|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 16:51:45 GMT -6
Can't wait for the "Russian Asset" argument on Tulsi. That is a freakin joke. Why would you believe Gabbard is a Russian asset? She is not and never has been. But she certainly deserves the low grade I have assigned. She is an accomplished political animal and that should rightfully be recognized. Self-promotion, devoid of any singular guiding principle, has always been her skill and it has served her well. She is left, she is right, she is centrist - depending on the weather and her personal agenda of the day. She was the darling of Pelosi before she was the darling of Trump. But, that is not a disqualification nor is she unique in being a shameless opportunist. She may have been suitable for some other role, but not Director of National Intelligence. She has no experience in the intelligence community, and worse yet shows a diminished capacity in that arena. I do give her credit for her general view of limited miliary intervention - but her judgement in dealing with intel issues is woeful. I will give just 3 examples. One, she strongly disputed that Assad had gassed civilians for quite some time - even though the evidence that he had was overwhelming and the consensus was near universal. Hard to give her any credence as a security advisor when she flat out refused to accept provable facts. It is one thing to say the USA has no business trying to overthrow dictators (and she is correct about that) but it is another entirely to reject facts simply because they are not convenient to your position. Two, she is 100% onboard with Biden's green energy mandate and she believes the USA should be using 100% renewable energy by 2035 - abandoning all fossil fuels. This stance is extremely dangerous to America's national security interests - and it is disqualifying that she cannot grasp such an obvious reality. Three, she has a blind spot in favor of China - here again, much like Biden. This despite the fact that China's theft of American science and technology over the decades has damaged our nation economically and has surrendered our military superiority. She sees China as a friendly competitor rather than the leading threat to America which it is. Again, simply terrible judgement and utterly unsuitable for a DNI role. Trump has made some good choices. But just like 8 years ago, he is making some very bad selections - and she is unquestionably one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 17:11:59 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. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright: A |
|
|
|
Post by keefdaman on Nov 16, 2024 17:16:43 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. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright: A everybody is entitled to their own opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 16, 2024 17:25:01 GMT -6
Can't wait for the "Russian Asset" argument on Tulsi. That is a freakin joke. She may have been suitable for some other role, but not National Security Advisor. Again, simply terrible judgement and utterly unsuitable for a National Security Advisor role. I guess its a good thing shes nominated for DNI not NSA |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 17:32:49 GMT -6
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright: A everybody is entitled to their own opinion But no one is entitled to an uninformed opinion. And combatting that severe and prevalent problem is why I post. Free of bias, free of agenda, free of political partisanship. Now, for those filling out their report cards at home, I assigned 7 "A" grades. And 7 others that are in the "B" and "C" range. And, regrettably, 5 that are most deservedly in the "D" and 'F" category. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 17:36:23 GMT -6
She may have been suitable for some other role, but not National Security Advisor. Again, simply terrible judgement and utterly unsuitable for a National Security Advisor role. I guess its a good thing shes nominated for DNI not NSA Appreciate you catching that typo! In my OP, I of course used the correct appellation. She is not suitable for Director of National Intelligence - as demonstrated by her track record. Feel free to object if you dispute any of the 3 examples I provided. |
|
|
|
Post by stargatebabe on Nov 16, 2024 18:36:49 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.Agreed but then they never did, without lying through their teeth! Apparently they haven't learned that the lies don't fly anymore |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 21:04:11 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? Let's address Gaetz. He was a private practice attorney for less than 2 years before being gifted with a Florida State House of Representatives seat for 6 years courtesy of his power-broker father (Don, who became President of the Florida State Senate). He was then elected to the US House of Representatives in one of the most Republican districts in the nation, holding the seat unchallenged from 2017 until resigning last week. He has never supervised any lawyers, has never supervised a large staff,has no accomplishments from his brief private practice, has no record of trying any significant court case, has never worked a single day in law enforcement, and has been a Republican back-bencher with zero meaningful legislative accomplishments. That's it. His entire resume. He is a consummate politically connected insider - not unlike Liz Cheney. The Attorney General of the United States is responsible for representing the US government in all cases before SCOTUS in which the federal government is involved, is responsible for giving constitutional legal advice to the president and executive department branches, and employs over 100,000 government employees. There is nothing in Gaetz's career resume which makes him an adequate fit for the role. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 16, 2024 21:20:37 GMT -6
Gatz, Tulsi and RFK Why are they not qualified? Let's address Gaetz. did I miss where you explained your grade for the Sec Def nominee? |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 16, 2024 21:34:56 GMT -6
did I miss where you explained your grade for the Sec Def nominee? Nope. However, longtimereader kindly requested my analysis of the RFK Jr, Gabbard, and Gaetz selections specifically. Which I have provided. However, I am not quite through with two of them. While I have correctly explained the inadequacy of Gaetz and Gabbard, I have not yet explained why Trump is nonetheless attempting to appoint them. I suspect I am the only person in America who actually understands why Trump is trying to install those 2 - and is threatening to use recess appointments if the senate refuses to confirm. That insight will be shared sometime tomorrow. At that point, we will have covered that portion of this conversation, and I will be willing to turn to the Hegseth nomination. |
|
froggy
Junior Member
Posts: 205
Member is Online
|
Post by froggy on Nov 16, 2024 23:38:28 GMT -6
did I miss where you explained your grade for the Sec Def nominee? Nope. However, longtimereader kindly requested my analysis of the RFK Jr, Gabbard, and Gaetz selections specifically. Which I have provided. However, I am not quite through with two of them. While I have correctly explained the inadequacy of Gaetz and Gabbard, I have not yet explained why Trump is nonetheless attempting to appoint them. I suspect I am the only person in America who actually understands why Trump is trying to install those 2 - and is threatening to use recess appointments if the senate refuses to confirm. That insight will be shared sometime tomorrow. At that point, we will have covered that portion of this conversation, and I will be willing to turn to the Hegseth nomination. I suspect you're one of the biggest blowhards in America. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimereader on Nov 17, 2024 7:17:45 GMT -6
Gatz, Tulsi and RFK Why are they not qualified? Let's address Gaetz. He was a private practice attorney for less than 2 years before being gifted with a Florida State House of Representatives seat for 6 years courtesy of his power-broker father (Don, who became President of the Florida State Senate). He was then elected to the US House of Representatives in one of the most Republican districts in the nation, holding the seat unchallenged from 2017 until resigning last week. He has never supervised any lawyers, has never supervised a large staff,has no accomplishments from his brief private practice, has no record of trying any significant court case, has never worked a single day in law enforcement, and has been a Republican back-bencher with zero meaningful legislative accomplishments. That's it. His entire resume. He is a consummate politically connected insider - not unlike Liz Cheney. The Attorney General of the United States is responsible for representing the US government in all cases before SCOTUS in which the federal government is involved, is responsible for giving constitutional legal advice to the president and executive department branches, and employs over 100,000 government employees. There is nothing in Gaetz's career resume which makes him an adequate fit for the role. A lawyer is a lawyer are you stating there is some type of experience one needs to be a AG, if so where would one get such experience? Gaetz political actions mean nothing for the AG so that just sour graps, aka bias, on your part. Again not seeing any evidence of this claim of your "I've hired hundreds of people, so I know what I'm talking about" type of reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 17, 2024 7:36:51 GMT -6
did I miss where you explained your grade for the Sec Def nominee? Nope. However, longtimereader kindly requested my analysis of the RFK Jr, Gabbard, and Gaetz selections specifically. Your explanations for those 3 positions seem to hit a certain theme; the Secretary or Director needs to come from within the organization. If the desire was a typical go along to get along person in charge, great. This aint the goal of the 2nd Trump Admin. While I have correctly explained the inadequacy of Gaetz and Gabbard, I have not yet explained why Trump is nonetheless attempting to appoint them. I suspect I am the only person in America who actually understands why Trump is trying to install those 2 Oh I'm sure you believe you are the only one who has it figured out That insight will be shared sometime tomorrow. , I'm not sure what I want to hear more, the Message at Church or you next proclamation At that point, we will have covered that portion of this conversation, and I will be willing to turn to the Hegseth nomination. Whenever your Highness feels ready to bless us rubes with your superior reasoning |
|
|
|
Post by moody on Nov 17, 2024 7:41:20 GMT -6
Nope. However, longtimereader kindly requested my analysis of the RFK Jr, Gabbard, and Gaetz selections specifically. Your explanations for those 3 positions seem to hit a certain theme; the Secretary or Director needs to come from within the organization. If the desire was a typical go along to get along person in charge, great. This aint the goal of the 2nd Trump Admin. While I have correctly explained the inadequacy of Gaetz and Gabbard, I have not yet explained why Trump is nonetheless attempting to appoint them. I suspect I am the only person in America who actually understands why Trump is trying to install those 2 Oh I'm sure you believe you are the only one who has it figured out That insight will be shared sometime tomorrow. , I'm not sure what I want to hear more, the Message at Church or you next proclamation At that point, we will have covered that portion of this conversation, and I will be willing to turn to the Hegseth nomination. Whenever your Highness feels ready to bless us rubes with your superior reasoning Mel is interesting but so sickening full of himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 17, 2024 7:49:33 GMT -6
Mel is interesting but so sickening full of himself. Fact Checked to be certified 100% DOBA (its an industry term) thinking of referring to him as "StarMel", what do you think? |
|
