2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: macsak on November 27, 2024, 04:01:06 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ6wdCwdOZ0
-
Clean house or just make the swamp his own?
-
Clean house or just make the swamp his own?
Clean house.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The people has spoken. They were not happy with the way the government was run for 4 years.
If anything, Trump is bound to do better than his first administration, which was run pretty well considering he was a political outsider.
Clean house or just make the swamp his own?
I guess some people look at a half filled cup differently. We should look to the future with optimism.
What happens happens. We hold people accountable.
Trump will be held no differently. Nobody has a crystal ball, although some liberals are already predicting the end of the world. For who? Them? :rofl:
A wise fictional shaolin master priest once said on TV: "Be patient, grasshopper....."
-
Clean house or just make the swamp his own?
Do you really think he wants to lead the same people who spent 3 years investigation a Russia hoax, impeached him at least 2 times, tried to imprison him after he left office to prevent him from being elected again, and who give the Democrats in power a pass for the same or worse violations of laws and ethics?
If that's your belief, you're entitled to it no matter how ridiculous it is.
Show one example of Trump's actions that shows he intends to "make the swamp his own."
One example that show's your belief would be wrong is the swiftness with which he's picking his cabinet. The last term, trying to fill his top positions took months, severely hindering his transition and getting the work done. He had to combat a 50/50 Senate with Kamala's vote to break any ties. Now he has a GOP Senate majority. Theoretically, many cabinet positions could be filled within the first week after Trump's inauguration.
He's purposely picking people that have been screwed by the Swamp, including Tulsi Gabbard.
-
ummmm
Do you really think he wants to lead the same people who spent 3 years investigation a Russia hoax, impeached him at least 2 times, tried to imprison him after he left office to prevent him from being elected again, and who give the Democrats in power a pass for the same or worse violations of laws and ethics?
If that's your belief, you're entitled to it no matter how ridiculous it is.
Show one example of Trump's actions that shows he intends to "make the swamp his own."
One example that show's your belief would be wrong is the swiftness with which he's picking his cabinet. The last term, trying to fill his top positions took months, severely hindering his transition and getting the work done. He had to combat a 50/50 Senate with Kamala's vote to break any ties. Now he has a GOP Senate majority. Theoretically, many cabinet positions could be filled within the first week after Trump's inauguration.
He's purposely picking people that have been screwed by the Swamp, including Tulsi Gabbard.
-
"This version of Trump knows what buttons to press, he knows where the bodies are buried, he’s absorbed their worst and now he is about to throw it right back at them." — Jeff Childers
https://jameshowardkunstler.substack.com/p/what-part-of-mandate-dont-you-understand
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20241129/36f0b3413c3b133c6a3f60445e16e059.jpg)
Sent from my SM-A156U1 using Tapatalk
-
ummmm
The number wasn't fixed for the entire session of Congress. Between 2017-2019, Democrats held 46/47 seats in the Senate, and Independents held 2. The (I) members "caucus" with the Democrats, so that's effectively 48/49 seats. The GOP held 50-52 seats.
So, technically the Senate majority was on the GOP side, but it was very close to even. in fact, this happened:
February 7, 2017: Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to confirm
Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. This was the first time in United States
history that a cabinet confirmation was tied in the Senate and required a tie-breaking
vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress
One republican who was appointed to fill a vacant seat lost it to a democrat in Jan 2018 in a special election after his appointment expired. AZ senator (R) retired and his seat remained vacant from Dec 2018 until the next congressional election.
So, nothing is as simple as tossing out a ratio and expecting the senate to remain that way the entire session.
-
"He had to combat a 50/50 Senate with Kamala's vote to break any ties"
focus
The number wasn't fixed for the entire session of Congress. Between 2017-2019, Democrats held 46/47 seats in the Senate, and Independents held 2. The (I) members "caucus" with the Democrats, so that's effectively 48/49 seats. The GOP held 50-52 seats.
So, technically the Senate majority was on the GOP side, but it was very close to even. in fact, this happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress
One republican who was appointed to fill a vacant seat lost it to a democrat in Jan 2018 in a special election after his appointment expired. AZ senator (R) retired and his seat remained vacant from Dec 2018 until the next congressional election.
So, nothing is as simple as tossing out a ratio and expecting the senate to remain that way the entire session.
-
"He had to combat a 50/50 Senate with Kamala's vote to break any ties"
focus
It was a slip. i have a hard time remembering Pence. We've had VP Kamala drilled into our brains nonstop for months.
I plea media mind-control.
-
heads
It was a slip. i have a hard time remembering Pence. We've had VP Kamala drilled into our brains nonstop for months.
I plea media mind-control.
-
kamala's antics (or lack thereof) has messed up a lot of minds........
-
kamala's antics (or lack thereof) has messed up a lot of minds........
KDS
-
KDS
TDS -- Mental illness Liberals develop by hating Trump
KDS -- Mental illness Kamala possesses which drives everyone :crazy:
-
TDS -- Mental illness Liberals develop by hating Trump
KDS -- Mental illness Kamala possesses which drives everyone :crazy:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: How true!
-
Can't wait for him to fire everyone, do tariffs and destroy our economy while enriching himself and other billionaires.
-
Can't wait for him to fire everyone, do tariffs and destroy our economy while enriching himself and other billionaires.
Tell me you know nothing about tariffs without saying you know nothing of tariffs.
I guess said tariffs didn't destroy the economy between 2016-2020.
-
Can't wait for him to fire everyone, do tariffs and destroy our economy while enriching himself and other billionaires.
You seem like a negative "I told you so" kind of guy.
Keep waiting. That time won't come. The economy part. While I do see where Trump might enrich himself and billionaires in the process.
But how is that so much different than your beloved biden family, saintly nancy pelosi, idiot AOC, and others from your party? They got rich off the cash cow too you know.
Welcome to the American way. The 'Make America Great Again' way. There's a difference in sharing the success and wealth of a strong and healthy Country as opposed to being raped by the democrat party while they go laughing all the way to the bank.
-
You seem like a negative "I told you so" kind of guy.
Keep waiting. That time won't come. The economy part. While I do see where Trump might enrich himself and billionaires in the process.
But how is that so much different than your beloved biden family, saintly nancy pelosi, idiot AOC, and others from your party? They got rich off the cash cow too you know.
Welcome to the American way. The 'Make America Great Again' way. There's a difference in sharing the success and wealth of a strong and healthy Country as opposed to being raped by the democrat party while they go laughing all the way to the bank.
Xhe seems like the kind of person who's on a plane and hates the captain and wants the captain to crash (fail).
I'm not a fan of Brandon. but I don't want him to fail because his failures affect me. He did fail.
-
The people has spoken. They were not happy with the way the government was run for 4 years.
If anything, Trump is bound to do better than his first administration, which was run pretty well considering he was a political outsider.
I guess some people look at a half filled cup differently. We should look to the future with optimism.
What happens happens. We hold people accountable.
Trump will be held no differently. Nobody has a crystal ball, although some liberals are already predicting the end of the world. For who? Them? :rofl:
A wise fictional shaolin master priest once said on TV: "Be patient, grasshopper....."
To me Trump is a mixed bag. I do think he wants to actually improve things and I think he will improve a number of things in this country but I also think he has no problem breaking rules, customs, and crossing ethical boundaries. I think he wants to drain the swamp of his opponents and fill it back with his own guys so he can do what he wants. Some of that may mean he can do good things but it can also mean he can get away with bad things. Kash Patel seems such a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist I have to wonder if he wouldn't just squash anything in the DOJ coming up against Trump. Yes I know there are workarounds if Patel is that corrupt but that's not the point.
I am not one to predict doom and gloom, I will react to things as they happen but I really don't trust that the swamp is being cleaned, it is just being replaced by a different swamp. I am not saying all of his picks will be in this manner
-
To me Trump is a mixed bag. I do think he wants to actually improve things and I think he will improve a number of things in this country but I also think he has no problem breaking rules, customs, and crossing ethical boundaries. I think he wants to drain the swamp of his opponents and fill it back with his own guys so he can do what he wants. Some of that may mean he can do good things but it can also mean he can get away with bad things. Kash Patel seems such a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist I have to wonder if he wouldn't just squash anything in the DOJ coming up against Trump. Yes I know there are workarounds if Patel is that corrupt but that's not the point.
I am not one to predict doom and gloom, I will react to things as they happen but I really don't trust that the swamp is being cleaned, it is just being replaced by a different swamp. I am not saying all of his picks will be in this manner
Trump won the mythical National Popular vote as well as the Constitutionally defined electoral college. In short, Trump has a mandate to do the things he promised to the people who elected him.
That means he is absolutely justified in replacing anyone who disagrees with his plans and policies. The people he chooses are not "loyalists." They merely share the same ideals and goals as President Trump.
Just because someone is in agreement with Trump doesn't make them a loyalist. It makes them better than the Democrats who followed their leadership and covered up Biden's mental state all these years when they knew it was a lie. The border crisis is another catastrophe that the media and BIDEN LOYALISTS continually lied about even existing until close to the election.
Choose your terms more carefully. I don't see Trump leading an army of mindless drones. I see people who have a huge task of correcting this massive country's course. They don't need mutineers working against them from the inside like his first term.
-
To me Trump is a mixed bag. I do think he wants to actually improve things and I think he will improve a number of things in this country but I also think he has no problem breaking rules, customs, and crossing ethical boundaries. I think he wants to drain the swamp of his opponents and fill it back with his own guys so he can do what he wants. Some of that may mean he can do good things but it can also mean he can get away with bad things. Kash Patel seems such a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist I have to wonder if he wouldn't just squash anything in the DOJ coming up against Trump. Yes I know there are workarounds if Patel is that corrupt but that's not the point.
I am not one to predict doom and gloom, I will react to things as they happen but I really don't trust that the swamp is being cleaned, it is just being replaced by a different swamp. I am not saying all of his picks will be in this manner
He has nothing to prove. He already showed what he can do from 16-20.
Your post sounds like that you're calling trump a legal dictator. 1 common thing with dictatorship is that the people get screwed. From 16-20, regardless of how u felt about Trump, you did better. I know 1 person who was afraid her husband was going to be stop loss from getting out of the Army cause Trump was going to start WW3.
-
Trump won the mythical National Popular vote as well as the Constitutionally defined electoral college. In short, Trump has a mandate to do the things he promised to the people who elected him.
That means he is absolutely justified in replacing anyone who disagrees with his plans and policies. The people he chooses are not "loyalists." They merely share the same ideals and goals as President Trump.
Just because someone is in agreement with Trump doesn't make them a loyalist. It makes them better than the Democrats who followed their leadership and covered up Biden's mental state all these years when they knew it was a lie. The border crisis is another catastrophe that the media and BIDEN LOYALISTS continually lied about even existing until close to the election.
Choose your terms more carefully. I don't see Trump leading an army of mindless drones. I see people who have a huge task of correcting this massive country's course. They don't need mutineers working against them from the inside like his first term.
I wouldn't consider 49.8% vs 48.3% (1.5% difference) a mandate personally either way I agree his winning means he gets to try and implement his plan, I am not suggesting he has no right to replace who he wants to replace. I just don't think his plan is some morally/ethical righteous one, I think Trump does what is good for Trump and sometimes that also is good for the country.
Kash Patel making a child's book about Hillary Queenton trying to harm King Trump, to me, goes beyond just having a shared belief in how to improve the country. However I do take your point that having shared goals doesn't mean one is a loyalist.
-
He has nothing to prove. He already showed what he can do from 16-20.
Your post sounds like that you're calling trump a legal dictator. 1 common thing with dictatorship is that the people get screwed. From 16-20, regardless of how u felt about Trump, you did better. I know 1 person who was afraid her husband was going to be stop loss from getting out of the Army cause Trump was going to start WW3.
Policy and decision wise I took issue with some of the things he did during his first term but overall he was quite decent. It is his leadership that is the real problem.
-
I wouldn't consider 49.8% vs 48.3% (1.5% difference) a mandate personally either way I agree his winning means he gets to try and implement his plan, I am not suggesting he has no right to replace who he wants to replace. I just don't think his plan is some morally/ethical righteous one, I think Trump does what is good for Trump and sometimes that also is good for the country.
Kash Patel making a child's book about Hillary Queenton trying to harm King Trump, to me, goes beyond just having a shared belief in how to improve the country. However I do take your point that having shared goals doesn't mean one is a loyalist.
A mandate doesn't conform to your opinion of what percentage of votes are needed. Did you not even see how i described the national popular vote as mythical? That's because the electoral college was created precisely so there would be no national popular vote to consider. When you look at where the votes were cast on a map, it's obvious that if the EC never existed, a few massively populated states would be deciding every election.
Trump won 307 electoral votes to Kamala's 226. That's 58% to 42%. Ten percentage points in the only election total that counts is a mandate in my book. It's also significant to realize that Trump won ever single swing state, including the ones that were supposedly part of the Blue Wall that normally prevents Republicans from winning.
So, whether or not you decide what number of popular votes are needed for a mandate is immaterial. That total is anecdotal and carries no weight in elections.
And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term.. He also would not have donated his entire salary his first term, and i'll bet he's planning the same in the 2nd.
i'm glad you agree about the Loyalist BS the Dems in DC are feeding the MSM. They tried to use that against him in the first term, but Trump unfortunately for his own good left too many deep state Swamp loyalists in their positions. I think he learned from that mistake, which is why he's trying hard to fill as many high priority cabinet positions as quickly as possible. Last time his nominations were slow-rolled, which is why he's already said he'd use recess appointments if necessary. All the Senate needs to do is take a reasonable look at each nominee and vote to approve them if nothing glaringly pops up to disqualify them. The Dems are already trying to Kavanaugh his DoD pick, saying he's accused of sexual assault and being an alcoholic. Pete H. is giving up a massive income at Fox to continue serving his country, not that he hasn't served it enough already.
In my opinion, it's more important for Trump to pick a team that can work together than it would be to try and appease both sides of the aisle.
You can please some of the people all of the time,
and you can please all of the people some of the time,
but, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
(rephrasing of the "fool some of the people" quote)
-
Policy and decision wise I took issue with some of the things he did during his first term but overall he was quite decent. It is his leadership that is the real problem.
Examples?
-
Policy and decision wise I took issue with some of the things he did during his first term but overall he was quite decent. It is his leadership that is the real problem.
Seems to me people follow Trump because he is a leader.
People followed Biden because they wanted to watch a train wreck.
-
I wouldn't consider 49.8% vs 48.3% (1.5% difference) a mandate personally either way I agree his winning means he gets to try and implement his plan, I am not suggesting he has no right to replace who he wants to replace. I just don't think his plan is some morally/ethical righteous one, I think Trump does what is good for Trump and sometimes that also is good for the country.
One thing to add. Not only did the Trump-Vance team win the election AND the "popular vote", but the entire election was a Red Wave no matter how you want to dissect it. Both chambers of Congress are majority GOP next session. More state governor races were won by Republicans. Across the board, Republicans were winning in counties that have been staunchly Democrat for many decades.
It's a mandate. Accept it and move on.
-
A mandate doesn't conform to your opinion of what percentage of votes are needed. Did you not even see how i described the national popular vote as mythical? That's because the electoral college was created precisely so there would be no national popular vote to consider. When you look at where the votes were cast on a map, it's obvious that if the EC never existed, a few massively populated states would be deciding every election.
Trump won 307 electoral votes to Kamala's 226. That's 58% to 42%. Ten percentage points in the only election total that counts is a mandate in my book. It's also significant to realize that Trump won ever single swing state, including the ones that were supposedly part of the Blue Wall that normally prevents Republicans from winning.
So, whether or not you decide what number of popular votes are needed for a mandate is immaterial. That total is anecdotal and carries no weight in elections.
And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term.. He also would not have donated his entire salary his first term, and i'll bet he's planning the same in the 2nd.
i'm glad you agree about the Loyalist BS the Dems in DC are feeding the MSM. They tried to use that against him in the first term, but Trump unfortunately for his own good left too many deep state Swamp loyalists in their positions. I think he learned from that mistake, which is why he's trying hard to fill as many high priority cabinet positions as quickly as possible. Last time his nominations were slow-rolled, which is why he's already said he'd use recess appointments if necessary. All the Senate needs to do is take a reasonable look at each nominee and vote to approve them if nothing glaringly pops up to disqualify them. The Dems are already trying to Kavanaugh his DoD pick, saying he's accused of sexual assault and being an alcoholic. Pete H. is giving up a massive income at Fox to continue serving his country, not that he hasn't served it enough already.
In my opinion, it's more important for Trump to pick a team that can work together than it would be to try and appease both sides of the aisle.
You can please some of the people all of the time,
and you can please all of the people some of the time,
but, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
(rephrasing of the "fool some of the people" quote)
Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.
You said: "And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term."
That assumes a limited interpretation of what is good for Trump. For example, Trump running and winning effectively stopped 4 criminal cases against him which is certainly good for him.
I don't subscribe to the "deep state". It is an amorphous boogey man. Sure, there are people in the government who resisted him but that doesn't amount to some big organized cabal as the term deep state suggests.
Hegseth, in my opinion, is not a great choice but that's another topic. I don't find giving up a large salary to be that significant either, trading money for power isn't some proof of good intentions.
I do like his pick for the FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, he is absolutely qualified to do the job. Some of his picks are bad and some of them are good, very much a mixed bag in my opinion.
-
Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.
You said: "And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term."
That assumes a limited interpretation of what is good for Trump. For example, Trump running and winning effectively stopped 4 criminal cases against him which is certainly good for him.
I don't subscribe to the "deep state". It is an amorphous boogey man. Sure, there are people in the government who resisted him but that doesn't amount to some big organized cabal as the term deep state suggests.
Hegseth, in my opinion, is not a great choice but that's another topic. I don't find giving up a large salary to be that significant either, trading money for power isn't some proof of good intentions.
I do like his pick for the FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, he is absolutely qualified to do the job. Some of his picks are bad and some of them are good, very much a mixed bag in my opinion.
Did i say the popular vote was the measure of a mandate? I believe I said twice that comparison is irrelevant.
But, keep trying to trap me with those straw arguments. One day you might catch me snoozing.
And you assume if Trump announced he would not seek another term those cases that got dropped would have been brought regardless.
-
Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.
You said: "And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term."
That assumes a limited interpretation of what is good for Trump. For example, Trump running and winning effectively stopped 4 criminal cases against him which is certainly good for him.
I don't subscribe to the "deep state". It is an amorphous boogey man. Sure, there are people in the government who resisted him but that doesn't amount to some big organized cabal as the term deep state suggests.
Hegseth, in my opinion, is not a great choice but that's another topic. I don't find giving up a large salary to be that significant either, trading money for power isn't some proof of good intentions.
I do like his pick for the FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, he is absolutely qualified to do the job. Some of his picks are bad and some of them are good, very much a mixed bag in my opinion.
The 4 years is just a pause. They will go after him again once he's no longer POTUS. This is the deep states message to anyone who's not in the club or doesn't play ball for their agenda.
Looks like their psyop worked on you since you don't believe in a deep state.
Why is Hegseth not a good choice?
-
AOC district neighborhood labeled 'Third World' as
migrants clog streets and prostitutes overrun every block
......
Nevertheless, Frías, a former Democrat, has become so enraged by the conditions
that he is running for the Assembly District 39 seat as a Republican in a bid to reclaim
the streets.
The seat is currently held by Cruz, who tells Fox News Digital that a group of elected
officials, separate from Moya, have been meeting with city and state agencies to work
on "safe solutions for quality of life concerns." Cruz has previously called for more
permits to be issued for street vendors, and she has also sponsored legislation to
decriminalize prostitution. Ocasio-Cortez herself has also called on the city to issue
more vendor permits.
......
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-district-neighborhood-labeled-third-world-as-migrants-clog-streets-and-prostitutes-overrun-every-block/ar-BB1k0boA
But, but, but ..... AOC has no authority or influence at the state and local level.
Why on Earth would she veer outside her lane and call on the city to do anything?
Weird!! :rofl: :geekdanc: :wacko:
-
AOC district neighborhood labeled 'Third World' as
migrants clog streets and prostitutes overrun every block
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-district-neighborhood-labeled-third-world-as-migrants-clog-streets-and-prostitutes-overrun-every-block/ar-BB1k0boA
But, but, but ..... AOC has no authority or influence at the state and local level.
Why on Earth would she veer outside her lane and call on the city to do anything?
Weird!! :rofl: :geekdanc: :wacko:
Wait, so someone who supports illegal alien as their federal job, had it affect their state at the state level? No way, this cannot happen (sarcasm).
-
Did i say the popular vote was the measure of a mandate? I believe I said twice that comparison is irrelevant.
But, keep trying to trap me with those straw arguments. One day you might catch me snoozing.
And you assume if Trump announced he would not seek another term those cases that got dropped would have been brought regardless.
I am saying that according to your usage of the word, any win is a mandate.
It isn't an argument, I clearly said it was fine if you used the word mandate that way. I just explained my position on the significance of the results.
I consider the possibility that maybe at least some those cases wouldn't have been brought had he not run
-
The 4 years is just a pause. They will go after him again once he's no longer POTUS. This is the deep states message to anyone who's not in the club or doesn't play ball for their agenda.
Looks like their psyop worked on you since you don't believe in a deep state.
Why is Hegseth not a good choice?
Will they go after him when he is 82? Maybe but they have less motivation to since he wouldn't be eligible to run again.
Great circular logic by the way concerning the deep state.
Hegseth seems to have too many skeletons in his closet. Granted the sex assault case is iffy but the email from his own mother is pretty damning. The reports of alcoholism are also a reason for concern. Outside of potential personal problems there is the fact he lacks management experience. He is an experienced soldier of course but that's not quite enough to run the DOD. His stance on pardoning US soldiers convicted of war crimes is concerning as well.
-
Will they go after him when he is 82? Maybe but they have less motivation to since he wouldn't be eligible to run again.
Great circular logic by the way concerning the deep state.
Hegseth seems to have too many skeletons in his closet. Granted the sex assault case is iffy but the email from his own mother is pretty damning. The reports of alcoholism are also a reason for concern. Outside of potential personal problems there is the fact he lacks management experience. He is an experienced soldier of course but that's not quite enough to run the DOD. His stance on pardoning US soldiers convicted of war crimes is concerning as well.
It's not circular logic. And yes, they will go after him once his 4 years are done. Have you been paying attention at all since 2016? (Rhetorical, don't reply as you will use whataboutism).
I don't know what type of action he saw in Iraq, but many military members and vets standard alcohol consumption can be considered "alcoholism" to a civilian.
Being an officer, he doesn't lack "management XP". Maybe you should look up what officers do.
1 guy he helped pardon was Eddie Gallager. If you read what happened and not just what the news tells you, you would know that Eddie was accused of trying to kill an ISIS prisoner. But, wait for it. Video shows he was rendering aid with his trauma scissors to cut off the prisoners clothing. His actions were falsely reported as Eddie is an OG seal and the new seals and OG ones have animosity toward each other. He was reported by "new seals". The vid should have ended any disciplinary action, but it didn't as it was a political hit on him. Even when he was detained, he was in the interrogation room for 6 hours alone and not told why he's there. He ended up doing push ups to kill time. Then add in he was in solitary and denied visitations for a very long time. His legal team also shared confidential info with the prosecution, so he had to get another legal team. Luckily, his wife began a GFM and was able to raise funds and get his story on social media.
The pic with the dead ISIS soldier, he wasn't the only one in the pic, but was the only one treated like the above.
So overall, he was being screwed by the Navy, which I'm glad Trump pardoned him.
I didn't get a chance to look up the others who Heg helped pardon, but I am familiar with Eddie's situation.
-
I am saying that according to your usage of the word, any win is a mandate.
It isn't an argument, I clearly said it was fine if you used the word mandate that way. I just explained my position on the significance of the results.
I consider the possibility that maybe at least some those cases wouldn't have been brought had he not run
I'm glad I have someone like you to tell me what the words i choose mean. :rofl:
The mandate was no different than it was for Obama -- Executive, House and Senate under the same party so they have support for the same agenda.
If 5 out of 9 justices rule in favor of a case before the Supreme Court, is that any less of a mandate than 9 of 9?
All that matters is there was a clear winner, and that the majority of voters made that choice. Given that the electoral college is designed to negate a popular vote, yet the popular vote in this case agrees with the electoral vote outcome, together they make Trump's victory more decisive. Having the Senate flipped and the House maintaining a GOP majority adds to that decisiveness. All those races won by the GOP giving them control of 2 branches of the government is how i define a mandate. A popular vote alone doesn't do it.
This country has been so divided by the main stream media, social media and politicians, we have to settle on what the simple majority wants as the mandate when they elect their party into congress and the oval office. Waiting for some arbitrary percentage to hit would be stupid.
p.s.
In 2020, Biden won the electoral 306-232.
In 2016, Trump beat Hillary 306-232.
But in 2024, Trump beat Harris 312-226, more than the winning totals in the previous 2 elections.
Seems like we're far from having another Ronald Reagan landslide with 49 states + DC electing the president with a 525-13 victory. but i guess you'd still find a way to argue that's not a mandate. That's just what you do.
-
It's not circular logic. And yes, they will go after him once his 4 years are done. Have you been paying attention at all since 2016? (Rhetorical, don't reply as you will use whataboutism).
I don't know what type of action he saw in Iraq, but many military members and vets standard alcohol consumption can be considered "alcoholism" to a civilian.
Being an officer, he doesn't lack "management XP". Maybe you should look up what officers do.
1 guy he helped pardon was Eddie Gallager. If you read what happened and not just what the news tells you, you would know that Eddie was accused of trying to kill an ISIS prisoner. But, wait for it. Video shows he was rendering aid with his trauma scissors to cut off the prisoners clothing. His actions were falsely reported as Eddie is an OG seal and the new seals and OG ones have animosity toward each other. He was reported by "new seals". The vid should have ended any disciplinary action, but it didn't as it was a political hit on him. Even when he was detained, he was in the interrogation room for 6 hours alone and not told why he's there. He ended up doing push ups to kill time. Then add in he was in solitary and denied visitations for a very long time. His legal team also shared confidential info with the prosecution, so he had to get another legal team. Luckily, his wife began a GFM and was able to raise funds and get his story on social media.
The pic with the dead ISIS soldier, he wasn't the only one in the pic, but was the only one treated like the above.
So overall, he was being screwed by the Navy, which I'm glad Trump pardoned him.
I didn't get a chance to look up the others who Heg helped pardon, but I am familiar with Eddie's situation.
The deep state is real because they have tricked you into thinking it isn't real is a circular logic argument.
If in 4 years some or all of the cases are continued against Trump then you can say I told you so.
From the reports about Hegseth, the issue wasn't just that he consumed a large amount rather it was about his behavior when he consumed alcohol.
I tried to search how many soldiers would be under the command of a major and I say anything from a few hundred to a thousand. I don't discount this experience at all but it is a bit low on the scale compared to generals/admirals who are, if I understand correctly, usually appointed to the position. This isn't a huge mark against Hegseth but there are going to be other candidates out there with more applicable military experience to choose from.
As for the pardons, I am concerned that he may be too pardon happy. He has previously defended the use of waterboarding and from reading a number of his comments he comes across as an "ends justify the means" type of person which has the risk of justifying bad things in war. He had previously defended the actions of the infamous Blackwater group involving the killing of 17 civilians. Ultimately each pardon should be judged on its individual merits of course.
-
The deep state is real because they have tricked you into thinking it isn't real is a circular logic argument.
If in 4 years some or all of the cases are continued against Trump then you can say I told you so.
From the reports about Hegseth, the issue wasn't just that he consumed a large amount rather it was about his behavior when he consumed alcohol.
I tried to search how many soldiers would be under the command of a major and I say anything from a few hundred to a thousand. I don't discount this experience at all but it is a bit low on the scale compared to generals/admirals who are, if I understand correctly, usually appointed to the position. This isn't a huge mark against Hegseth but there are going to be other candidates out there with more applicable military experience to choose from.
As for the pardons, I am concerned that he may be too pardon happy. He has previously defended the use of waterboarding and from reading a number of his comments he comes across as an "ends justify the means" type of person which has the risk of justifying bad things in war. He had previously defended the actions of the infamous Blackwater group involving the killing of 17 civilians. Ultimately each pardon should be judged on its individual merits of course.
The fact that you had to google how many soldiers fall under command of a major tells me everything you don't know about officers in the military. Even if he was a O1 (Lt.), he still has to manage, command, lead, etc...So your statement about management XP is wrong. I would understand if he was an E4 or lower rank. Generals and admirals are not exactly "appointed". You cannot go from a major to a general/admiral. You must obtain the rank of colonel first. Then it gets political if you're then promoted to general/adm.
Waterboarding is legal under the geneva conventions. So why wouldn't he defend it's legal use? That's like saying "pete defends the killing of an enemy combatant who was shooting at US soldiers". Or maybe in your opinion, for enemy interrogations, we should just ask them questions and that's it. No waterboarding, sleep deprivation, temperature control, etc...
Are you reffering to this Blackwater event
https://www.mediamatters.org/pete-hegseth/foxs-pete-hegseth-defends-blackwater-contractors-convicted-murdering-iraqi-civilians
All Pete mentions is tough calls are made in seconds and that the prosecution was political. Feel free to post more links showing how Pete "defended" them. I've never looked into this, but just googled and clicked on the first link as I don't have time to go into full detail. So you can do it. I psoted about Gallahager because I did follow his incident closely.
Maybe Pete knows stuff that you haven't researched yet, like Gallagher.
Why don't you read what I posted about Eddie and lets just assume I am 100% correct and there is no additional info. Would you call Pete's support of Eddie's pardon wrong or that he's pardon happy?
-
The deep state is real because they have tricked you into thinking it isn't real is a circular logic argument.
If in 4 years some or all of the cases are continued against Trump then you can say I told you so.
From the reports about Hegseth, the issue wasn't just that he consumed a large amount rather it was about his behavior when he consumed alcohol.
I tried to search how many soldiers would be under the command of a major and I say anything from a few hundred to a thousand. I don't discount this experience at all but it is a bit low on the scale compared to generals/admirals who are, if I understand correctly, usually appointed to the position. This isn't a huge mark against Hegseth but there are going to be other candidates out there with more applicable military experience to choose from.
As for the pardons, I am concerned that he may be too pardon happy. He has previously defended the use of waterboarding and from reading a number of his comments he comes across as an "ends justify the means" type of person which has the risk of justifying bad things in war. He had previously defended the actions of the infamous Blackwater group involving the killing of 17 civilians. Ultimately each pardon should be judged on its individual merits of course.
I really wish you'd stop trying to pretend you know anything at all about the military when you have zero experience. Google is not an acceptable substitute for facts, experience and training.
Bottom line: rank, or pay grade, doesn't determine the number of people an officer is responsible for, nor what position they occupy. Pete could have been in a billet that's allocated for a general officer if they had no actual general officers available to fill it. That happens often, and there are few general spots available. When you get to O7 and above, the game is more political. One general officer retires, and they play musical chairs to fill it. "A" retires, B is selected to take their place, c has to replace b, D replaces E, and often it's either a simultaneous promotion or a position that grooms them for promotion. It's common for an O6 colonel fo fill in for a departing general until a replacement with the proper rank arrives. Maybe the O6 has already been selected for promotion to O7 and is waiting for an O7 billet to open up.
*********
Congress appropriates a certain number of officer positions based on mission requirements provided by the armed services and the funds available in the budget. Those ranks are assigned to billets, or positions, within the military units. Think of it as a business that needs 3 accountants, 2 HR, 6 section managers and 2 administrators. Those 13 positions have a salary cap, so the business knows if all positions are filled what the maximum cost for those employees should be.
In the military, some billets remain vacant due to budget issues, lack of qualified people to fill them, or other personnel situations. Sometimes a unit hasn't gotten around to creating a new billet, so they might double billet a new person, meaning they share the same billet as someone else. That has to be approved by several agencies. Usually it's temporary until a billet is approved, someone in an existing billet leaves, or the person is promoted into a different billet.
Although each billet is assigned a pay grade (rank), that's not written in law. Rather than ranks, let's talk pay grades since it's more universal than ranks across services. An O3 billet in one organization might have nobody beneath them to command/supervise. In a different org, that same O3 could be in charge of 100, 500, or more people. Our unit was doing software development, maintenance, testing and so on. We only had 300 people give or take, and the workforce was part military and part civilian civil servants.
I worked in one office where we had one civilian, one enlisted, and 4 officers. At one point I had 12 people working under me -- officer, enlisted and government civilians. That's the nature of technical units. The need for college educated officers and civilian equivalents was greater than most others. Our commander was a full colonel -- O6.
Our administrative unit that handles all the personnel, mobility, etc,. was usually an O3. However, an O2 working for me applied for that position when the incumbent was departing, and she became the 552d AWACW Squadron Commander responsible for over 2,200 personnel. That's a big jump for a 2LT.
So, spare me what your "research" found. Everything you posted is wrong and based on something you read online. Those of us who actually lived it know much more than you ever will via "research" -- by that I mean "Google".
-
I really wish you'd stop trying to pretend you know anything at all about the military when you have zero experience. Google is not an acceptable substitute for facts, experience and training.
Bottom line: rank, or pay grade, doesn't determine the number of people an officer is responsible for, nor what position they occupy. Pete could have been in a billet that's allocated for a general officer if they had no actual general officers available to fill it. That happens often, and there are few general spots available. When you get to O7 and above, the game is more political. One general officer retires, and they play musical chairs to fill it. "A" retires, B is selected to take their place, c has to replace b, D replaces E, and often it's either a simultaneous promotion or a position that grooms them for promotion. It's common for an O6 colonel fo fill in for a departing general until a replacement with the proper rank arrives. Maybe the O6 has already been selected for promotion to O7 and is waiting for an O7 billet to open up.
*********
Congress appropriates a certain number of officer positions based on mission requirements provided by the armed services and the funds available in the budget. Those ranks are assigned to billets, or positions, within the military units. Think of it as a business that needs 3 accountants, 2 HR, 6 section managers and 2 administrators. Those 13 positions have a salary cap, so the business knows if all positions are filled what the maximum cost for those employees should be.
In the military, some billets remain vacant due to budget issues, lack of qualified people to fill them, or other personnel situations. Sometimes a unit hasn't gotten around to creating a new billet, so they might double billet a new person, meaning they share the same billet as someone else. That has to be approved by several agencies. Usually it's temporary until a billet is approved, someone in an existing billet leaves, or the person is promoted into a different billet.
Although each billet is assigned a pay grade (rank), that's not written in law. Rather than ranks, let's talk pay grades since it's more universal than ranks across services. An O3 billet in one organization might have nobody beneath them to command/supervise. In a different org, that same O3 could be in charge of 100, 500, or more people. Our unit was doing software development, maintenance, testing and so on. We only had 300 people give or take, and the workforce was part military and part civilian civil servants.
I worked in one office where we had one civilian, one enlisted, and 4 officers. At one point I had 12 people working under me -- officer, enlisted and government civilians. That's the nature of technical units. The need for college educated officers and civilian equivalents was greater than most others. Our commander was a full colonel -- O6.
Our administrative unit that handles all the personnel, mobility, etc,. was usually an O3. However, an O2 working for me applied for that position when the incumbent was departing, and she became the 552d AWACW Squadron Commander responsible for over 2,200 personnel. That's a big jump for a 2LT.
So, spare me what your "research" found. Everything you posted is wrong and based on something you read online. Those of us who actually lived it know much more than you ever will via "research" -- by that I mean "Google".
I also left out that in order to be an officer, one has to go to ROTC, OCS, or a military academy. I left out battlefield commission as those aren't done anymore or are very rare, in case EEF wants to argue about that I left something out.
My point is that in each officers training, they teach how to lead the lower ranks. They practice taking command for X amounts of time while in "school" for Y amount of classmates. So this adds to Pete's management XP.
-
I also left out that in order to be an officer, one has to go to ROTC, OCS, or a military academy. I left out battlefield commission as those aren't done anymore or are very rare, in case EEF wants to argue about that I left something out.
My point is that in each officers training, they teach how to lead the lower ranks. They practice taking command for X amounts of time while in "school" for Y amount of classmates. So this adds to Pete's management XP.
in a unit that has competent NCOs, the officers only need to know how to manage their resources, lead their men and accomplish their assigned mission. The NCOs are the first line supervisors which any officer with experience knows you have to rely on to get anything done. You might only have a half dozen NCOs to ensure are with the program while they ensure the rest of the unit is also with it.
There's a chain of command for a reason. No Wing or Battalion commander is going around directly interacting with every single enlisted. Our Wing commander had about 2K people, military and civilian, to be responsible for. He had half a dozen deputies, one of which was my commander (we were designated a "Deputate" since we had a deputy commander in charge). The Wing Commander also had 3 AWACS flying squadrons under him as well as the administration squadron. Transportation, communications and security services all had deputies.
I saw our Wing commander more often jogging in the morning around our base housing than I ever saw him officially. Also, nothing is static. We were a wing when i arrived, then we became a division, and then a wing again. The military loves their org charts, if only to change the names every now and them to avoid IG inspections! :rofl: I don't know the reasons for the changes. I only know I had to change the unit patches on my BDUs to keep up with the name.
-
The fact that you had to google how many soldiers fall under command of a major tells me everything you don't know about officers in the military. Even if he was a O1 (Lt.), he still has to manage, command, lead, etc...So your statement about management XP is wrong. I would understand if he was an E4 or lower rank. Generals and admirals are not exactly "appointed". You cannot go from a major to a general/admiral. You must obtain the rank of colonel first. Then it gets political if you're then promoted to general/adm.
Waterboarding is legal under the geneva conventions. So why wouldn't he defend it's legal use? That's like saying "pete defends the killing of an enemy combatant who was shooting at US soldiers". Or maybe in your opinion, for enemy interrogations, we should just ask them questions and that's it. No waterboarding, sleep deprivation, temperature control, etc...
Are you reffering to this Blackwater event
https://www.mediamatters.org/pete-hegseth/foxs-pete-hegseth-defends-blackwater-contractors-convicted-murdering-iraqi-civilians
All Pete mentions is tough calls are made in seconds and that the prosecution was political. Feel free to post more links showing how Pete "defended" them. I've never looked into this, but just googled and clicked on the first link as I don't have time to go into full detail. So you can do it. I psoted about Gallahager because I did follow his incident closely.
Maybe Pete knows stuff that you haven't researched yet, like Gallagher.
Why don't you read what I posted about Eddie and lets just assume I am 100% correct and there is no additional info. Would you call Pete's support of Eddie's pardon wrong or that he's pardon happy?
I googled a number only to get the size of what a major might command, not the details. This is why I mentioned the range of numbers that a major might supervise because I was only looking at the number of people he would have to oversee. As I said I do not discount his experience as a major, I am only pointing out that his experience would have been on the small scale end in terms of people usually appointed to that position. Has there ever been a secretary of defense below the rank of general/admiral or at that mid level officer rank?
Waterboarding is legal under the geneva conventions? That is a pretty tortured interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. It isn't even something universally agreed upon. Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated he considered waterboarding to violate the Geneva Convention.
The USA isn't exactly in the position to say it is illegal either because then they would have to go prosecute a bunch of soldiers and agents.
Assuming everything you said was correct about Eddie I wouldn't have a problem with the pardon. As I said each pardon needs to be evaluated individually.
-
I googled a number only to get the size of what a major might command, not the details. This is why I mentioned the range of numbers that a major might supervise because I was only looking at the number of people he would have to oversee. As I said I do not discount his experience as a major, I am only pointing out that his experience would have been on the small scale end in terms of people usually appointed to that position. Has there ever been a secretary of defense below the rank of general/admiral or at that mid level officer rank?
Waterboarding is legal under the geneva conventions? That is a pretty tortured interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. It isn't even something universally agreed upon. Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated he considered waterboarding to violate the Geneva Convention.
The USA isn't exactly in the position to say it is illegal either because then they would have to go prosecute a bunch of soldiers and agents.
Assuming everything you said was correct about Eddie I wouldn't have a problem with the pardon. As I said each pardon needs to be evaluated individually.
Hahhhaha what a reply. Thanks (sarcasm)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I googled a number only to get the size of what a major might command, not the details. This is why I mentioned the range of numbers that a major might supervise because I was only looking at the number of people he would have to oversee. As I said I do not discount his experience as a major, I am only pointing out that his experience would have been on the small scale end in terms of people usually appointed to that position. Has there ever been a secretary of defense below the rank of general/admiral or at that mid level officer rank?
Waterboarding is legal under the geneva conventions? That is a pretty tortured interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. It isn't even something universally agreed upon. Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated he considered waterboarding to violate the Geneva Convention.
The USA isn't exactly in the position to say it is illegal either because then they would have to go prosecute a bunch of soldiers and agents.
Assuming everything you said was correct about Eddie I wouldn't have a problem with the pardon. As I said each pardon needs to be evaluated individually.
That's got to be one of the stupidest beliefs you've posted.
You believe that a military officer has "more experience" based on having hundred of soldiers in their unit than an officer who has maybe a dozen. "I am only pointing out that his experience would have been on the small scale end in terms of people usually appointed to that position."
in life, as well as in the military, experience comes from doing your job, not supervising others doing the job. Does a welder get more or less experience as a supervisor or as someone actually welding different jobs day after day? Does a warfighter get more experience going on patrols every day than his commander who sits in HQ planning those patrols?
"Has there ever been a secretary of defense below the rank of general/admiral or at that mid level officer rank?"
The military chain of command has always been lead by a civilian -- Secretary of Defense, Likewise, the individual branches are lead by a civilian -- Sec of the AF, Sec of the Army, etc.
The very first SECDEF in 1947 was James Forrestal. He served as a Lieutenant (O3) in the Navy in WWI. In 1940, he was appointed Undersecretary of the Navy. In 1944, he was appointed Secretary of the Navy. In 1947he was appointed as the first US Secretary of Defense.
David Norquist - 2021 acting SECDEF - no military service
Mark Esper - 2019-2020 SECDEF - Army LtCol
Richard Spencer - 2019 SECDEF, Marine Captain
Patrick M. Shanahan, 2019 Acting SECDEF, no military experience
Ash Carter, 2015-2017 SECDEF, no military experience, a physicist and a former Harvard University professor of Science and International Affairs
I could continue listing them, but the information is publicly available. This should be sufficient to show how your assumptions are all wrong, and that there is no such thing as "mid-level officer rank." Rank doesn't give an officer experience. Doing the job does. There are O2s and O3s with more combat experience than most O5s and O6s. In the AF, a pilot might fly many missions in wartime and never meet the enemy face to face, but an E2 or E3 enlisted troop could be breaking down doors, clearing IEDs, capturing terrorists and insurgents, engaging the enemy in firefights, and so on routinely in their tour of duty.
Just stop with the unsupported lecture on experience.
We have a civilian National Security Council -- all civilians. These are the regular attendees of the NSC:
Vice President
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of the Treasury
Attorney General
Secretary of Homeland Security
Ambassador to the United Nations
Administrator of the Agency for International Development
White House Chief of Staff
National Security Advisor
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff attends as needed, but only in an advisory role.
He/she is the highest ranking military member in the US military.
-
The deepstate isnt real. But Trump will try set one up so he can rule like a dictator. Incompetent hires are just as bad a dei. Maga complains about dei, but then supports trumps moronic picks.
-
cool story, bro...
The deepstate isnt real. But Trump will try set one up so he can rule like a dictator. Incompetent hires are just as bad a dei. Maga complains about dei, but then supports trumps moronic picks.
-
The deepstate isnt real. But Trump will try set one up so he can rule like a dictator. Incompetent hires are just as bad a dei. Maga complains about dei, but then supports trumps moronic picks.
That post is hilarious given the title of this thread! :rofl: :rofl:
You're a propaganda tool for the Democrats.
Trump hasn't been sworn in, and yet he's already getting more done in a couple of months than Biden has in 4 years.
Keep trying to stir the pot. Most of us just don't give a flying flip what you have to say.
-
The deepstate isnt real. But Trump will try set one up so he can rule like a dictator. Incompetent hires are just as bad a dei. Maga complains about dei, but then supports trumps moronic picks.
Like how he did between 2016 and 2020 right?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The deepstate isnt real. But Trump will try set one up so he can rule like a dictator. Incompetent hires are just as bad a dei. Maga complains about dei, but then supports trumps moronic picks.
Nothing can be as bad as DEI. Nothing.
https://images.app.goo.gl/F3VPhshKNCKPhFy18
https://www.google.com/search?q=&ictx=1&tbs=rimg:CQXrAXFbgiLBIggF6wFxW4IiwSoSCQXrAXFbgiLBEZaMOsAKugYq&udm=2
There also was that man in military uniform with a wig and lipstick.
-
That's got to be one of the stupidest beliefs you've posted.
You believe that a military officer has "more experience" based on having hundred of soldiers in their unit than an officer who has maybe a dozen. "I am only pointing out that his experience would have been on the small scale end in terms of people usually appointed to that position."
in life, as well as in the military, experience comes from doing your job, not supervising others doing the job. Does a welder get more or less experience as a supervisor or as someone actually welding different jobs day after day? Does a warfighter get more experience going on patrols every day than his commander who sits in HQ planning those patrols?
Point there is that being a good welder doesn't mean you are a good supervisor of welders. It helps of course but management is a different skillset. Maybe he can do it great but it is still a valid question to ask what experience he has to show he can manage something the size of the US military. Someone could be a great beat cop for 20 years but that wouldn't make them unquestionably qualified to lead the Department of Justice.
-
Point there is that being a good welder doesn't mean you are a good supervisor of welders. It helps of course but management is a different skillset. Maybe he can do it great but it is still a valid question to ask what experience he has to show he can manage something the size of the US military. Someone could be a great beat cop for 20 years but that wouldn't make them unquestionably qualified to lead the Department of Justice.
"show he can manage something the size of the US military"
You ignored the post i made on all the SECDEFs that had zero military experience. Most also had no experience managing an organization the size of the US military.
Try addressing my posts in full as opposed to finding one sentence to argue with.
All your analogies are wasted because this nominee has proven himself in a variety of successful endeavors.
His net worth is an estimated $6M. He's 43 years old, and he has a FOX salary of $400,000/year.
I think you're not qualified to judge anyone else especially when it involves military experience -- which is NOT a prerequisite for SECDEF. It's a civilian position, and he has the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise him.
Just stoip.
-
"show he can manage something the size of the US military"
You ignored the post i made on all the SECDEFs that had zero military experience. Most also had no experience managing an organization the size of the US military.
Try addressing my posts in full as opposed to finding one sentence to argue with.
All your analogies are wasted because this nominee has proven himself in a variety of successful endeavors.
His net worth is an estimated $6M. He's 43 years old, and he has a FOX salary of $400,000/year.
I think you're not qualified to judge anyone else especially when it involves military experience -- which is NOT a prerequisite for SECDEF. It's a civilian position, and he has the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise him.
Just stoip.
I didn't argue with your full post because you made the good point that not all secretaries of defense have military experience.
The post that seems to have triggered you was when I said he lacked management experience. So on that point, feel free to show my concern is not warranted, show me hos much large scale management experience Hegseth has and I will agree he is qualified in that aspect.
-
I didn't argue with your full post because you made the good point that not all secretaries of defense have military experience.
The post that seems to have triggered you was when I said he lacked management experience. So on that point, feel free to show my concern is not warranted, show me hos much large scale management experience Hegseth has and I will agree he is qualified in that aspect.
i'm glad you finally admitted that you only want to argue, and that you just ignore most of the things you agree with for the sake of being contrary.
A Secretary in the Executive Branch is not the same as a CEO who manages a corporation. Their job is to set policy, and it's the military command structure's duty to carry out those policies. Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton and John Carry bothered with the day-in and day-out processes of the State Department?
Do some reading on what a Secretary appointed to these national security positions do in a day. Maybe you'll finally figure out why civilians are appointed to set national security policy and advise the President -- not to oversee operations. They have others appointed under them to take care of those things.
https://www.defense.gov/About/office-of-the-secretary-of-defense/#:~:text=The%20secretary%20of%20defense%20oversees,principal%20defense%20policymaker%20and%20adviser.
(https://i.imgur.com/O6qm6E1.png)
-
Point there is that being a good welder doesn't mean you are a good supervisor of welders. It helps of course but management is a different skillset. Maybe he can do it great but it is still a valid question to ask what experience he has to show he can manage something the size of the US military. Someone could be a great beat cop for 20 years but that wouldn't make them unquestionably qualified to lead the Department of Justice.
You failed to understand my post about how being an officer in the military works. Either that or you're trying to move goalpost. I'll write it again. ALL officers take leadership courses in training. And as Major, he's had well more than just a handful of soldiers under his command who he had to lead. Starting from when he was an O1. This should cover any XP that you are trying to wiggle out of.
Your example of being a cop depends on the cops 20 year rank. Did the cop retire at a rank of brass? Which would mean there would be other officers under their command regardless if they were in admin, traffic, narcotics, etc...All of which would cover any XP.
The US military is very big, even a general would lack XP in your eyes because generals are often branch related. So an army general typically wouldn't command cross branch to Navy, Air Force, etc...So even they would have no XP in commanding "the size of the US military". And even at rank of general, they have their own areas to command. Unless you're "General of the Army", but the last time someone was a 5 star general was a few years after WW2. ANd even then, it was theater specific. Example: McArthur was a 5 star for the pacific theater in WW2 and Eisenhower was a 5 star for Europe. So even then, no single 5 star commanded the entire Army.
What you would be asking is someone who was POTUS as they are the CIC who does command the "size of the US military".
-
What you would be asking is someone who was POTUS as they are the CIC who does command the "size of the US military".
That underscores the point I've been making, but which seems to mean nothing to EEF.
We have a well-defined national security structure that is made up of civilians. Some may have military experience, even at the O7/General/Admiral level. Over the years, it's been hit or miss as to the secretaries and their staff members having any military background whatsoever.
The military is also a highly structured organization with each branch of service answering to their own Chief of Staff of the individual branch who answers to then to the Joint Chief of Staff. From that point upward, it's a civilian chain of command, with a Secretary of each branch answering to the Secretary of Defense.
Obama was Commander in Chief and had zero military service, zero experience running a large company, and zero experience running a large government organization. His forte was getting elected to office through community activism.
I listed several SECDEFs who had no formal military service. Pete has plenty. He's also graduated from Princeton and has a Masters degree from Yale. His career in the media often involves talking politics and national security issues which he's obviously very prepared to do.
Pete is NOT a plumber being nominated for a position for which he's totally unprepared. He's educated, experienced and successful. He's accomplished more things in his life than Biden ever will as a career politician.
-
i'm glad you finally admitted that you only want to argue,
You mean like you do? No one is here because they don't like arguing.
and that you just ignore most of the things you agree with for the sake of being contrary.
Didn't say that, not sure why you have to be dishonest. Are you just happy that you were right for once?
A Secretary in the Executive Branch is not the same as a CEO who manages a corporation. Their job is to set policy, and it's the military command structure's duty to carry out those policies. Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton and John Carry bothered with the day-in and day-out processes of the State Department?
Do some reading on what a Secretary appointed to these national security positions do in a day. Maybe you'll finally figure out why civilians are appointed to set national security policy and advise the President -- not to oversee operations. They have others appointed under them to take care of those things.
Another strawman. I didn't say oversee operations. Are you telling me that the Secretary of Defense doesn't need any experience in management?
-
You mean like you do? No one is here because they don't like arguing.
Didn't say that, not sure why you have to be dishonest. Are you just happy that you were right for once?
Another strawman. I didn't say oversee operations. Are you telling me that the Secretary of Defense doesn't need any experience in management?
I don't like to argue, but will call out wrong info when it appears. I prefer not to argue, but some people refuse to admit when they're wrong so threads go on and on needlessly.
"Are you telling me that the Secretary of Defense doesn't need any experience in management?" No one here is saying that. You're imaging things.
-
I don't like to argue, but will call out wrong info when it appears. I prefer not to argue, but some people refuse to admit when they're wrong so threads go on and on needlessly.
"Are you telling me that the Secretary of Defense doesn't need any experience in management?" No one here is saying that. You're imaging things.
New Year's resolution: stop trying to teach pigs how to sing.
Someone else will have to pick up the slack! :shaka: :geekdanc:
-
New Year's resolution: stop trying to teach pigs how to sing.
Someone else will have to pick up the slack! :shaka: :geekdanc:
What? You are going to stop picking dumb arguments with me? Oh no, whatever shall I do... ::)
-
What? You are going to stop picking dumb arguments with me? Oh no, whatever shall I do... ::)
Maybe the arguments are dumb because someone refuses to admit they're wrong, which leads to goal post moving, deflection, and so on. And needless additional pages of a thread.
So, 1 side begins with a dumb response and the other shows supporting links and yet side 1 doesn't accept them as it shows they're wrong.
-
What? You are going to stop picking dumb arguments with me? Oh no, whatever shall I do... ::)
Such a clever comment. I'm really going to miss this quality time you've shared with us and all your intelligent, witty posts.
Counting down to New Year's...... :wave: :rofl:
-
Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.
Although I do understand your position on the mandate, I have to admit I feel differently, on a few things. The mandate, we are not talking about an election where everything is equal and one candidate got a few more votes. It was shown the media was SEVERLY biased. Trump was made out to be the worse human being in history, and Harris was made out to be the shining savior on the hill. she was also funded by someone , the fictional deep state maybe, so much so she amassed a war chest of over a BILLION dollars in a few short weeks. The debate was also very once sided. Even with all that , the voters, in the end, rejected the lifestyle they were told would be their new normal, and voted the person who would bring back the lifestyle they previously lost. It was not just a few votes. As was pointed out the electoral college was 58% to 42%. A blowout. The popular vote swing was not the 1.5% the republicans won by. It was more like 10%(sorry i don't have exact numbers) the difference of what the democrats usually win by, to what they lost by. That is a mandate. As far as Trump becoming president only for himself or his billionaire friends, he is better off without being president. Now as far as him playing loose with the laws, I may agree. I'd need to look at more facts, and not propaganda given by the same institutions that support the fictional deep state. Moving on to the deep state, government agencies have been weaponized against, American citizens, and political opponents in an effort remain, or to amass power. It was done under Obama, when he used the IRS to go after churches, revoking tax exempt status, while granting the exempt status to any liberal cause. Biden used the FBI, to cover his family's indiscretions, the CIA to go after citizens, and the DOJ to go after political opponents. All that and it is not limited to just presidents, or people in office. It extends down through our courts, our current representatives, and even former office holders. To me that is the existence of a "deep state".
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ha3qDn1.gif)
Although I do understand your position on the mandate, I have to admit I feel differently, on a few things. The mandate, we are not talking about an election where everything is equal and one candidate got a few more votes. It was shown the media was SEVERLY biased. Trump was made out to be the worse human being in history, and Harris was made out to be the shining savior on the hill. she was also funded by someone , the fictional deep state maybe, so much so she amassed a war chest of over a BILLION dollars in a few short weeks. The debate was also very once sided. Even with all that , the voters, in the end, rejected the lifestyle they were told would be their new normal, and voted the person who would bring back the lifestyle they previously lost. It was not just a few votes. As was pointed out the electoral college was 58% to 42%. A blowout. The popular vote swing was not the 1.5% the republicans won by. It was more like 10%(sorry i don't have exact numbers) the difference of what the democrats usually win by, to what they lost by. That is a mandate. As far as Trump becoming president only for himself or his billionaire friends, he is better off without being president. Now as far as him playing loose with the laws, I may agree. I'd need to look at more facts, and not propaganda given by the same institutions that support the fictional deep state. Moving on to the deep state, government agencies have been weaponized against, American citizens, and political opponents in an effort remain, or to amass power. It was done under Obama, when he used the IRS to go after churches, revoking tax exempt status, while granting the exempt status to any liberal cause. Biden used the FBI, to cover his family's indiscretions, the CIA to go after citizens, and the DOJ to go after political opponents. All that and it is not limited to just presidents, or people in office. It extends down through our courts, our current representatives, and even former office holders. To me that is the existence of a "deep state".
-
Although I do understand your position on the mandate, I have to admit I feel differently, on a few things. The mandate, we are not talking about an election where everything is equal and one candidate got a few more votes. It was shown the media was SEVERLY biased. Trump was made out to be the worse human being in history, and Harris was made out to be the shining savior on the hill. she was also funded by someone , the fictional deep state maybe, so much so she amassed a war chest of over a BILLION dollars in a few short weeks. The debate was also very once sided. Even with all that , the voters, in the end, rejected the lifestyle they were told would be their new normal, and voted the person who would bring back the lifestyle they previously lost. It was not just a few votes. As was pointed out the electoral college was 58% to 42%. A blowout. The popular vote swing was not the 1.5% the republicans won by. It was more like 10%(sorry i don't have exact numbers) the difference of what the democrats usually win by, to what they lost by. That is a mandate. As far as Trump becoming president only for himself or his billionaire friends, he is better off without being president. Now as far as him playing loose with the laws, I may agree. I'd need to look at more facts, and not propaganda given by the same institutions that support the fictional deep state. Moving on to the deep state, government agencies have been weaponized against, American citizens, and political opponents in an effort remain, or to amass power. It was done under Obama, when he used the IRS to go after churches, revoking tax exempt status, while granting the exempt status to any liberal cause. Biden used the FBI, to cover his family's indiscretions, the CIA to go after citizens, and the DOJ to go after political opponents. All that and it is not limited to just presidents, or people in office. It extends down through our courts, our current representatives, and even former office holders. To me that is the existence of a "deep state".
You aren't wrong but the thing about "the biased media" is that they are on both sides. We got places like Fox and places like MSNBC each slanting news for and against the candidates they don't like. Everyone loves to complain about the media that is biased against their candidate but no one complains when the media is biased for their candidate. But that is another topic.
The popular vote was definitely not 10%, it was 1.5%.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-college
Trump clearly won, there is no question about that, my only point is that 1.5% does not amount to some massive victory, it cannot be interpreted as some massive amount of support for Trump. If one basketball team beat another 49-47 no one could consider that a decisive win indicating one team is clearly better than the other. Out of 155 million voters in 2024, Trump won only 2.2 million more votes than Harris. It is a win fair and square but its significance should not be overstated. Consider it this way, if we had a poll on a major issue, maybe going to war or abortion, for example, no one would consider 48.3% vs 49.8% to be any decisive mandate on the issue.
-
You aren't wrong but the thing about "the biased media" is that they are on both sides. We got places like Fox and places like MSNBC each slanting news for and against the candidates they don't like. Everyone loves to complain about the media that is biased against their candidate but no one complains when the media is biased for their candidate. But that is another topic.
The popular vote was definitely not 10%, it was 1.5%.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-college
Trump clearly won, there is no question about that, my only point is that 1.5% does not amount to some massive victory, it cannot be interpreted as some massive amount of support for Trump. If one basketball team beat another 49-47 no one could consider that a decisive win indicating one team is clearly better than the other. Out of 155 million voters in 2024, Trump won only 2.2 million more votes than Harris. It is a win fair and square but its significance should not be overstated. Consider it this way, if we had a poll on a major issue, maybe going to war or abortion, for example, no one would consider 48.3% vs 49.8% to be any decisive mandate on the issue.
So what number is needed in your opinion to be a "massive victory?"
-
So what number is needed in your opinion to be a "massive victory?"
10% would be massive.
-
10% would be massive.
I would say 30% would be massive. See the problem with things that are subjective. Or we can go by the actual count of 2.2 million that you posted. Some would consider that massive. Like if you had 2.2 million people added to HI's population, that's a massive amount. Before you get your panties in a bunch about my example, it's a concept so no reply is needed. lets see if you can control yourself on this one.
-
I would say 30% would be massive. See the problem with things that are subjective. Or we can go by the actual count of 2.2 million that you posted. Some would consider that massive. Like if you had 2.2 million people added to HI's population, that's a massive amount. Before you get your panties in a bunch about my example, it's a concept so no reply is needed. lets see if you can control yourself on this one.
Trump won every single swing state giving him a 15.99% margin of victory in the only poll that matters.
It was a landslide victory. No recounts were necessary to declare him the winner.
There's no formula for defining a "mandate". it's an opinion. To continue arguing over it would be a waste of time done only for the sake of arguing.
The mythical popular vote is a diversion. That total doesn't matter. Whoever wins gets to decide how the country will be run -- i.e. implementing policy.
Period.
WASHINGTON — On a day replete with political symbolism for both parties,
Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday officially acknowledged President-
elect Donald Trump as the winner of the 2024 election, certifying the electoral
college votes.
https://www.news-journal.com/harris-certifies-trump-as-winner-marking-a-very-different-jan-6/article_a5ba2caa-cc6f-11ef-947f-2fd54490954a.html
Democrats want to ignore the fact they nominated a candidate who ran for President twice but never received a single primary vote in any state. If she had won by 20% of the "popular" vote, they would be calling that a mandate even though they never once voted for her as their nominee.
Hypocrites.
(https://i.imgur.com/p9kVpjb.png)
-
I would say 30% would be massive. See the problem with things that are subjective. Or we can go by the actual count of 2.2 million that you posted. Some would consider that massive. Like if you had 2.2 million people added to HI's population, that's a massive amount. Before you get your panties in a bunch about my example, it's a concept so no reply is needed. lets see if you can control yourself on this one.
Thats fine, if the win was massive in your opinion then so be it. I disagree.
-
Thats fine, if the win was massive in your opinion then so be it. I disagree.
IDK if I would consider the win "massive" as I've never thought about it. Again does 1 go by % or vote. Then electoral vote % or vote numbers?
So, I have no feeling on it being a massive win or not. Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or by a mile, winning is winning. (Dom quote).
-
IDK if I would consider the win "massive" as I've never thought about it. Again does 1 go by % or vote. Then electoral vote % or vote numbers?
So, I have no feeling on it being a massive win or not. Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or by a mile, winning is winning. (Dom quote).
I agree, a win is a win and Trump won.
When I said I wouldn't consider it a mandate I was not speaking in terms of how votes are counted as to who wins (the electoral process) I meant in the sense of the pulse of the people of the nation. That is why I looked at the popular vote, not the electoral vote because the electoral vote could give the wrong impression that the vast majority of Americans supported Trump and his ideas when in reality Americans only supported him by a small amount over Harris.
-
IDK if I would consider the win "massive" as I've never thought about it. Again does 1 go by % or vote. Then electoral vote % or vote numbers?
So, I have no feeling on it being a massive win or not. Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or by a mile, winning is winning. (Dom quote).
Every single state saw a shift to the right as more people voted Republican than in 2020. If all 50 states are trending toward the GOP, I think that speaks louder for a Trump mandate than any arbitrary percentage in a non-existent national popular vote.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/10/us-election-results-map-2024-how-does-it-compare-to-2020
Republicans have won a larger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020, with 95 percent of votes counted nationwide. That is important because it includes races other than the Presidential.
That's a mandate, baby!!
-
I agree, a win is a win and Trump won.
When I said I wouldn't consider it a mandate I was not speaking in terms of how votes are counted as to who wins (the electoral process) I meant in the sense of the pulse of the people of the nation. That is why I looked at the popular vote, not the electoral vote because the electoral vote could give the wrong impression that the vast majority of Americans supported Trump and his ideas when in reality Americans only supported him by a small amount over Harris.
I don't consider 2 million "small". But to each their own.
-
Every single state saw a shift to the right as more people voted Republican than in 2020. If all 50 states are trending toward the GOP, I think that speaks louder for a Trump mandate than any arbitrary percentage in a non-existent national popular vote.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/10/us-election-results-map-2024-how-does-it-compare-to-2020
Republicans have won a larger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020, with 95 percent of votes counted nationwide. That is important because it includes races other than the Presidential.
That's a mandate, baby!!
Take NV. NV in 2020 voted for Brandon. This year NV voted Trump. But Vegas (Clark COunty) still voted for Harris (DNC). But the change from 2020 to this election was only 1,000 more DNC votes compared to 50,000 more GOP votes in Clark County. That's a huge number. Guess the CA people moving to Vegas are voting Trump. Another blue county in NV like Washoe had about a few hundred more DNC voters but 5,000 more Trump voters than in 2020.
-
Every single state saw a shift to the right as more people voted Republican than in 2020. If all 50 states are trending toward the GOP, I think that speaks louder for a Trump mandate than any arbitrary percentage in a non-existent national popular vote.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/10/us-election-results-map-2024-how-does-it-compare-to-2020
Republicans have won a larger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020, with 95 percent of votes counted nationwide. That is important because it includes races other than the Presidential.
That's a mandate, baby!!
I wouldn't equate a movement to the right across the nation to support for Trump though. Just because voters across the country are rejecting failed democrat policies doesn't mean they are on board with Trump. Sure, you could make the case it is a mandate for conservativism or a mandate away from far left politics but that is not the same thing as a mandate for Trump.