Trump's Cabinet

[BashiChuni]

the IC has zero credibility right now. some humility is the answer not hubris.

the army didn't have any problem promoting her to O-5.

[Smokin]

4 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Well, based on your "feelings" I suppose our IC is in great hands.  I wonder what someone closer to the issue thinks.

The Hill reporting that her Senator meetings aren't going well.  Themes are: unprepared, she's got a lot to learn, nobody likes her.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5038091-tulsi-gabbard-struggles-senators/

I didn't say anything about "feelings", so strange to bring it up and even stranger to put it in quotes as if I said it.  Thoughts and feelings are very different and far too many people confuse the two. 

I don't put any trust in rumors, especially rumors from DC from 'someone closer to the issue' (apparently I only get to "feel", while they get to "think").  Assuming the rumors are true, which is a monumental assumption, needing to learn and people not liking her are no problem.  Likeability is not a qualification for a cabinet position.  Needing to learn sounds like an insider critique of someone that isn't an insider.  Washington, and thus our country, would be better off with fewer insiders.  Unprepared is a different matter, but I think (not feel) that it would be far easier to walk in prepared for a meeting with the President on a specific subject than to walk into a firing squad that can ask anything they want.

[ClearedHot]

[Lord Ratner]

On 12/14/2024 at 8:16 AM, ClearedHot said:

They are terrified of what's coming. Good.

[disgruntledemployee]

On 12/13/2024 at 2:56 PM, Smokin said:

I didn't say anything about "feelings", so strange to bring it up and even stranger to put it in quotes as if I said it.  Thoughts and feelings are very different and far too many people confuse the two. 

I don't put any trust in rumors, especially rumors from DC from 'someone closer to the issue' (apparently I only get to "feel", while they get to "think").  Assuming the rumors are true, which is a monumental assumption, needing to learn and people not liking her are no problem.  Likeability is not a qualification for a cabinet position.  Needing to learn sounds like an insider critique of someone that isn't an insider.  Washington, and thus our country, would be better off with fewer insiders.  Unprepared is a different matter, but I think (not feel) that it would be far easier to walk in prepared for a meeting with the President on a specific subject than to walk into a firing squad that can ask anything they want.

I air quoted the words in the context of your thoughts/feelings vs factual info.  Apologies if you took it differently. 

As for the article, it's the same old DC game.  Call up your favorite reporter, tell the story that she's unprepared and out of her league with the logic that she reads it and responds by not being like that, with some added public perception/pressure. The Senate has sent the message.

On 12/13/2024 at 10:26 AM, BashiChuni said:

the IC has zero credibility right now. some humility is the answer not hubris.

the army didn't have any problem promoting her to O-5.

Army Reserve O-5 huh... Impressive.  Must have been an all star slugger to do that. So we the people, and those she will lead/serve directly, get to rely upon her IC experience that at most was learned thru Army PME.  Good luck.

[BashiChuni]

in case you haven't been paying attention the "trust the experts" class has been thoroughly discredited the last 4 years.

covid, hunter biden laptop, "inflation is transitory" etc etc etc.

it's time for a shakeup.

 

 

[disgruntledemployee]

31 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

in case you haven't been paying attention the "trust the experts" class has been thoroughly discredited the last 4 years.

covid, hunter biden laptop, "inflation is transitory" etc etc etc.

it's time for a shakeup.

 

 

Let me say this way and you might get it.  When it comes to hiring someone to fly an airplane, you at least want a pilot.  There.  Does that make any sense now?

[dream big]

27 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Let me say this way and you might get it.  When it comes to hiring someone to fly an airplane, you at least want a pilot.  There.  Does that make any sense now?

Apples to oranges. As the IC director, she will have a team behind her consisting of the SMEs; as a pilot, I can’t delegate out the expertise. Same for most cabinet positions. 

[disgruntledemployee]

20 hours ago, dream big said:

Apples to oranges. As the IC director, she will have a team behind her consisting of the SMEs; as a pilot, I can’t delegate out the expertise. Same for most cabinet positions. 

Not really.  It's like hiring a Civil Affairs Officer to be in charge of the Intel world.

[BashiChuni]

so let's get this straight, tulsi was good enough to be vice chair of the DNC, good enough to run for democratic presidential nominee, good enough to be elected to US Congress FOUR times where she served on the HSAC and also the House Armed Services subcommittee on Intelligence, BUT she's not qualified.

you're wrong sir. and maybe sexist? (see what I did there), or maybe racist against women of color? (hmmm)

tulsi is extremely qualified to lead our IC and hopefully clean house

[brabus]

38 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Not really.  It's like hiring a Civil Affairs Officer to be in charge of the Intel world.

What is it you think the DNI does? I’ll answer - oversee and direct, e.g. lead. The DNI does not work in the trenches, thus requiring a higher level of technical expertise in specific areas/capabilities. They are leading at the executive level, which means leadership, communication, and decision making skills at said level are paramount. Her resume has plenty of that, and what MOS she was/is in the Army is fairly irrelevant at this point. 
 

A similar example is we should have a pilot with a poli sci, business, etc. degree who’s been in OT/DT before run our acquisitions - there’s a guy out there with that resume who would do way better than the dipshits who have been/do run that world. Why? Because he has superior critical thinking skills and leadership skills compared to the bureaucrats who have historically been in those roles. This hypothetical guy would crush it, and with little to no acquisitions credentials on his resume.

Edited Monday at 03:20 PM by brabus

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Not really.  It's like hiring a Civil Affairs Officer to be in charge of the Intel world.

Or hiring someone with their PPL to run the FAA…oh wait…

[disgruntledemployee]

On 12/16/2024 at 8:53 AM, BashiChuni said:

so let's get this straight, tulsi was good enough to be vice chair of the DNC, good enough to run for democratic presidential nominee, good enough to be elected to US Congress FOUR times where she served on the HSAC and also the House Armed Services subcommittee on Intelligence, BUT she's not qualified.

you're wrong sir. and maybe sexist? (see what I did there), or maybe racist against women of color? (hmmm)

tulsi is extremely qualified to lead our IC and hopefully clean house

Yep, she's a Democrat.  You usually put a solid D in the DNC, not someone that waffles on the D platform.  As for the sexist part, there are plenty of posts on this forum that Harris only got as far as she did because she was a woman and innuendo'd certain womanly acts.  I'm not saying that, although I wouldn't put it past Trump to pick her just for him to see her everyday.  I'm saying she is a Democrat with no IC experience.  Why can't we have a solid R that has some IC experience?  Is that too much to ask?  Isn't that what you want?  I can't understand the die hard, rah rah for her.  Is it just because Trump picked her?

As for cleaning house, which one?

On 12/16/2024 at 9:19 AM, brabus said:

What is it you think the DNI does? I’ll answer - oversee and direct, e.g. lead. The DNI does not work in the trenches, thus requiring a higher level of technical expertise in specific areas/capabilities. They are leading at the executive level, which means leadership, communication, and decision making skills at said level are paramount. Her resume has plenty of that, and what MOS she was/is in the Army is fairly irrelevant at this point. 
 

A similar example is we should have a pilot with a poli sci, business, etc. degree who’s been in OT/DT before run our acquisitions - there’s a guy out there with that resume who would do way better than the dipshits who have been/do run that world. Why? Because he has superior critical thinking skills and leadership skills compared to the bureaucrats who have historically been in those roles. This hypothetical guy would crush it, and with little to no acquisitions credentials on his resume.

If you've never interacted with a DNI, then I understand why you think this.  I'm not saying I know more, but I got an hour presentation from one years back and it was enlightening.  It's an important role, probably one of the hardest because the ODNI is not in charge of the other IC entities and has to herd cats, and is a role worthy of Senate confirmation.   Lastly, this all stemmed from an article that says her Senator meetings are going poorly; unprepared they say.  In your example, I'll bet that dude crushed it by learning everything they could about the world they were about to enter.

On 12/16/2024 at 9:51 AM, HeloDude said:

Or hiring someone with their PPL to run the FAA…oh wait…

But at least is still a pilot.  Just making the point, not defending the person in the role was a good choice.

[HeloDude]

21 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

But at least is still a pilot.  Just making the point, not defending the person in the role was a good choice.

That’s like saying because I took a programming course in college that I’m a computer programmer.  And if you’re not saying he was a good choice as FAA administrator, then why didn’t you say so when he was nominated like you are now wrt Tulsi’s nomination?  You don’t like Trump…we get it.

[SHFP]

Maybe de will soon be an unemployed de after Vick, Elon, and Pete take the reins from the Wokes in the Swamp. 

[disgruntledemployee]

55 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

That’s like saying because I took a programming course in college that I’m a computer programmer.  And if you’re not saying he was a good choice as FAA administrator, then why didn’t you say so when he was nominated like you are now wrt Tulsi’s nomination?  You don’t like Trump…we get it.

I don't know man, maybe I was flying that day.  And I DIDN'T say he was a good choice, just like I did above.

[brabus]

4 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

is a role worthy of Senate confirmation

Totally agree, wasn’t arguing otherwise. 
 

4 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

But at least is still a pilot

So following this logic WRT the DNI, if a person spent a year as an A1C in a squadron intel shop, that’d be of value as a DNI? Answer: no, it would be of essentially zero value IRT the executive level. Same as a PPL is of zero value for the FAA director.

Again, executive level is a totally different ball game than tactical/operational level in the military.  Now if there was a competitor who has significant IC experience, in addition to the executive level experience Tulsi has, is aligned with Trump’s agenda, and wants to do it, then by all means that person should be pushed forward. I have not heard of this hypothetical person.

[Lord Ratner]

1 minute ago, brabus said:

Totally agree, wasn’t arguing otherwise. 
 

So following this logic WRT the DNI, if a person spent a year as an A1C in a squadron intel shop, that’d be of value as a DNI? Answer: no, it would be of essentially zero value IRT the executive level. Same as a PPL is of zero value for the FAA director.

Again, executive level is a totally different ball game than tactical/operational level in the military.  Now if there was a competitor who has significant IC experience, in addition to the executive level experience Tulsi has, is aligned with Trump’s agenda, and wants to do it, then by all means that person should be pushed forward. I have not heard of this hypothetical person.

That's the crux right there. It would be great to have a disruptor with operational experience. But we don't. I'm not a big Tulsi fan, but what we need right now are people willing to slaughter sacred cows, and the best people for that task are the ones who have been scorned by the priests of the old religion. 

[brabus]

Shack.
 

As far as Tulsi goes, she has changed her policy stances quite a bit from several years ago. That demos she’s able to receive new information and update her views, which is something sorely lacking in our society in general. Add on her disruptor attitude towards the progressive bullshit and the bureaucrats in general, and I’m optimistic on her future work. I’m willing to give her a shot, even if she’s not the “perfect conservative” I’d love to see. 

[disgruntledemployee]

22 hours ago, brabus said:

Shack.
 

As far as Tulsi goes, she has changed her policy stances quite a bit from several years ago. That demos she’s able to receive new information and update her views, which is something sorely lacking in our society in general. Add on her disruptor attitude towards the progressive bullshit and the bureaucrats in general, and I’m optimistic on her future work. I’m willing to give her a shot, even if she’s not the “perfect conservative” I’d love to see. 

So if Chuck Schumer scrapes the D off his letterhead for an R, you'll suddenly like him because he "changed" his mind on the world?  What if AOC does that; isn't she seen as a disruptor too?  Bernie?  And so on?

 

PS.  Looks like the House will release their Gaetz report anyway, according to CNN.  They couldn't just let it go.  He was gone, out.  Well, I think we may see some fuck around and find out, maybe some MAD.

[brabus]

3 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

So if Chuck Schumer scrapes the D off his letterhead for an R, you'll suddenly like him because he "changed" his mind on the world? 

You’re showcasing you actually don’t know anything about Tulsi, even the slightest bit it appears. 

[disgruntledemployee]

On 12/18/2024 at 10:30 PM, brabus said:

You’re showcasing you actually don’t know anything about Tulsi, even the slightest bit it appears. 

And you do?  And you didn't answer the question. 

Her past actions lead me to think she ain't what she says.

Does it just take a well acted session with Rogan to set your opinions?

[brabus]

2 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

And you do?  And you didn't answer the question. 

Her past actions lead me to think she ain't what she says.

Does it just take a well acted session with Rogan to set your opinions?

Well yeah, I do. It started with listening to her first podcast on why she left the Ds. That episode was over two years ago. Since then I have generally followed her. So to recap, I’ve been paying attention for two years to form my current opinion on her.
 

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to do here, other than deflect from the fact you apparently are very ignorant on Tulsi or just don’t comprehend the general idea of being able to transform opinions and ideas based on changing information over time (and not being a radical tied to the “all or nothing!” mindset on both sides of the aisle that has put our country where it is today).

Edited 14 hours ago by brabus