6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What qualifications is he supposed to be lacking? 

 

Why does having been on TV disqualify him?

 

No possible reason I can think of. Other than the obvious.

Just now, pattayasan said:

 

No possible reason I can think of. Other than the obvious.

What qualifications is he supposed to be lacking? 

 

Why does having been on TV disqualify him?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What qualifications is he supposed to be lacking? 

 

Why does having been on TV disqualify him?

 

I see ice creams from a van, can I be the Treasury Secretary? Can you see where I'm going with this?

1 minute ago, pattayasan said:

 

I see ice creams from a van, can I be the Treasury Secretary? Can you see where I'm going with this?

Yes, as always you are not able for formulate a coherent argument, so you attempt to be glib, and post nonsense. 

 

What are the obvious qualifications is he supposed to be lacking? 

 

Why does having been on TV obviously disqualify him?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, as always you are not able for formulate a coherent argument, so you attempt to be glib, and post nonsense. 

 

What are the obvious qualifications is he supposed to be lacking? 

 

Why does having been on TV obviously disqualify him?

 

 

 

You wouldn't want someone with actual senior military experience? No, I guess not, that's the whole MAGA schtick.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Uneducated? Have you ever read "The Pink Swatstika"?

Stupid and pointless question!

2 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

You wouldn't want someone with actual senior military experience? No, I guess not, that's the whole MAGA schtick.

Depends on how you define senior. Combat vet that served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, two Bronze Stars, and I think he made Major. BA from Prinston and Masters from Harvard, and he's anti DEI. 

 

I think DEI is ruining the military, and that course needs to be reversed. 

 

I don't see the "seniors" seem to be doing such a hot job. 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Depends on how you define senior. Combat vet that served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, two Bronze Stars, and I think he made Major. BA from Prinston and Masters from Harvard, and he's anti DEI. 

 

I think DEI is ruining the military, and that course needs to be reversed. 

 

I don't see the "seniors" seem to be doing such a hot job. 

 

I define senior like most job hiring experts do. Actual experience in relevant positions doing comparable duties with comparable responsibilities. Able to actually do the job properly from day 1.

1 hour ago, pattayasan said:

 

The problem with this logic is all the dems who wanted Biden to withdraw. The title of the article (I never read any NYP trash) suggests that all dems were pushing the line that Biden was not declining. This was clearly not the case.

 

The title suggests no such thing. But it was of course clearly the case they were in public. If not for the debate, Biden would have been the candidate.

1 minute ago, BigStar said:

 

The title suggests no such thing. But it was of course clearly the case they were in public. If not for the debate, Biden would have been the candidate.

 

And after the debate, dems were out in force urging Biden to withdraw, including Pelosi. It toitally blows apart the right wing trope that dems were all claiming there was nothing to see here.

Yeah...an inexperienced SecDef might do something stupid like letting a CCP spy balloon take a liesurely flight over the entire US collecting data before shooting it down over the ocean.....or by creating the worst recruitment crisis in years by trying to force DEI buIIshlt into an agency whose sole purpose is to kill and blow things up. Or even something really....really stupid, like overseeing a botched troop withdrawal that unnecessarily leaves 13 US troops dead and $$billions in functioning military hardware abandoned to terrorists.

1 minute ago, nattaya09 said:

Yeah...an inexperienced SecDef might do something stupid like letting a CCP spy balloon take a liesurely flight over the entire US collecting data before shooting it down over the ocean.....or by creating the worst recruitment crisis in years by trying to force DEI buIIshlt into an agency whose sole purpose is to kill and blow things up. Or even something really....really stupid, like overseeing a botched troop withdrawal that unnecessarily leaves 13 US troops dead and $$billions in functioning military hardware abandoned to terrorists.

 

 

It's almost as if the risk wasn't assessed and they had no clue what electronics were aboard.

8 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

And after the debate, dems were out in force urging Biden to withdraw, including Pelosi. It toitally blows apart the right wing trope that dems were all claiming there was nothing to see here.

 

Wrong again. As you were informed, that trope refers to Dems hiding Biden's mental decline until they had no choice but to recognize it publicly after it became undeniable in the debate. That tope was and still is valid. You missed the new trope, because you don't know anything. The new trope is that the "democracy loving" DNC and Dems then engineered a coup to install Harris w/o any primary, stealing the Biden campaign money, and so ensuring a weak DEI candidate already once rejected by voters would be put up to fail. 

 

1 minute ago, BigStar said:

 

Wrong again. As you were informed, that trope refers to Dems hiding Biden's mental decline until they had no choice but to recognize it publicly after it became undeniable in the debate. That tope was and still is valid. You missed the new trope, because you don't know anything. The new trope is that the "democracy loving" DNC and Dems then engineered a coup to install Harris w/o any primary, stealing the Biden campaign money, and so ensuring a weak DEI candidate already once rejected by voters would be put up to fail. 

 

 

They weren't hiding it, most were calling for Biden to withdraw. So many that he actually did so.

Just now, pattayasan said:

 

They weren't hiding it, most were calling for Biden to withdraw. So many that he actually did so.

 

Wrong. They didn't call for that until AFTER the debate. In private, they knew he was senile, but they were hiding it in hopes of getting him elected. In 2020, after all, he did well just staying in his basement, and all he had to do was read a teleprompter. Harris was claiming Biden had always been fine even after the debate, merely one proof of her basic dishonesty.

 

43 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

I define senior like most job hiring experts do. Actual experience in relevant positions doing comparable duties with comparable responsibilities. Able to actually do the job properly from day 1.

What position might one have would be relevant and have comparable duties and responsibilities ? 

 

Just now, BigStar said:

 

Wrong. They didn't call for that until AFTER the debate. In private, they knew he was senile, but they were hiding it in hopes of getting him elected. In 2020, after all, he did well just staying in his basement, and all he had to do was read a teleprompter. Harris was claiming Biden had always been fine even after the debate, merely one proof of her basic dishonesty.

 

 

He was and remains quite capable fo fulfilling his duties. He was definitely declining but not to the extent that you imagine. Otherwise he would have resigned. The dems merely figured that the MAGA hit jobs were landing to needed to take that out of the equation. Had he resigned earlier and given Harris free reign things may have been different.

9 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

They weren't hiding it, most were calling for Biden to withdraw. So many that he actually did so.

Prior to the debate anyone that called out Biden’s condition was called a liar.

 

2 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

He was and remains quite capable fo fulfilling his duties. He was definitely declining but not to the extent that you imagine. Otherwise he would have resigned. The dems merely figured that the MAGA hit jobs were landing to needed to take that out of the equation. Had he resigned earlier and given Harris free reign things may have been different.

Had Harris had more time she would have lost by a wider margin. 

 

Stolen valor Walz.

18 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Ok.  So what makes a person qualified to run the largest Federal Agency in the US Government:

 

1 Annual budget of over $800 Billion

2. Close to 1 million men and women on active duty

3. Close to 1 million civilian employees in the DOD

4. Hundreds of military bases in Asia, Europe and Middle East

 

Hegseth was a commissioned officer in the Minnesota Army National Guard with deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and was assigned to Guantanamo, Cuba where he was part of the detainee operations.  Also, he won the Bronze Star so that is significant.  Many servicemembers have been deployed to both places and this includes myself.  It does not appear he held a command position such as company commander or even as a battalion commander.  His last military status was as a member of the IRR(Individual Ready Reserve). 

 

Just like you let's see how his confirmation hearing goes?  The DOD is serious business and like many veterans we are concerned as to where the "bucks stops" at the Pentagon. 

 

 

 

Trump does not want a confirmation hearing. That's the issue of concern for me. The man may or may not be qualified, but his appointment should be subject to a review by the US Senate.Trump does not want anyone  asking the man about his plans and qualifications.

 

Secretary of Defense is a CEO type of position and this nominee has no big picture, no multinational management experience or training. The US General staff are well educated and trained. Logistics and management is on a whole different level  in the US military. The first duty of the military is to the US Constitution, not to the President.

9 hours ago, BigStar said:

 

Hegseth’s critics who sneer that he is unqualified because he is a Fox News host are the same people who insisted that Joe Biden was compos mentis, Harris was competent and her running mate Tim “Stolen Valor” Walz, who shirked combat and then lied about it, was some sort of military hero.

    --Dems’ attacks on the intelligent, articulate, and patriotic Pete Hegseth show why they lost – a salute to Trump’s defense secretary pick

I never mentioned POTUS or VPOTUS. 

8 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Stupid and pointless question!

That means you haven't so you can't discuss it. I guess in your crew it's okay to argue from a position of ignorance

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

What position might one have would be relevant and have comparable duties and responsibilities ? 

 

Sucking out taxpayer money as a defense contractor?

5 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Unlike you, I'm younger, shredded and unless I'm anonymous---which I am 100% here---nobody would know.

 

Also, not SAS, but SAC and DDO...different nation.

 

Perhaps some day I'll be a fat piece of human filth like you, but that can wait.

Fat piece of human filth I am, but not a worshiper of Adolf hitler, nor a leftist.

 

Knowing your politics, shouldn't you be using the word untermensch?

 

Now mind you, because it's the internet, I could lie and tell you I'm shredded and Young and a special forces operator but in my normal social and cultural mileau that behavior isn't quite kosher. Oh I'm sorry I use that word I know how it offends you

16 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Sucking out taxpayer money as a defense contractor?

Actually the CEO of a large Defense Contractor would have relevant experience to run the DOD.  A good chunk of the annual defense  budget ($800 Billion) is spent on contracts to the various defense contractors.  Awarding  of contracts is a big part of the business of the DOD.  The DOD is run like a business. Government does not make anything.  What they need is actually purchased from companies.  The extent of Hegseth's leadership experience is an army platoon leader.  At best he was in charge of 30 to 50 soldiers.  If confirmed he would lead an agency with close to 2 million military, civilian and contractors.   Scaling up be an understatement.  Yes, the DOD needs change but I doubt Hegseth is the right man for the job. But with the Republicans in charge of the senate he might get confirmed.  

22 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Perhaps the ones yowling and screeching with their leftover Trump obsession could take the time to read Petes book? Maybe then you will understand why this 44 year old OUTSIDER combat vet got picked.

Why not read ALL his books??  🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮

31 minutes ago, amykat said:

Why not read ALL his books??  🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮

Did you?

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

Actually the CEO of a large Defense Contractor would have relevant experience to run the DOD.  A good chunk of the annual defense  budget ($800 Billion) is spent on contracts to the various defense contractors.  Awarding  of contracts is a big part of the business of the DOD.  The DOD is run like a business. Government does not make anything.  What they need is actually purchased from companies.  The extent of Hegseth's leadership experience is an army platoon leader.  At best he was in charge of 30 to 50 soldiers.  If confirmed he would lead an agency with close to 2 million military, civilian and contractors.   Scaling up be an understatement.  Yes, the DOD needs change but I doubt Hegseth is the right man for the job. But with the Republicans in charge of the senate he might get confirmed.  

Yeah put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

 

Hows that Lloyd Austin guy working out? Military in Great shape. BTW, you arent an American, are you.

9 hours ago, nattaya09 said:

Yeah...an inexperienced SecDef might do something stupid like letting a CCP spy balloon take a liesurely flight over the entire US collecting data before shooting it down over the ocean.....or by creating the worst recruitment crisis in years by trying to force DEI buIIshlt into an agency whose sole purpose is to kill and blow things up. Or even something really....really stupid, like overseeing a botched troop withdrawal that unnecessarily leaves 13 US troops dead and $$billions in functioning military hardware abandoned to terrorists.

Since you are clearly not up to speed on matters of intelligence or intelligence itself, I'll explain what an experienced SecDef might do if a CCP spy balloon took a leisurely flight over the entire US....

 

Such a SecDef would know that there is nothing such a balloon could gather that they couldn't get from a Google search. No harm done. The SecDef would also know that capturing such a balloon would reveal the capabilities of Chinese spy tech. Oh, and by monitoring the balloon during its path, the telemetry or how it might send any data to receiving stations, plus where those stations might be, would also be gained.

 

It appears the balloon was a rogue operation by an idiot general in the PLA, and his stupidity was the US' gain.

 

Now about the Afghanistan withdrawal.....Biden had to deal with a 20 year war with $hundreds of billions of equipment delivered over those two decades, and do it AFTER his predecessor had not only set the timetable for withdrawal, but had also released 5000 Taliban prisoners being held by the US and Afghanistan govt. Many of those prisoners now run the country, while others were battle-hardened jihadis. The withdrawal had to happen with those 5000 not only free, but angry and out for retribution, such as engaging in suicide bomb attacks.

 

Had Biden/Austin done what critics bark about---such as withdrawing 20 years of equipment, how many more soldiers would you have been willing to sacrifice for that? Do you think the Taliban would have just sat back and not taking pot shots at soldiers and contractors gathering and shipping gear back to the US?

 

The withdrawal involved not only US troops and contractors, but also Afghanis who had assisted the US throughout the 20 year war. I guess you would have abandoned them and let the Taliban slaughter all of them and their families.

 

If you had ever served in a war zone or in Afghanistan, you would know that it is impossible to defend against every type of attack. Troops are exposed simply because the mission requires it.

 

Remember the soldiers killed in Mali while 47 was 45? Whose fault was that?  Also, do you considerate it appropriate for a President, when speaking with the spouse of one of the dead, telling her to "get over it; he knew the risks"? How about the soldiers injured when Iran sent missiles to a base near Irbil in Iraq during 45's term, especially when he claimed 'no harm done', when in fact many were seriously injured? That attack was a response to 45's order to take out Gen Suleimani.

 

 

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

Actually the CEO of a large Defense Contractor would have relevant experience to run the DOD.  A good chunk of the annual defense  budget ($800 Billion) is spent on contracts to the various defense contractors.  Awarding  of contracts is a big part of the business of the DOD.  The DOD is run like a business. Government does not make anything.  What they need is actually purchased from companies.  The extent of Hegseth's leadership experience is an army platoon leader.  At best he was in charge of 30 to 50 soldiers.  If confirmed he would lead an agency with close to 2 million military, civilian and contractors.   Scaling up be an understatement.  Yes, the DOD needs change but I doubt Hegseth is the right man for the job. But with the Republicans in charge of the senate he might get confirmed.  

Actually, the problem is that the DoD is NOT run like a business. There is little oversight and almost no accountability.  And nobody gets fired for debacles like the Afghanistan withdrawl.