than qualified for the AG job. It is a matter of the skeletons in his closet. Those skeletons are fact or fiction. We will find out from the hearings. I have a feeling that you need to do more research on Gabbard and RFK. You do not know enough about them. Not sure why are attacking the Trump picks when the Biden Adm was probably the worst Adm ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 13:33:33 GMT -6
You should note that in my OP, I merely assigned a grade to each selection. I did not reduce the matter to simply "qualified" or "unqualified". Others in this thread have raised the topic of "qualifications" - and thereby miss the larger picture. I have hired thousands of people over the course of my career - and being qualified was but one of many considerations when choosing to make a job offer. Now, from the list of individuals I graded, some are qualified - but not a good selection. Others are not qualified - and not a good selection. It is important to lay that groundwork for you, because those distinctions are important when evaluating the 3 specific names you listed. Let's begin with RFK Jr - to whom I assigned the grade C+, which is a solid score. Could prove to be better. Could be worse. Is he qualified? Yes. Are there, however, other issues? Yes. One, there is sad irony in appointing a staunch pro-abortionist to a position intended to promote "health" and "human services". Two, while he has bravely and consistently challenged our food safety and has openly questioned the obviously corrupt relationship between the drug manufactures and DC sewer rats, he also has a long history of making other unserious claims on a number of topics that are not supported by facts - to the detriment of his own effectiveness and credibility. Three, he has long been a green activist strongly opposed to fossil fuels and nuclear energy- far closer to Biden and Harris in his views than he is to the conservative plank - which certainly calls his judgment into question. There is more, but this will suffice to prove the accuracy of the grade assigned. We will see how he does. C+ is the perfect grade at this moment. See how "free of bias, free of agenda, free of rank partisanship" works? Next post, I will move on to Gabbard. It is my understanding the Gaetz is a very good lawyer and more than qualified for the AG job. It is a matter of the skeletons in his closet. Those skeletons are fact or fiction. We will find out from the hearings. I have a feeling that you need to do more research on Gabbard and RFK. You do not know enough about them. Not sure why are attacking the Trump picks when the Biden Adm was probably the worst Adm ever. I find it odd that you perceive that I am "attacking the Trump picks" when I have assigned grades from A to F. It is even more odd when you and others simply apply the standard "not as bad as Biden's choice". One would think anyone wishing for the country to do well would prefer a slightly higher standard than that. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Nov 16, 2024 14:21:44 GMT -6
I did not see any valid "I've hired hundreds of people" evaluation here
|
|
|
|
Post by str8shooter on Nov 16, 2024 14:25:37 GMT -6
I did not see any valid "I've hired hundreds of people" evaluation here ME-ville doesn't have any crediability. I've asked him where he has found some of the s... he posts here as have others and he can't do it. While he pats himself on the back and says his posts are accurate, seldom are they ever accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by stargatebabe on Nov 16, 2024 14:32:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Nov 16, 2024 14:38:57 GMT -6
Gatz, Tulsi and RFK Why are they not qualified? You should note that in my OP, I merely assigned a grade to each selection. I did not reduce the matter to simply "qualified" or "unqualified". Others in this thread have raised the topic of "qualifications" - and thereby miss the larger picture. I have hired thousands of people over the course of my career - and being qualified was but one of many considerations when choosing to make a job offer. Now, from the list of individuals I graded, some are qualified - but not a good selection. Others are not qualified - and not a good selection. It is important to lay that groundwork for you, because those distinctions are important when evaluating the 3 specific names you listed. Let's begin with RFK Jr - to whom I assigned the grade C+, which is a solid score. Could prove to be better. Could be worse. Is he qualified? Yes. That's really the only relevant question. Are there, however, other issues? Yes. One, there is sad irony in appointing a staunch pro-abortionist to a position intended to promote "health" and "human services". What does his view on Abortion have to do with the price of rice in China? Abortion is a matter being addressed at the State level, as it should be. H&HS has no authority to try to regulate abortion -- let alone a chance that President Trump would allow any regulation to be promulgated. Two, while he has bravely and consistently challenged our food safety and has openly questioned the obviously corrupt relationship between the drug manufactures and DC sewer rats, he also has a long history of making other unserious claims on a number of topics that are not supported by facts - to the detriment of his own effectiveness and credibility. You sound just like CNN and/or MSNBC now with your vague accusation of his "long history of making other unserious claims on a number of topics that are not supported by facts - to the detriment of his own effectiveness and credibility." It's rather clear that RFK, Jr has been correct on many things, including: - We have an obesity crisis in America that didn't exist 60 years ago,
- We have a major issue of children with chronic diseases that never existed 60 years ago,
- We add many unnecessary and unsafe artificial ingredients to our food supply, some of which are potential carcinogens, that have been banned in Europe.
- There are legitimate questions about many vaccines we give Americans, while no longer demanding that drug companies verify their safety (in fact, the government indemnifies them).
- The regulatory agencies have become "captured" by industry, attacking medical professionals and concerned citizens while defending the companies they are supposed to regulate.
Three, he has long been a green activist strongly opposed to fossil fuels and nuclear energy- far closer to Biden and Harris in his views than he is to the conservative plank - which certainly calls his judgment into question. There is more, but this will suffice to prove the accuracy of the grade assigned. We will see how he does. C+ is the perfect grade at this moment. Once again, you demonstrate that your view is NOT "free of bias, free of agenda, and free of rank partisanship in all things." Like your abortion claim, RFK, Jr.'s views on fossil fuels and nuclear energy are completely irrelevant to the job responsibilities as H&HS Secretary. Both RFK, Jr. and President Trump have acknowledged that they don't agree on all items, but they do have enough in common to work together. As President Trump said at multiple rallies, Bobby Kennedy isn't going to mess with oil production. See how "free of bias, free of agenda, free of rank partisanship" works? As noted above, you complain about RFK, Jr's positions on Abortion, oil production, and nuclear power. None of his positions have anything to do with the duties of the Health and Human Services (H&HS) department. You clearly are demonstrating that you are NOT "free of bias, free of agenda, free of rank partisanship" when explaining your grade. Next post, I will move on to Gabbard. Obviously, Gabbard is on LTR's list. I'm still waiting for you to explain why you've assigned failing grades for Gov Noem, Maj. Hegseth, and Congressman Gaetz and a a D grade for Gov Huckabee (in addition to the promised explanation for Congresswoman Gabbard) while giving Congresswoman Stefanik a B+ and former Congressman and head of DNI John Ratcliffe an A. One would think that the "F" grade would be the easiest to explain in an unbiased, non-partisan, agenda free manor... |
|
|
|
Post by captbudman on Nov 16, 2024 14:42:08 GMT -6
That's the old Hillary claim -- and Wasserman-Schultz rigged the DNC for Hillary (she was forced out by Bernie on the eve of the 2016 convention). What it shows is that they don't have any legitimate reason to oppose someone who opposes war in cleaning up the Deep State. |
|
