|
|
Post by stargatebabe on Nov 18, 2024 9:59:34 GMT -6
Appreciate your kind words. But you miss the mark. The very specific and detailed examples which accurately describe the reasons for which the likes of Gaetz, Gabbard, and Hegseth are not qualified for the roles to which Trump is attempting to appoint them, and the complete lack of evidence that any of the three have been successful agents of change, are not a matter of opinion. Every single item is a matter of fact. And it is most revealing that not one of those facts has been disputed in this thread. One need not be God to do some basic research and reach informed judgements - just as one need not be a Neanderthal to avoid available information and reach uninformed judgments. Becoming aware of facts is a simple a matter of choice and intellectual curiosity. As is evidenced in this thread. Now, as to whether those established facts should then therefore lead to the Senate rejecting those three is a matter of opinion. Do you find it interesting that not one individual has inquired - or objected - as to why I assigned an A grade to many of Trump's choices? The objections, so far, have amounted to nothing more than complaints that I did not assign an A to every one of them. Therefore, I determine that your claim that I am in "no better position to judge than any other" is disproven. The fact that I am willing to attempt a bias free, agenda free, partisan free assessment on a case-by-case basis most certainly does put me in a much better position to judge than those who make no effort (and have no interest) at all. Who appointed you the Master of Determination of what are acceptable or unacceptable qualifications? Again, you are stating opinions, not facts.TRUTH |
|
|
|
Post by moody on Nov 18, 2024 11:45:54 GMT -6
Add Kash Patel as head of the FBI. I like this one a lot!
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 18, 2024 18:35:50 GMT -6
Who appointed you the Master of Determination of what are acceptable or unacceptable qualifications? Again, you are stating opinions, not facts.TRUTH What should be considered a disqualifying factor is a matter of opinion, as I clearly stated above. But the facts themselves are not in dispute. If you can identify any misstatement that I have made concerning the resume or history of any of these three nominees, I cordially invite you to do so. For example, if I am wrong that Hegseth never achieved a rank higher than captain (given him command of fewer than a couple of hundred men), or that he admitted to quitting the army because he felt picked on for his politics or has any experience managing a multi-billion-dollar organization, please document that. Or, if I am wrong that Gaetz benefitted from nepotism in launching his political career and was an attorney for less than 2 years when he did so and has no record of legal accomplishment in a single meaningful court case and has produces zero legislative accomplishments while in the US House, please provide your evidence. I take no exception to others have a differing opinion. I do, however, reject attempts to misrepresent my posts or to avoid established facts. I welcome informed, honest, polite debate - based on facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 18, 2024 18:59:11 GMT -6
So the need of the "Justice" Department and intel agencies "to be purged of political apparatchiks" is best achieved by appointing partisan and unqualified political apparatchiks? Regrettably, that is the core of your position. I would prefer real reform - rather than simply copying the DEM playbook of the past 8 years. Those departments, for the good of the nation, need to be free from political gamesmanship. It is indeed ironic - as well as unpatriotic and hypocritical - for the very people who correctly identified and decried the politicization and weaponization of the government agencies via the appointment of corrupt garbagemen like Merrick Garland in order to support the political agenda of one man (Biden,) to now applaud loudly when one man (Trump) seeks to appoint unqualified partisan hacks such as Gaetz and Gabbard for exactly the same reason and in pursuit of exactly the same goal. Politicization and weaponization is equally corrupt and dangerous regardless of which president practices it. I require better. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? As I noted, Dean John Sauer will be the next Solicitor General while Todd Blanche will also be the Deputy AG. Both are career professionals who will be handling the day-to-day tasks of enforcing our laws and arguing in front of the Supreme Court. What is needed is someone who isn't going to be just another "go along to get along" DC insider, whose main goal is to protect the DOJ. Does it bother you that the FBI not only targeted Catholics who went to Latin Mass as terrorist, yet no one was fired? Does it bother you that the DOJ is throwing old ladies in jail for PEACEFULLY praying outside abortion clinics, yet the FBI never investigates when a pro-Life center is burned down? Does it bother you that the FBI raided Mar-A-Lago, or that the DOJ has set a quota of 2000 US citizens to be indicted before this regime ends? There's a long history of the DOJ and FBI being weaponized since Obama was in power; yet not a single person was fired. We've had "congressional hearings" with no results. We've had subpoenas issued, yet the DOJ says "F-you" and Congress does nothing. We've seen multiple reports of FISA court violations, yet despite reports and "reforms" the violations keep happening. No one is ever fired. In the 1970s, the FBI and Deep State 3-letter agencies were out of control. The Church Committee (Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) and the Pike Committee (House Select Committee on Intelligence) were held to hold public hearings and enact new laws. Congress has failed to regulate and fix the corrupt government. Installing Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, with the authority to fire people, end partisan programs, and return the DOJ to its original mission is needed as much as the 1970s reforms, perhaps more. One, Sauer and Blanche are indeed qualified, solid choices for the roles they are being appointed to. But THEIR qualifications are not in any way relevant to Gaetz. It is a strange argument to claim a qualified subordinate somehow makes an unqualified superior fit for a role. Using your logic, as long as the COO of a corporation was qualified, any unqualified person could be hired as CEO and would magically become qualified. Two, you are arguing a point that is not in debate. I have already allowed - and endorsed - the position that reforms within the "Justice" Department are badly needed. But simply because reforms are needed, it does not logically follow that Gaetz is the man to produce them. He has zero record in his career resume to indicate that he can. So all of your protestations on that point are irrelevant. Three, attempting to appoint Gaetz is an unforced blunder on his part - much like several of his appointments last time around. If Trumps true goal is to execute needed reforms - and in some instances, I believe it is - why derail his own agenda with a sideshow distraction such as Gaetz? That is exactly what Trump did 8 years ago. Why would anyone want to do that again when it is completely avoidable? Don't you want someone who is more likely to succeed than Gaetz is? Four, you object (correctly) to the weaponization of the "Justice" Department when a DEM does it - but are endorsing Trump doing precisely the same thing with Gaetz. Again, it is obvious (as is also true with Gabbard) that Gaetz was selected solely to protect Trump from investigations - both valid and invalid. That is an outright weaponization of the office. The office should be immune from politicization - not be controlled by it. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 18, 2024 19:02:05 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 FCC Chairman Brendan Carr: B+ Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy: B+ Next up. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: A |
|
|
|
Post by arative on Nov 18, 2024 19:49:35 GMT -6
Judging by the amount of liberal tears and fears amount the bureaucracy, his picks have all been A+
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeinez on Nov 19, 2024 5:09:31 GMT -6
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright: A FCC Chairman Brendan Carr: B+ Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy: B+ Nobody cares |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 19, 2024 19:15:58 GMT -6
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr: B+ Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy: B+ Nobody cares Facts indicate otherwise. Currently, this topic is #1 in generating replies. Including yours, of course. Which is good. It is an important topic and it is healthy to see how many do care about it - regardless of their perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeinez on Nov 20, 2024 5:05:32 GMT -6
Facts indicate otherwise. Currently, this topic is #1 in generating replies. Including yours, of course. Which is good. It is an important topic and it is healthy to see how many do care about it - regardless of their perspective. F- |
|
|
|
Post by Starbuck on Nov 20, 2024 14:16:55 GMT -6
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright: A FCC Chairman Brendan Carr: B+ Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy: B+ Next up. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: A Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker: B |
|
abuxb
Junior Member
Posts: 177 
|
Post by abuxb on Nov 20, 2024 15:11:48 GMT -6
Who fact checks the fact checkers? Who grades the graders? I will Starbuck: D I will provide additional information and more grades on the new fact checkers who replace the original fact checker who was given a "D".  |
|
abuxb
Junior Member
Posts: 177
|
Post by abuxb on Nov 20, 2024 15:14:16 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. 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. OR, as B HUSSEIN Obama said: "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES". |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 20, 2024 15:28:24 GMT -6
Who fact checks the fact checkers? Who grades the graders? I will Starbuck: D I will provide additional information and more grades on the new fact checkers who replace the original fact checker who was given a "D". Unless I am mistaken, I am the ONLY Current Affairs Certified Fact Checker. The OP isnt checkin facts, he's spittin words to display his superior sense of being. The OP's "grades" are as realistic of Ann Selzer's last minute Iowa Poll showing Sidepiece in the lead. |
|
abuxb
Junior Member
Posts: 177
|
Post by abuxb on Nov 20, 2024 16:04:48 GMT -6
I will provide additional information and more grades on the new fact checkers who replace the original fact checker who was given a "D". Unless I am mistaken, I am the ONLY Current Affairs Certified Fact Checker. The OP isnt checkin facts, he's spittin words to display his superior sense of being. The OP's "grades" are as realistic of Ann Selzer's last minute Iowa Poll showing Sidepiece in the lead. I am well aware of your status Billy. Just making fun of this starbucks clown. What a narcissist, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Nov 20, 2024 16:11:39 GMT -6
Unless I am mistaken, I am the ONLY Current Affairs Certified Fact Checker. The OP isnt checkin facts, he's spittin words to display his superior sense of being. The OP's "grades" are as realistic of Ann Selzer's last minute Iowa Poll showing Sidepiece in the lead. I am well aware of your status Billy. Just making fun of this starbucks clown. What a narcissist, huh? and StarMel doesnt disclose the criteria for his grades. I think everyone agrees President Trump is appointing Change Agents to some positions such as AG, DNI and Sec Def. By the traditional standards of not disrupting the status quo in those positions, nominating a Change Agent would be inappropriate. President Trump is throwing out that old, outdated traditional manner. Some will say "you can drive change from within"; I submit soon to be former FBI director Chris Wray as evidence of that fallacy. He was a careerist; he was gonna get rid of the FISA corruption, the political targeting etc. He failed on all those. |
|
