Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Fetterman’s a no

Fetterman’s a no

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
19 Posts 5 Posters 93 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • taiwan_girlT Offline
    taiwan_girlT Offline
    taiwan_girl
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    I disagree a bit. Based on past history, how does President Trump treat people who disagree with him or push back to him?

    I think that both Kennedy and Gabbard are smart people, but it would nave to think that they are not aware of the past history and what happens to people who do not answer "yes" to every question and suggestion from President Trump. (Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration there. :P)

    So, while being a brown nose to President Trump is not their only qualification, I am sure it was a significant part of the selection.

    Re: Fauci and generals being better choices.
    I still believe that is the case. Generally (of course nothing is 100%), you will get someone more qualified and better able to run a large complex organization if they have the background and experience in that field. The odds are more in your favor.

    JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
    • RenaudaR Offline
      RenaudaR Offline
      Renauda
      wrote on last edited by Renauda
      #10

      I have every confidence in Russian state controlled media reports that Tulsi Gabbard will do one helluva job sorting the wheat from the chaff in her capacity as Gatekeeper and Chief for the president’s intelligence briefings. Moreover and perhaps most importantly, she will do a stellar job ensuring the necessary objectivity so that the president will hear only what he wants to hear.

      Who knows but someday she may even receive a medal from a perennially peace loving foreign nation that spans much of Eurasia, for her selfless efforts as a fellow traveller.

      Elbows up!

      HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
      • HoraceH Offline
        HoraceH Offline
        Horace
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        @taiwan_girl Trump didn't choose those people to maintain a steady ship in a massive public sector bureaucracy. You want people qualified to do a different job than the one Trump wants them to do. (And the one his voters want them to do.)

        Education is extremely important.

        taiwan_girlT 1 Reply Last reply
        • RenaudaR Renauda

          I have every confidence in Russian state controlled media reports that Tulsi Gabbard will do one helluva job sorting the wheat from the chaff in her capacity as Gatekeeper and Chief for the president’s intelligence briefings. Moreover and perhaps most importantly, she will do a stellar job ensuring the necessary objectivity so that the president will hear only what he wants to hear.

          Who knows but someday she may even receive a medal from a perennially peace loving foreign nation that spans much of Eurasia, for her selfless efforts as a fellow traveller.

          HoraceH Offline
          HoraceH Offline
          Horace
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          @Renauda It may well be that Tulsi's perspective is preferred by Russia as compared to the perspective of her predecessor. But I'm not interested in being beholden to doing the opposite of what might coincidentally be advantageous to another country, unless that advantage demonstrably works counter to the interests of my country. I am confident that any boon to Russia that Tulsi represents, is coincidental, and that secondary effects will be considered if those advantages are not to America's advantage.

          Education is extremely important.

          RenaudaR 1 Reply Last reply
          • HoraceH Horace

            @taiwan_girl Trump didn't choose those people to maintain a steady ship in a massive public sector bureaucracy. You want people qualified to do a different job than the one Trump wants them to do. (And the one his voters want them to do.)

            taiwan_girlT Offline
            taiwan_girlT Offline
            taiwan_girl
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            @Horace said in Fetterman’s a no:

            (And the one his voters want them to do.)

            To split hairs, because a person is voted into office does not mean that everything that person does is what the voters wanted.

            If we go that far, then would you agree that when President Biden was elected in 2020, the voters wanted him to increase transgender rights, etc?

            Anyways, you always have good, well thought out points and make me think! 😘

            HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
            • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

              @Horace said in Fetterman’s a no:

              (And the one his voters want them to do.)

              To split hairs, because a person is voted into office does not mean that everything that person does is what the voters wanted.

              If we go that far, then would you agree that when President Biden was elected in 2020, the voters wanted him to increase transgender rights, etc?

              Anyways, you always have good, well thought out points and make me think! 😘

              HoraceH Offline
              HoraceH Offline
              Horace
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              @taiwan_girl said in Fetterman’s a no:

              @Horace said in Fetterman’s a no:

              (And the one his voters want them to do.)

              To split hairs, because a person is voted into office does not mean that everything that person does is what the voters wanted.

              If we go that far, then would you agree that when President Biden was elected in 2020, the voters wanted him to increase transgender rights, etc?

              Trump campaigned on anti-establishment stuff; it is fundamental to his brand. Biden (and Harris) intentionally kept away from branding themselves with the more fringe progressive ideas. Those ideas are an important part of the religious aspect of their voters, but their campaign strategists are very clear that they diminish electability.

              Anyways, you always have good, well thought out points and make me think! 😘

              Thanks TG! That means a lot coming from an international woman of mystery.

              Education is extremely important.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • HoraceH Horace

                @Renauda It may well be that Tulsi's perspective is preferred by Russia as compared to the perspective of her predecessor. But I'm not interested in being beholden to doing the opposite of what might coincidentally be advantageous to another country, unless that advantage demonstrably works counter to the interests of my country. I am confident that any boon to Russia that Tulsi represents, is coincidental, and that secondary effects will be considered if those advantages are not to America's advantage.

                RenaudaR Offline
                RenaudaR Offline
                Renauda
                wrote on last edited by Renauda
                #15

                @Horace said in Fetterman’s a no:

                @Renauda It may well be that Tulsi's perspective is preferred by Russia as compared to the perspective of her predecessor. But I'm not interested in being beholden to doing the opposite of what might coincidentally be advantageous to another country, unless that advantage demonstrably works counter to the interests of my country. I am confident that any boon to Russia that Tulsi represents, is coincidental, and that secondary effects will be considered if those advantages are not to America's advantage.

                Well, I guess we’ll just have to find that out although her past would betray a distinct tendency towards sloppy thinking.

                Personally I would, like Fetterman, not give her the benefit of the doubt. My vote would be a No as I favour a candidate for the role who has a demonstrated and consistent track record in the exercise of caution and sober thinking.

                Elbows up!

                1 Reply Last reply
                • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

                  I disagree a bit. Based on past history, how does President Trump treat people who disagree with him or push back to him?

                  I think that both Kennedy and Gabbard are smart people, but it would nave to think that they are not aware of the past history and what happens to people who do not answer "yes" to every question and suggestion from President Trump. (Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration there. :P)

                  So, while being a brown nose to President Trump is not their only qualification, I am sure it was a significant part of the selection.

                  Re: Fauci and generals being better choices.
                  I still believe that is the case. Generally (of course nothing is 100%), you will get someone more qualified and better able to run a large complex organization if they have the background and experience in that field. The odds are more in your favor.

                  JollyJ Offline
                  JollyJ Offline
                  Jolly
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  @taiwan_girl said in Fetterman’s a no:

                  I disagree a bit. Based on past history, how does President Trump treat people who disagree with him or push back to him?

                  I think that both Kennedy and Gabbard are smart people, but it would nave to think that they are not aware of the past history and what happens to people who do not answer "yes" to every question and suggestion from President Trump. (Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration there. :P)

                  So, while being a brown nose to President Trump is not their only qualification, I am sure it was a significant part of the selection.

                  Re: Fauci and generals being better choices.
                  I still believe that is the case. Generally (of course nothing is 100%), you will get someone more qualified and better able to run a large complex organization if they have the background and experience in that field. The odds are more in your favor.

                  Why are your better choices always Swamp Critters or Democrats?

                  “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                  Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nyc
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    There’s skeptics and there’s cranks. RFK and Tulsi are the latter.

                    RFK could be a bit more skeptical of every new age health fad and conspiracy theory that crosses the transom. Tulsi could be a bit more skeptical of Russian talking points.

                    Only non-witches get due process.

                    • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • JollyJ Offline
                      JollyJ Offline
                      Jolly
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      Neither is stupid.

                      “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                      Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                      RenaudaR 1 Reply Last reply
                      • JollyJ Jolly

                        Neither is stupid.

                        RenaudaR Offline
                        RenaudaR Offline
                        Renauda
                        wrote on last edited by Renauda
                        #19

                        @Jolly said in Fetterman’s a no:

                        Neither is stupid.

                        That’s not an excuse for either of them. In fact, it isn’t even pertinent to what Jon wrote.

                        Elbows up!

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • Users
                        • Groups