The Hegseth "incident."
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Imagine undermining and denigrating a former combat soldiers experience like that just for political reasons. Shameful!
If Hegseth gets confirmed, and I have my doubts, at least he won't go AWOL for 7-10 days without telling POTUS.
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 15:49 last edited by@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Imagine undermining and denigrating a former combat soldiers experience like that just for political reasons. Shameful!
If Hegseth gets confirmed, and I have my doubts, at least he won't go AWOL for 7-10 days without telling POTUS.
Let's hope he doesn't get taken prisoner. Trump hates that.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 18:41 last edited by
Time for introspection...
The military industrial arms business is a trillion dollar business. The Defense Department is ripe with inefficiencies and crony politics. Money flows through the system in a torrent and nobody even tries to account for the individual drops. Corporations and individuals are getting filthy rich.
So ask yourself...Why the concerted push to kill the nomination?
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 19:27 last edited by
Because he’s obviously unqualified and a bit of a tool.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 20:40 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified and a bit of a tool.
Because he may have problems, but there's a hatchet job going on. All the won't go on the record sources scream it.
Why?
-
Time for introspection...
The military industrial arms business is a trillion dollar business. The Defense Department is ripe with inefficiencies and crony politics. Money flows through the system in a torrent and nobody even tries to account for the individual drops. Corporations and individuals are getting filthy rich.
So ask yourself...Why the concerted push to kill the nomination?
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 21:23 last edited by@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Time for introspection...
So ask yourself...Why the concerted push to kill the nomination?
It seems that's just the way these things go for Republicans. Kavanaugh was kicked pretty hard because of a high school party that he might or not have attended, Barrett was attacked for going to church on Sunday.
Yet the Democrats have guys like this in positions of power.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 22:44 last edited by Jolly 12 Jun 2024, 22:48
Listened to a guy today, filling in for Hannity. He said he'd done the weekend Fox & Friends show multiple times and had never detected any alcohol on Pete. He reached out this week to the other two hosts on the show, and both denied being contacted by anybody about Pete, and both stated they had never smelled alcohol on Pete.
Furthermore, they talked about show prep and performance. Hegseth seems to always be prepared and has never had any type of on-air problem.
Unnamed sources, indeed.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 22:50 last edited by
Again, women may be what sinks Hegseth.
But let it be named sources...
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 23:19 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 23:46 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
Do you really think secretaries of <whatever large governmental organization> in past administrations are mostly people qualified to be CEOs of large private companies? I mean, I haven't checked, but I would assume they don't often have those resumes either. Would a day in the life of a cabinet member be similar to a day in the life of a CEO? I don't know. I do know that the current secretary took 8 days off without telling anybody, and he almost got away with nobody even noticing.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 23:54 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Because he’s obviously unqualified....
This. As I said when he was first nominated, who can objectively look at his resume and say with a straight face that his background makes him qualified to run a multi billion dollar "company" with hundreds of thousands of employees.
Lloyd Austin was "qualified" and look what you have...
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 23:55 last edited by
As Sec Def, Hegseth would have fewer people reporting to him on a daily basis than he did as a Major.
I think what your concern is, @taiwan_girl , is that Hegseth’s experience as a Major was more tactical while the role of Sec Def is more strategic in nature. I would counter that his training and education in public policy prepares him for the strategic role and his background in tactical command gives him a unique perspective and an advantage over Sec Defs that only ever sat in leadership, never in tactical or even operational roles.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2024, 23:56 last edited by
No Hegseth has the chops in Public Policy. It’s his Pubic Policy that’s the problem.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2024, 00:05 last edited by
This, and other administrations, have shown us that managerial experience in the field in which you worked has no bearing on ability in the field to which you are nominated.
See: Becerra
See: Buttigieg -
This, and other administrations, have shown us that managerial experience in the field in which you worked has no bearing on ability in the field to which you are nominated.
See: Becerra
See: Buttigiegwrote on 7 Dec 2024, 00:58 last edited by@George-K I would have said (and maybe I did) the same thing about those two.
@Horace said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Do you really think secretaries of <whatever large governmental organization> in past administrations are mostly people qualified to be CEOs of large private companies?
That is not my point. It is not a matter of "were they qualified", but more "should they be qualified". Yes running a government department is not the same as being a CEO of a large company. I would say that it is even harder because of the more interference from outside sources. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap in the necessary skills.
@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Lloyd Austin was "qualified" and look what you have...
Just like every CEO does not succeed. But, the odds are greater the more qualified you are. To use a US football analogy. If you were hiring a new college football coach, would you be more likely to look at other former college coaches or would you hire a youth football coach from the local high school?
@LuFins-Dad I get what you are saying, but I am not sure that direct report is a good indicator. You probably have more direct reports than the Sec. of Defense. I just dont think he has the strategic and maybe as important, the knowledge of managing organizational things.
Anyways, it will be interesting. You guys have made good points, but not enough to make me vote in favor of his confirmation. 555
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2024, 01:06 last edited by Jolly 12 Jul 2024, 01:14
You hire the coach that works.
Sometimes, that means a high school coach goes to college. Many times, a college coach goes to the pros.
A lot depends upon what you want to do. The wing T, wishbone, veer option, West Coast or air raid offense...None were developed in the pros. Some even came from high school coaches.
TG's argument assumes that a qualified SecDef comes from the military industrial complex...Trump is trying to overhaul the military, make it more efficient and more lethal...Yet, she wants to hire somebody from the pack to oversee the pack.
No, you need an outsider. But you don't want a McNamara. Look how that worked out.
-
@George-K I would have said (and maybe I did) the same thing about those two.
@Horace said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Do you really think secretaries of <whatever large governmental organization> in past administrations are mostly people qualified to be CEOs of large private companies?
That is not my point. It is not a matter of "were they qualified", but more "should they be qualified". Yes running a government department is not the same as being a CEO of a large company. I would say that it is even harder because of the more interference from outside sources. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap in the necessary skills.
@Jolly said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Lloyd Austin was "qualified" and look what you have...
Just like every CEO does not succeed. But, the odds are greater the more qualified you are. To use a US football analogy. If you were hiring a new college football coach, would you be more likely to look at other former college coaches or would you hire a youth football coach from the local high school?
@LuFins-Dad I get what you are saying, but I am not sure that direct report is a good indicator. You probably have more direct reports than the Sec. of Defense. I just dont think he has the strategic and maybe as important, the knowledge of managing organizational things.
Anyways, it will be interesting. You guys have made good points, but not enough to make me vote in favor of his confirmation. 555
wrote on 7 Dec 2024, 01:08 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
That is not my point. It is not a matter of "were they qualified", but more "should they be qualified". Yes running a government department is not the same as being a CEO of a large company. I would say that it is even harder because of the more interference from outside sources. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap in the necessary skills.
Obviously it is not harder, if so many unqualified people are able to perform those jobs adequately. In fact to say that something is harder or easier, you'd have to have some way to measure job success, then see how many people can actually perform up to that standard. There is no way to measure the success of cabinet members. They are rhetorically accused of being great or failures in the political discourse, but that's never agreed upon. Private company CEOs, on the other hand, have very public and unambiguous measures of success.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2024, 01:43 last edited by
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2024, 02:27 last edited by
I read there is an upswell of troops supporting him. Not sure how that might be measured. Of course one can always cherry pick any given opinion from troops and veterans.
-
I read there is an upswell of troops supporting him. Not sure how that might be measured. Of course one can always cherry pick any given opinion from troops and veterans.
wrote on 7 Dec 2024, 02:32 last edited by@Horace said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Not sure how that might be measured.
Or, even relevant when it comes to this type of crap.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2024, 02:45 last edited by Renauda 12 Jul 2024, 02:47
I don’t understand what the issue is here. Why not give the guy the job? Qualifications in most instances are overrated in these cabinet appointments.
In any case with Trump in charge you know very well that if Hegseth makes a hash of it or is an embarrassment, the POTUS will fire his ass out of there in the blink of an eye.
