The Hegseth "incident."
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Regarding the Sec. of Defense - still not sure why people with TDS (Trump Deification Syndrome) think he is a qualified candidate? (regardless of "well, so and so was Secretary and had no qualifications")
In any normal organization, picking someone from his level and trying to make him CEO would be laughed at.
In any normal organization, you're not choosing from an incestual talent pool.
@Jolly I agree with you.
But I think if Senators looked at this with ration, it would be much better. Tell the President to be that this candidate just is not qualfied. Dont make us reject him.
(yes yes yes yes, both sides are guilty. If VP Harris won, and she nominated a Sec. of Defense with the same qualifications, all the Dem senators would be talking about how great he was.)
At some point, putting blind loyalty in front of good of the country is not a good thing.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Trump’s win was the 44th biggest electoral college victory out of the 60 we’ve had.
And in 2016, his margin of victory (in electoral votes) was greater than Biden's in 2020 (77 vs 74) , and only 7 less than JFK (77 vs 84). Looks like 2024 will be the more than JFK.
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":(in electoral votes)...
Not a valid comparator over time as the number of total EVs has increased.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@Jolly I agree with you.
But I think if Senators looked at this with ration, it would be much better. Tell the President to be that this candidate just is not qualfied. Dont make us reject him.
(yes yes yes yes, both sides are guilty. If VP Harris won, and she nominated a Sec. of Defense with the same qualifications, all the Dem senators would be talking about how great he was.)
At some point, putting blind loyalty in front of good of the country is not a good thing.
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@Jolly I agree with you.
But I think if Senators looked at this with ration, it would be much better. Tell the President to be that this candidate just is not qualfied. Dont make us reject him.
(yes yes yes yes, both sides are guilty. If VP Harris won, and she nominated a Sec. of Defense with the same qualifications, all the Dem senators would be talking about how great he was.)
At some point, putting blind loyalty in front of good of the country is not a good thing.
Corporations are judged by easily quantifiable measures of success. There is no such measuring stick for government organizations, and that fact complicates the selection process of the employees at every level, including the top. We can say that a bad CEO will be bad for the corporate profits. What can we actually say about a "bad secretary of defense"? Some hand waving about geopolitical stuff that armchair generals have lots of opinions about?
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@Jolly I agree with you.
But I think if Senators looked at this with ration, it would be much better. Tell the President to be that this candidate just is not qualfied. Dont make us reject him.
(yes yes yes yes, both sides are guilty. If VP Harris won, and she nominated a Sec. of Defense with the same qualifications, all the Dem senators would be talking about how great he was.)
At some point, putting blind loyalty in front of good of the country is not a good thing.
Corporations are judged by easily quantifiable measures of success. There is no such measuring stick for government organizations, and that fact complicates the selection process of the employees at every level, including the top. We can say that a bad CEO will be bad for the corporate profits. What can we actually say about a "bad secretary of defense"? Some hand waving about geopolitical stuff that armchair generals have lots of opinions about?
@Horace Part of the problem is that most government appointed positions like the one we are talking about force the leader to be very short term focused because they know they are gone after just a few years and really have no accountability for their actions.
"Oh, I did this and it resulted in this immediate positive impact" Even though in five years it is a major problem and the initial thing never should have been done.
Good CEO's have the ability to think longer term. (Yes, they are also watching the stock price on a day to day basis........ LOL)
-
@Horace Part of the problem is that most government appointed positions like the one we are talking about force the leader to be very short term focused because they know they are gone after just a few years and really have no accountability for their actions.
"Oh, I did this and it resulted in this immediate positive impact" Even though in five years it is a major problem and the initial thing never should have been done.
Good CEO's have the ability to think longer term. (Yes, they are also watching the stock price on a day to day basis........ LOL)
@taiwan_girl said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@Horace Part of the problem is that most government appointed positions like the one we are talking about force the leader to be very short term focused because they know they are gone after just a few years and really have no accountability for their actions.
"Oh, I did this and it resulted in this immediate positive impact" Even though in five years it is a major problem and the initial thing never should have been done.
Good CEO's have the ability to think longer term. (Yes, they are also watching the stock price on a day to day basis........ LOL)
The U.S. military is not a corporation. Any sane corporation would have cut its expenses and fed Taiwan to the Chinese Dragon a long time ago.
-
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":(in electoral votes)...
Not a valid comparator over time as the number of total EVs has increased.
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":(in electoral votes)...
Not a valid comparator over time as the number of total EVs has increased.
Are you saying that Biden‘s margin of victory in 2020 should be discounted?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":(in electoral votes)...
Not a valid comparator over time as the number of total EVs has increased.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":(in electoral votes)...
Not a valid comparator over time as the number of total EVs has increased.
Are you saying that Biden‘s margin of victory in 2020 should be discounted?
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@George-K said in The Hegseth "incident.":
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":(in electoral votes)...
Not a valid comparator over time as the number of total EVs has increased.
Are you saying that Biden‘s margin of victory in 2020 should be discounted?
Seems like a whattaboutism fail.
I never mentioned anything about ‘discounts’. I merely used his 75% performance as counter evidence that his opponent party ‘collapsed’. That just doesn’t apply in such an historically narrow victory. I wouldn’t say the GOP collapsed in 2020 either. Or the Dems in 2000, etc.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Was the Trump campaign the biggest comeback ever? Or was it one of the biggest collapses by the Dems ever?
Neither.
Recall Nixon not only lost in 60, he then lost statewide election in CA. Everybody, including Nixon himself, wrote off his future political career.
As for the Dems, they suffered a clear loss but put it in historical perspective- Trump’s win was the 44th biggest electoral college victory out of the 60 we’ve had. That’s like 75th percentile.
-
@jon-nyc Detailed article on this. If even half is true, not very good at all.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/pete-hegseths-secret-history
I still think he unqualified, but this additional stuff will make me think that he will soon come out with a statement, "although untrue, it is becoming a distraction to the great work ahead by President Trump, and therefore, I am withdrawing from the nomination."
-
Re her post, the reasons he shouldn’t be SecDef have nothing to do with the DoD, and everything to do with Pete Hegseth.
@jon-nyc said in The Hegseth "incident.":
Re her post, the reasons he shouldn’t be SecDef have nothing to do with the DoD, and everything to do with Pete Hegseth.
No, she says that because of unproven allegations, that's disqualifying.
As was posted above, Tower might have been a womanizer, but we would have gotten someone who could run the DoD. He would have been competent.
