Trump's Cabinet

[BashiChuni]

22 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

 

If Tulsi is confirmed, I hope she wakes up real quick and changes her tune about "regime change wars," etc. I don't think it'll be healthy to have someone in a position like that who doesn't have a firm grasp of our role in the world.

our role is to not start regime change wars. not sure what you think our "role" in the world is? tulsi will be excellent.

[uhhello]

Point counter point on twitter:

Nominated to AG by Trump

At least 2 US senators came out publicly saying they would not approve - it will take 4

He cannot be named an "acting" in a 3-day recess appointment because he doesn't work in the DOJ

House Ethics Committee prepared to release its investigation of Gaetz on Friday Gaetz immediately resigns from Congress, leaving House Speaker Johnson shocked

Resignation drops the number of confirmed Congressional seats for the GOP to 217, bringing into question which party will control the House

DeSantis will fill Gaetz's seat by Jan 3 -

Republicans retain majority of both House & Senate Republican House and Senate calls for a 10-day recess

Trump appoints Gaetz as AG w/ no Senate input Gaetz then serves as "Acting AG" until either Senate confirmation or for 2yrs.

[BFM this]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

If Tulsi is confirmed, I hope she wakes up real quick and changes her tune about "regime change wars," etc. I don't think it'll be healthy to have someone in a position like that who doesn't have a firm grasp of our role in the world.

Unless this is some next-level sarcasm that is sailing over my head, I cannot disagree more.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, bfargin said:

I think Tulsi was a great pick.

Gaetz might be entertaining at times, but he ain't right. I wouldn't select him as dog catcher. I hope he steps up and does his job appropriately, but that appointment might bite trump in the butt.

Yeah, I thought the same. I will admit it will be a relief to have him out of Congress. You don't normally hear much of from the attorney general, so perhaps keeping him out of the spotlight will allow him to shine at whatever the fuck it is he's good at. So far he's the only one I'm skeptical of.

[CaptainMorgan]

Yeah, I thought the same. I will admit it will be a relief to have him out of Congress. You don't normally hear much of from the attorney general, so perhaps keeping him out of the spotlight will allow him to shine at whatever the it is he's good at. So far he's the only one I'm skeptical of.

Don’t know much about him, but I enjoyed his grilling of our idiot SecDef Austin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

11 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Don’t know much about him, but I enjoyed his grilling of our idiot SecDef Austin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just your standard elected rep:

Gaetz's tenure as congressman led to widespread criticism and controversy.^[4] In 2020, Gaetz was accused of child sex trafficking and statutory rape.^[5][6] After an investigation, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) decided not to charge him, although Gaetz remained under investigation of the House Ethics Committee up until his resignation.^[7] He also became accused of illicit drug use, sharing inappropriate images and videos on the House floor, misusing state identification records, converting campaign funds for personal use, and accepting impermissible gifts.^[4] He routinely conflicted with and undermined members of Republican leadership.^[4] In October 2023, Gaetz filed a motion to vacate which led to the removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.^[8][9]

Though a financial disclosure form Gaetz filed in 2016 showed a net worth of $388,000, he donated $200,000 of his own money to his congressional campaign. He also resigned from two Florida House political action committees he had started and chaired; the PACs closed down and transferred $380,000 to a federal super PAC, North Florida Neighbors, whose purpose was to support Gaetz's congressional campaign.

 

[ViperMan]

39 minutes ago, BFM this said:

Unless this is some next-level sarcasm that is sailing over my head, I cannot disagree more.

It's not sarcastic. She possesses a high-school-debate-club-level understanding of politics, war, the Middle East, and our role in the world. I hope she wises up quick if she is confirmed to that role.

I don't want someone in that role who thinks we're up to no good at a fundamental level, or someone who thinks we can all get along. I want a stone-cold killer as the DNI. She doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

[CaptainMorgan]

Just your standard elected rep:
Gaetz's tenure as congressman led to widespread criticism and controversy.^[4] In 2020, Gaetz was accused of child sex trafficking and statutory rape.^[5][6] After an investigation, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) decided not to charge him, although Gaetz remained under investigation of the House Ethics Committee up until his resignation.^[7] He also became accused of illicit drug use, sharing inappropriate images and videos on the House floor, misusing state identification records, converting campaign funds for personal use, and accepting impermissible gifts.^[4] He routinely conflicted with and undermined members of Republican leadership.^[4] In October 2023, Gaetz filed a motion to vacate which led to the removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.^[8][9]
Though a financial disclosure form Gaetz filed in 2016 showed a net worth of $388,000, he donated $200,000 of his own money to his congressional campaign. He also resigned from two Florida House political action committees he had started and chaired; the PACs closed down and transferred $380,000 to a federal super PAC, North Florida Neighbors, whose purpose was to support Gaetz's congressional campaign.
 

Thanks Wikipedia!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

3 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

It's not sarcastic. She possesses a high-school-debate-club-level understanding of politics, war, the Middle East, and our role in the world. I hope she wises up quick if she is confirmed to that role.

I don't want someone in that role who thinks we're up to no good at a fundamental level, or someone who thinks we can all get along. I want a stone-cold killer as the DNI. She doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

can you give any examples instead of the usual name calling? let me guess you think she's a russian agent too

[uhhello]

13 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Thanks Wikipedia!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just not a fan of the hero worship some bestow upon him.  I'm sure most of our elected would have the same wikipedia entries if they garnered the attention Gaetz draws on himself.

[ViperMan]

54 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

can you give any examples instead of the usual name calling? let me guess you think she's a russian agent too

As reticent as I am to do someone's homework for them, I'll move the ball down the field...so, yes. Watch for one minute; up until about the 3:30 mark. And no, I don't think she's a Russian agent.

She characterizes the Iraq war as a war for "financial reasons" that was sold on lies.

Now, I was a naysayer (at the time - like in 2003 when I was a cadet) about Iraq part 2. Put another way: I was against the Iraq war before Tulsi was. I didn't think we should have gone in for the reasons we did and I have posts on this site that go back years which indicate that - I'm no Iraq '03 apologist. That being said, there are only two ways you can fairly approach an understanding of our decision for going into Iraq the second time.

The first is a fear-based reaction that is grounded in our assumption or lack of knowledge into what Saddam Hussein was up to in the aftermath of 9/11. I thought there were smarter ways to handle that fear and I think in different times and under different circumstances we would have done better. That said, it's a perfectly acceptable response to the "why" behind our decision to go in.

The second (fair) way to approach the decision is to acknowledge that we "went in for the oil." Though that one requires you to grapple with the fact that we're going to trade blood for oil. I am a blood for oil guy because I'm a realist. We are not going to allow a dictator on the other side of the world put a stranglehold on the global economy. We fight over natural resources. We always have and we always will. Decrying "no blood for oil" is absolutely ignorant, hippy-coded nonsense. If you want to be a realpolitik type, you can lean on this one. If you want to be a hippy pacifist, you can lean on it as well. It works for both groups. So yes, I agree, if you want to characterize it as "we went in for financial reasons," then yeah, sure we did, but then again, everything we do has a financial dimension, so it's really not a very illustrative way to view the world...but I digress.

The problem I have with her, however, is her characterization of the "why" surrounding going in for oil. She posits some sinister, financial, get-rich-quick, evil motivation that led the likes of Dick Cheney to use 9/11 as a pretext to get Halliburton into Iraq - which was always his master plan...it was closer to the view I had when I was 20...but I was 20. I'm now a grown up.

Zip ahead to 4:45 when she goes into "just like we wouldn't want Venezuela to come to our country..." to over throw our government, we shouldn't go into theirs...blah, blah, blah. It underscores this neo liberal idea(l) that all country's are equal and get to have an equal say in the way the world works. Nah. No thanks. Venezuela's merry-go-round of dictators don't get to have an equal say in the way the world works because they're a so-called country with borders on the map.

There are other examples available, but I'm not going to trouble myself more tonight by expounding anymore on them at length. The bottom line is that her world-view is conspiratorial, and that one which has no place in a position as serious as the DNI. So no, what I'm doing is not name-calling. I am looking fairly at the implications of her worldview and it concerns me.

I haven't written her off. Like I said, I hope she's a fast learner with an open mind. On a somewhat related note to help characterize how I approach the world, I also think the regime in Iran must be toppled. October 7th has necessitated it, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes a reality. I'm not a war-monger, though. I'm just taking an honest look at who's who in the world, and "countries" that engage others in that manner have to be transformed. That usually takes force.

Edited Thursday at 05:25 AM by ViperMan

[BashiChuni]

I’ve listened to that interview and can say I find no fault with her logic and I agree with everything she articulated. 

[ViperMan]

19 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

I’ve listened to that interview and can say I find no fault with her logic and I agree with everything she articulated. 

I would have been surprised had you.

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, uhhello said:

Just not a fan of the hero worship some bestow upon him.  I'm sure most of our elected would have the same wikipedia entries if they garnered the attention Gaetz draws on himself.

Concur, my biggest concern about his picks.  While I want him to shake up and change the establishment there should be some solid thought behind it.  He was interviewed two days ago about his picks and they asked him about his criteria, his #1 was loyalty which I completely disagree with.  We will see how is shakes out. 

[BashiChuni]

Tulsi correctly analyzed the Ukraine disaster in 2022. 

[BashiChuni]

47 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I would have been surprised had you.

I know. And I’m happy you don’t think all countries should have a say in our foreign policy as you eloquently wrote below. Which is exactly why the US should tell Zelenskyy and Ukraine to pound sand and negotiate for peace. Something tulsi will be in favor of. 
 

“Zip ahead to 4:45 when she goes into "just like we wouldn't want Venezuela to come to our country..." to over throw our government, we shouldn't go into theirs...blah, blah, blah. It underscores this neo liberal idea(l) that all country's are equal and get to have an equal say in the way the world works. Nah. No thanks. Venezuela's merry-go-round of dictators don't get to have an equal say in the way the world works because they're a so-called country with borders on the map.”

 

 

[tac airlifter]

40 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

 He was interviewed two days ago about his picks and they asked him about his criteria, his #1 was loyalty which I completely disagree with. 

Normally I’d agree, but these are exceptional circumstances.  Think of his context: he’s been hounded by false accusations, literally had SES level players working with opposing campaigns to fabricate stories about him, his own generals illegally conspired behind his back to undermine his orders…. This has been a unique period on our history.  He was given a decisive mandate for change by the American people, and knows from experience he cannot execute without a team committed to his vision.  If you were a WG/CC leading a complete re-org under pressure of WW3 and given total hiring authority, would you rather have a team of SQ leaders you trusted to follow your intent or a team who had the normal pedigree but you knew their hearts weren’t onboard with your priorities?  An imperfect analogy but it conveys my point.
 

saying “loyalty is a key hiring criteria” plays into the dictator claims made against him, but I also see his perspective.  If a boss asked for my loyalty, I’d say “loyalty to what?”  The mission?  The team? The ideas we took an oath to protect?  Commanders intent?  Or you personally even if you commit crimes?  The first 4 are fine of course, the fifth definitely not.  He’d be better served saying  “trust” instead of “loyalty” but who am I to give advice?  Bottom line I’m excited to see how it plays out and optimistic.

[HeloDude]

47 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Concur, my biggest concern about his picks.  While I want him to shake up and change the establishment there should be some solid thought behind it.  He was interviewed two days ago about his picks and they asked him about his criteria, his #1 was loyalty which I completely disagree with.  We will see how is shakes out. 

I think Trump defines loyalty as executing his directives as given and not stabbing him in the back…which clearly didn’t happen in the first term. Don’t military commanders expect the same from their subordinates?  You can’t be told to do one thing by your commander and then intentionally try to undermine him/her without their being consequences.  And if you believe what your CC is in the wrong, then you can go to their boss and so on, and/or write your Congressman.

If you’re in charge of the executive branch, then you want your orders followed.  As for those who need to keep Trump in check, push back against him if he’s going too far, want a way to “blow the whistle” etc, then that is the job of the other branches via our “checks and balances”.  Perhaps the justice department should be its own separate branch of government that shouldn’t have to answer to the President, but that’s not what we have.  
 

We give our President a metric shit ton of power/control…if we don’t like who is in charge then the better discussion is how to reduce that power/control, regardless of who is President.

[Smokin]

I dislike the loyalty hiring criteria, but it is understandable given the number of people from his first admin that have written books for personal profit claiming he said some pretty terrible things.  I've said some bad things among friends when I was angry that would look really bad in a headline (if I were someone that anyone cared to read about), but my friends were "loyal" and haven't held unreasonable things I said against me when they knew I didn't really mean it.  Given how many people have stabbed him in the back, by either repeating things they probably shouldn't have or straight up making it up, it is a little tougher to blame him for wanting loyalty this time around.

[disgruntledemployee]

Generals just don't band together to intentionally disobey orders unless those orders are illegal, etc.  There's a reason the term, "Adults in the room" was used extensively with Trump Part 1.  Some probablythought ideas were coming from an 8 year old.  Some of those adults probably felt discipline was needed, just like with children.

As for military officers, our loyalty should be to our oath, not to the commander de jour.  Last promotion ceremony I was at, I think those were the words I heard.

Heatmiser as AG is dumb and he's the first clown named by Trump.  if BlowBert gets a shot, she'll be the next clown.

[BFM this]

11 hours ago, ViperMan said:

As reticent as I am to do someone's homework for them, I'll move the ball down the field...so, yes.[+more well considered and articulated post...] 

While I can like your post for going deeper than [I just read headlines to fuel my rage], my leanings still tilt toward the soon to be DNI nominee.  That particular interview was a couple of years ago, but most of what formed the basis for her positions on things like geopolitical affairs was already cemented, namely her education in congress.  For a deeper dive and expanded presentation of her positions, I'd recommend giving her book a try; you can get it on audiobook from DoD MWR library.

I would even go so far to say that she is not an isolationist, but rather holds to a FAFO military readiness posture (speak softly but carry a big stick), that runs contrary to contemporary DC's never met a conflict they didn't like mentality. 

And I wholeheartedly subscribe to her supposition that had this election gone the other way, we would have found ourselves in a nasty brawl, purely out of a need to assert the image of strength by a weak individual.  I believe we dodged a big fucking bullet.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Normally I’d agree, but these are exceptional circumstances.  Think of his context: he’s been hounded by false accusations, literally had SES level players working with opposing campaigns to fabricate stories about him, his own generals illegally conspired behind his back to undermine his orders…. This has been a unique period on our history.  He was given a decisive mandate for change by the American people, and knows from experience he cannot execute without a team committed to his vision.  If you were a WG/CC leading a complete re-org under pressure of WW3 and given total hiring authority, would you rather have a team of SQ leaders you trusted to follow your intent or a team who had the normal pedigree but you knew their hearts weren’t onboard with your priorities?  An imperfect analogy but it conveys my point.
 

saying “loyalty is a key hiring criteria” plays into the dictator claims made against him, but I also see his perspective.  If a boss asked for my loyalty, I’d say “loyalty to what?”  The mission?  The team? The ideas we took an oath to protect?  Commanders intent?  Or you personally even if you commit crimes?  The first 4 are fine of course, the fifth definitely not.  He’d be better served saying  “trust” instead of “loyalty” but who am I to give advice?  Bottom line I’m excited to see how it plays out and optimistic.

I understand your point but disagree.  I fully understand his optic and the relentless use of lies, deceit and government agencies to stop his candidacy.  However, we are a nation of laws and if we simply go with people that are loyal to POTUS rather than the Constitution they we have stepped onto some very slippery ice.  Think about the certification of the last election, Pence would not bend to the Trump will and was excommunicated for being disloyal.  Like most of the people on this forum I swore an oath to the Constitution not the President.

I don't like Trump but I am glad he beat was what clearly a far worse choice, going down a road of decision making that follows loyalty to POTUS over the rule of law and the Constitution is a non-starter to me.  Trump has an epic opportunity to make meaningful change and to prove a lot of people wrong.  I don't mind game changing picks like Hegseth and Elon, but we need people who will push back, even at the risk of being fired, when faced with choices that are more self-serving than legal.

[Day Man]

36 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Think about the certification of the last election, Pence would not bend to the Trump will and was excommunicated for being disloyal.  Like most of the people on this forum I swore an oath to the Constitution not the President.

I don't like Trump but I am glad he beat was what clearly a far worse choice, going down a road of decision making that follows loyalty to POTUS over the rule of law and the Constitution is a non-starter to me.

lol what did you think you were getting? 

[M2]

Loyalty is a one-way road for Trump.

And CH is on target.  Trump wasn't the best option, but I would hate to think what direction this country would have gone had Harris won...

I am not sure if Trump's methods will work, but I definitely see the need to change things!

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, Day Man said:

lol what did you think you were getting? 

I knew I was not getting a far left progressive who was happy to take away the 1st and 2nd amendment, while paying for the sex changes of illegals and felons in prison all while cramming DEI up my ass.