The Next President is...

[slackline]

38 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Wow, a political appointee fired by a politician.

Shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

 

v/r,

Gerald Walpin

You're right.  Not abnormal in the slightest in this revolving door administration.  Firing his own political appointee because he's a lauded cyber-security expert who doesn't stand by while he spout lies from his bully pulpit. As Sim says so frequently, nothing to see here.  Just making sure my propaganda machine is unhindered from things like truth and fact...

 

Not worth another reply, so I'll just throw it in here.  Gerald Walpin was a Bush appointee removed by Obama.  Totally the same thing...  Good point...🤦‍♂️

 

Makes me wonder, what administration has the record for most upper level positions constantly being rotated like we've seen the last 4 years.  Is this the first time, or have there been equally "temporary" admins in the past?

Edited November 18, 2020 by slackline
Question

[brickhistory]

Gerald Walpin agrees with you. The fact of why he was removed is important.

Edited November 18, 2020 by brickhistory

[slackline]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Gerald Walpin agrees with you. The fact of why he was removed is important.

Dude, Obama wasn't a guy I voted for or liked.  Barking up the wrong tree.  Correct me if I'm wrong, Obama is more or less guilty of chronieism than Trump...

[Guardian]

I’ve never met such a ruthless vicious group of kind compassionate liberal minded just want to reunite the country group of people. Sore winners and it speaks loudly to how bad (or not badly) dems want to unite as to all the criticism levied against people for supporting the president.

[brickhistory]

Simply pointing out that executive branch members, including military officers, serve "at the pleasure of the President."

He/she can hire/fire anyone he/she wants anytime he/she wants.

It's not unprecedented, a threat to the republic, or a fraying of the national fabric.

Unless Trump does it, of course.  Then each and every one is nefarious.

 

 

[slackline]

41 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Simply pointing out that executive branch members, including military officers, serve "at the pleasure of the President."

He/she can hire/fire anyone he/she wants anytime he/she wants.

It's not unprecedented, a threat to the republic, or a fraying of the national fabric.

Unless Trump does it, of course.  Then each and every one is nefarious.

 

 

I absolutely agree with you that he isn't the only one to ever do it, and at times for shady reasons even.  To be clear though, are you saying the rate at which Trump has done this, and the frequency with which he does it for the specific reasons he does it are commonplace in the executive?  I think you'd need to prove that point if so.  All presidents have done it, no one is denying that, or calling it a threat.  Just pointing out a very common trend with this particular president.  

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Gerald Walpin agrees with you. The fact of why he was removed is important.

Except the bipartisan CNCS asked the White House to review Walpin’s conduct as IG. Unlike a president who removed an appointed key figure who stated facts, which wasn’t inline with the president’s partisan, and legally unproven as of yet, narrative he’s spewing.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[M2]

This shit just makes me laugh....

The Firing of Chris Krebs Is What an Attack On Democracy Looks Like

 

[slackline]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/republicans-denounce-trump-krebs-cybersecurity-437716?cid=apn

Yup, ridiculous when your own party can't understand why you fired a guy you appointed for no reason other than doing a good job. Weird...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

10 hours ago, slackline said:

I absolutely agree with you that he isn't the only one to ever do it, and at times for shady reasons even.  To be clear though, are you saying the rate at which Trump has done this, and the frequency with which he does it for the specific reasons he does it are commonplace in the executive?  I think you'd need to prove that point if so.  All presidents have done it, no one is denying that, or calling it a threat.  Just pointing out a very common trend with this particular president.  

To be clearer though, you are surprised that a president who was previously a reality TV show host who's tagline was "you're fired" is firing people at an ABOVE AVERAGE rate? You find that surprising? I'm surprised with your surprise.

Comparing Trump (who has been an executive for decades) with Obama (who had never been an executive) is not a valid comparison. WTF had Obama led before he became the leader of the free world? Seriously?

Edited November 19, 2020 by ViperMan

[Sua Sponte]

12 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

To be clearer though, you are surprised that a president who was previously a reality TV show host who's tagline was "you're fired" is firing people at an ABOVE AVERAGE rate? You find that surprising? I'm surprised with your surprise.

Comparing Trump (who has been an executive for decades) with Obama (who had never been an executive) is not a valid comparison. WTF had Obama led before he became the leader of the free world? Seriously?

He was a U.S. Senator, which last time I checked, is sorta a big deal. 

[SurelySerious]

26 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

He was a U.S. Senator, which last time I checked, is sorta a big deal. 

That doesn’t address the question: Does a junior Senator actually lead anything?

[Guardian]

And if they do, are they automatically assumed to be a good leader just because they have reached the senate?

[Sua Sponte]

37 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

That doesn’t address the question: Does a junior Senator actually lead anything?

Subjective, he was the Chairman for the Subcommittee on European Affairs. He was law school professor, State Senator, and U.S. Senator. To skip being a Rep in the House to go being a U.S. Senator that young is pretty amazing.

[Sua Sponte]

44 minutes ago, Guardian said:

And if they do, are they automatically assumed to be a good leader just because they have reached the senate?

The MAF considers one to be a good leader because they're good at tracking/editing awards & decs, performance reports, and setting up holiday parties. YMMV.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

He was a U.S. Senator, which last time I checked, is sorta a big deal. 

Shoot, I meant to make my post about the guy being a big deal in another thread - my bad. Also, you forgot to mention he was a community organizer, too. Which, also, makes him a big deal.

41 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Subjective, he was the Chairman for the Subcommittee on European Affairs. He was law school professor, State Senator, and U.S. Senator. To skip being a Rep in the House to go being a U.S. Senator that young is pretty amazing.

That is amazing - but we were talking about executive-level decision-making.

38 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

The MAF considers one to be a good leader because they're good at tracking/editing awards & decs, performance reports, and setting up holiday parties. YMMV.

This is basically the exact corollary to Obama (i.e one who "checks all the boxes" sts) - are you saying the Obamas in the MAF are where they should be?

Edited November 19, 2020 by ViperMan

[SurelySerious]

46 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Subjective, he was the Chairman for the Subcommittee on European Affairs. He was law school professor, State Senator, and U.S. Senator. To skip being a Rep in the House to go being a U.S. Senator that young is pretty amazing.

Sure, he was good at speaking and was charismatic and academically knows law, but is that providing leadership opportunities? Not in the same way JFK had to as a PT boat skipper, I would argue, if you want to look at young political wonders. 
 

Kind of like MAF HPOs from Phoenix to your reference, I guess the way I look at it. 

[slackline]

10 hours ago, ViperMan said:

To be clearer though, you are surprised that a president who was previously a reality TV show host who's tagline was "you're fired" is firing people at an ABOVE AVERAGE rate? You find that surprising? I'm surprised with your surprise.
Comparing Trump (who has been an executive for decades) with Obama (who had never been an executive) is not a valid comparison. WTF had Obama led before he became the leader of the free world? Seriously?

I'll bite.

Not surprised with Trump. Surprised with people's continued defense of his actions/"leadership". Surprised officers think Trump has any leadership skills whatsoever. Surprised it isn't clearly, painfully obvious that he has way less leadership capability than virtually every president in recent history.

I wasn't a fan of Obama before or during his presidency, but he clearly exhibited more leadership capability than Trump has at any point during his 4 years. By yours and the other points made here, making decisions doesn't equate to leadership. Being an executive, running multiple failed companies doesn't equate to leadership. Being a reality TV personality doesn't equate to leadership.

By your question, I take it to mean a person has no place running the Free world without massive experience in leadership? In your incredibly wise opinion, what's that bar/limit?

AF officers have no place in most leadership capacities by your logic. "Leading" a two, fourship or , whoa, an LFE is actual leadership? Leading a squadron with maybe 100 people? Stop kidding yourself. MX officers have twice as much leadership as most of us pilots by the time they're Captains, but that's heresy in the pilot's AF. People get offended, but you are being hypocritical saying Obama had no leadership experience when you claim your own experience is actually leadership. Trump made for "ok" reality TV, that's it. He's been a failure who was given a massive jumpstart by daddy, and survived off name recognition the rest of the time. I'm using some hyperbole, but you get the idea...

I'd almost guarantee that most of the intelligent people in this board, if I were able to give them the amount of money Trump was given by his daddy, would be just as rich if not moreso by now. With a much less questionable history (you know, misogyny, disgusting comments about dating his daughter, and clear evidence of racism) and a lot less bankruptcies...

But Trump is a great leader, sure.

7 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Sure, he was good at speaking and was charismatic and academically knows law, but is that providing leadership opportunities? Not in the same way JFK had to as a PT boat skipper, I would argue, if you want to look at young political wonders. 
 
Kind of like MAF HPOs from Phoenix to your reference, I guess the way I look at it. 

Seriously, a PT boat skipper equates for you? You're probably in the group that includes leading an LFE as massive leadership experience and thinks a fighter pilot could easily lead any other type of squadron because they know BFM...

People often aren't prepared for the govt position they're given. They are surrounded by people invested in ensuring they have good advice and help. Most depend on that. Some, Trump, ignore it because they "know" better than everyone. Trump's publicly claimed as much. He knows more than his generals about all the military decisions he's made. He said so... Great leader. You guys win.

ETA: Let me clarify that while I do acknowledge leading in combat and even in LFEs is actual leadership, my point is that it is a very specific form of leadership that doesn’t slice across all situations nicely. I’ve led in the flying world and the non-flying world. Two different animals.
 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 19, 2020 by slackline
typing on an iPhone sucks...

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

I'll bite.

Not surprised with Trump. Surprised with people's continued defense of his actions/"leadership". Surprised officers think Trump has any leadership skills whatsoever. Surprised it isn't clearly, painfully obvious that he has way less leadership capability than virtually every president in recent history.

I wasn't a fan of Obama before or during his presidency, but he clearly exhibited more leadership capability than Trump has at any point during his 4 years. By yours and the other points made here, making decisions doesn't equate to leadership. Being an executive, running multiple failed companies doesn't equate to leadership. Being a reality TV personality doesn't equate to leadership.

By your question, I take it to mean a person has no place running the Free world without massive experience in leadership? In your incredibly wise opinion, what's that bar/limit?

AF officers have no place in most leadership capacities by your logic. "Leading" a two, fourship or , whoa, an LFE is actual leadership? Leading a squadron with maybe 100 people? Stop kidding yourself. MX officers have twice as much leadership as most of us pilots by the time they're Captains, but that's heresy in the pilot's AF. People get offended, but you are being hypocritical saying Obama had no leadership experience when you claim your own experience is actually leadership. Trump made for "ok" reality TV, that's it. He's been a failure who was given a massive jumpstart by daddy, and survived off name recognition the rest of the time. I'm using some hyperbole, but you get the idea...

I'd almost guarantee that most of the intelligent people in this board, if I were able to give them the amount of money Trump was given by his daddy, would be just as rich if not moreso by now. With a much less questionable history (you know, misogyny, disgusting comments about dating his daughter, and clear evidence of racism) and a lot less bankruptcies...

But Trump is a great leader, sure.

Seriously, a PT boat skipper equates for you? You're probably in the group that includes leading an LFE as massive leadership experience and thinks a fighter pilot could easily lead any other type of squadron because they know BFM...

People often aren't prepared for the govt position they're given. They are surrounded by people invested in ensuring they have good advice and help. Most depend on that. Some, Trump, ignore it because they "know" better than everyone. Trump's publicly claimed as much. He knows more than his generals about all the military decisions he's made. He said so... Great leader. You guys win.

ETA: Let me clarify that while I do acknowledge leading in combat and even in LFEs is actual leadership, my point is that it is a very specific form of leadership that doesn’t slice across all situations nicely. I’ve led in the flying world and the non-flying world. Two different animals.
 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll take combat leadership over law school professor any day. 

[pawnman]

Just now, SurelySerious said:

I’ll take combat leadership over law school professor any day. 

Depends on the role.  We've all seen the shit-hot patch who is the pinnacle of tactical knowledge but couldn't spell "OPR" with a dictionary on their desk.

At some point, you need the ability to rely on other folks expertise and you need the ability to navigate the bureaucracy.  

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, slackline said:

I'll bite.

Not surprised with Trump. Surprised with people's continued defense of his actions/"leadership". Surprised officers think Trump has any leadership skills whatsoever. Surprised it isn't clearly, painfully obvious that he has way less leadership capability than virtually every president in recent history.

I wasn't a fan of Obama before or during his presidency, but he clearly exhibited more leadership capability than Trump has at any point during his 4 years. By yours and the other points made here, making decisions doesn't equate to leadership. Being an executive, running multiple failed companies doesn't equate to leadership. Being a reality TV personality doesn't equate to leadership.

By your question, I take it to mean a person has no place running the Free world without massive experience in leadership? In your incredibly wise opinion, what's that bar/limit?

AF officers have no place in most leadership capacities by your logic. "Leading" a two, fourship or , whoa, an LFE is actual leadership? Leading a squadron with maybe 100 people? Stop kidding yourself. MX officers have twice as much leadership as most of us pilots by the time they're Captains, but that's heresy in the pilot's AF. People get offended, but you are being hypocritical saying Obama had no leadership experience when you claim your own experience is actually leadership. Trump made for "ok" reality TV, that's it. He's been a failure who was given a massive jumpstart by daddy, and survived off name recognition the rest of the time. I'm using some hyperbole, but you get the idea...

I'd almost guarantee that most of the intelligent people in this board, if I were able to give them the amount of money Trump was given by his daddy, would be just as rich if not moreso by now. With a much less questionable history (you know, misogyny, disgusting comments about dating his daughter, and clear evidence of racism) and a lot less bankruptcies...

But Trump is a great leader, sure.

Seriously, a PT boat skipper equates for you? You're probably in the group that includes leading an LFE as massive leadership experience and thinks a fighter pilot could easily lead any other type of squadron because they know BFM...

People often aren't prepared for the govt position they're given. They are surrounded by people invested in ensuring they have good advice and help. Most depend on that. Some, Trump, ignore it because they "know" better than everyone. Trump's publicly claimed as much. He knows more than his generals about all the military decisions he's made. He said so... Great leader. You guys win.

ETA: Let me clarify that while I do acknowledge leading in combat and even in LFEs is actual leadership, my point is that it is a very specific form of leadership that doesn’t slice across all situations nicely. I’ve led in the flying world and the non-flying world. Two different animals.

Thanks for the response.

First, my broader point is that making an argument about Trump being an outlier, bad-(leader/executive/whatever), or otherwise for firing people isn't a good point. The man fires a lot of people, has fired a lot of people in the past, and will probably fire a lot of people in the future. We knew this before he was president and now we feign surprise? Or use it to make some meta-point about him being X? I just don't think arguments that ignore the context of who someone is really get anywhere - that's what I was trying to get at.

Honestly, I have been basically pretty neutral about ALL the presidents I have served under and if I'm being honest, haven't seen that big of a difference between Bush, Obama, and now Trump. My day-to-day has been fairly consistent and IMO not tied to who was in the white house. What I don't like is the hyper focus on personalities that we (meaning smart officers) are exhibiting throughout this tumultuous time. If I could go back four years and examine my opinion about what the impending Trump presidency would have looked like, I would have proved myself 100% correct - which is to say he didn't change all that much. The political and media apparatus was fully united against him and invested in a useless presidency. And low and behold, that's more or less what we've had. So all that is to say I don't worry too much about any one individual, as much as we like to pin the tail on the donkey, some of these problems require more that one person to address. That said, I am extremely concerned about what I see taking place within the democrat party.

To your point about leadership, fine, I guess, but I've never been one to drink the AF's koolaid that leadership is a magical panacea for each, every, and all problem. That's a meme, and one that I think infects a lot of peoples' mindset in the AF. What we're missing most, IMO, is job competence and accountability. Are those functions of leadership? I suppose depending on your frame, more or less so. But when we call literally everything a leadership problem, we lose focus on how to solve problems because everything becomes the proverbial nail.

Re: MX officers being better able to lead the USAF. This argument is the literal manifestation of "my dick is bigger than yours so I should be in charge." God bless our MX leadership - lord knows I don't want to do it. That said, the size of the organization they've "led" doesn't lead to them knowing the first thing about winning an air war or leading an air campaign. Nope. That's why they're not in charge of the Air Force and also why they should never be in charge of the Air Force. It's also why the type of leadership (or skillset, perhaps) disparaged above is exactly what's required - because it's serves the greater, fundamental purpose of our organization. No matter how many 0700 meetings some O-5/6 spends going over the blotter, they won't ever have the experience garnered only from Red/Green Flag, combat, pilot training, etc. They work a critical piece of the USAF, but it still only serves a supporting role.

Finally, about DT's racism. Fine - he's extremely crass and says shitty things. But consider, if you will, that Joe Biden chose a running mate based on two primary factors: a v_gina and dark skin. Which of those (or both) qualifies you to lead the free world? Maybe it wasn't either. Maybe it was her ability to garner peak support of 15%? Maybe it was her ability to drop out of the race when she was teetering at about %1? The point is that the democrats are literally choosing their leadership based on what flavor of ice cream you are - it's not about any ability - let's not kid ourselves. That is racism - any which way you slice it. And it's particularly dangerous because it's "acceptable" - it's disguised. It is all done in order to create the facade of a "diverse coalition" in order to implement whatever bullshit they know they wouldn't be able to get done with white guys at the helm. Their "diversity" is a tool.

Consider, if you will, California's most recent attempt to instantiate a racist policy into law (https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/prop-16-failed-in-california) - thankfully it failed. Consider the numerous other examples from the democrat party wherein they are attempting to do wildly Un-American things (i.e. blanket student debt forgiveness). So while DT may be an incompetent, racist, homophobe and everybody knows it - look at what the "woke" democrat party is trying to do - and they have the media on their side. That worries me a lot more than one Obama or one Trump. Hence, my disillusionment with the hyper-focus one individual.

Edited November 19, 2020 by ViperMan
censorship; clarification

[Lord Ratner]

10 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Subjective, he was the Chairman for the Subcommittee on European Affairs. He was law school professor, State Senator, and U.S. Senator. To skip being a Rep in the House to go being a U.S. Senator that young is pretty amazing.

I'll translate:

 

No, he didn't lead anything.

[Homestar]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

I’ll take combat leadership over law school professor any day. 

I’ll take a law professor and senator over whatever Trump is calling his leadership skills. Has he ever led anything that didn’t end in bankruptcy?

Ill start: Trump University, Trump Steaks, the Taj Mahal..... Please don’t confuse Trump’s business acumen with his ability to pimp his brand. 

[SHFP]

Maybe both:  Colonel Bud Day

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'll translate:

 

No, he didn't lead anything.

Translate:

In my opinion, he didn’t lead anything.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Sua Sponte