US Presidential Candidates

Michael Everett wrote:Whelp, anyone who wants to infiltrate the USA to do Wicked Things (TM) will obviously whip up a secondary (fake) set of accounts in advance, then give those passwords. The border police look at it, see standard "Hey, 'Murika Rulez! We'z Numba Wun!" and let villain pass through. Villain exits stage left while Border Police put philosopher under arrest for querying the need for guns in urban environments...

Exactly.

Meanwhile, thousands of passwords inexplicably gets out while a handful of border police gets "surprising" wads of cash...

And people that are too annoying to the current US regime "somehow" finds that their social media accounts starts behaving "oddly", making sure they look like offensive idiots or lunatics.

Tenshinai wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:Whelp, anyone who wants to infiltrate the USA to do Wicked Things (TM) will obviously whip up a secondary (fake) set of accounts in advance, then give those passwords. The border police look at it, see standard "Hey, 'Murika Rulez! We'z Numba Wun!" and let villain pass through. Villain exits stage left while Border Police put philosopher under arrest for querying the need for guns in urban environments...

Exactly.

Meanwhile, thousands of passwords inexplicably gets out while a handful of border police gets "surprising" wads of cash...

And people that are too annoying to the current US regime "somehow" finds that their social media accounts starts behaving "oddly", making sure they look like offensive idiots or lunatics.

What happened to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of (1980), which as a side effect was supposed to save on the unnecessary waste of many trees? Someone needs to inform the government that red tape is made from trees as well.

The PRA has changed so many times that each revision is obsolete before the ink dries. The PRA is the only thing that expires faster than Microsoft's Operating System.

The essence of the Federal Reports Act of 1942, the precursor of the PRA, which was to eliminate the paper waste of the government—the old days of each document having triplicates and translating into an inefficient and unnecessary mountainous load of paperwork—has become a doormat.

It eliminated the unnecessary workload alright, only to increase the amount of resources available for many other useless, unnecessary and pointless projects. Present project under discussion as a case in point.


Not to mention the sheer fright arising from the nerve and audacity of a country advocating freedom and rights—indeed founded on the principles—to even suggest such a sordid thing.

Why should I have to trust the government to keep my valuables in my home safe. Must I have to trust the government to keep my jewelry and cash safe as well, and therefore as a consequence must deposit them in a bank of their choosing as opposed to under or inside of my mattress if I choose to. If not, then why must I likewise trust them with my passwords which are essentially tied to my personal and private life, accounts, businesses, valuable research, publishings, etc., etc., when the government has been hacked more times than I? Why should I have to give anyone a key to my home or the passwords to my security system? It is essentially the same thing in many a case.

Crap like this is the first step to a socialist regime. Sooner or later we will be no different than the Cuban people who cannot own cars, homes, property and are told what to grow, what to sell and what to buy. The first step is always a Trojan Horse of a disguise as the Federal Reports Act of 1942 was the first step which led to this. That parent Act of 1942, which was to minimize the burden of paperwork to the public, wouldn't recognize its present offspring.

Tell you what, why don't I just leave my front door open with the light on for ya. It is easier for me that way and it will move me faster through the line. Do we have ourselves a deal Big Brother?

By the way, do I need to give up my wife, Johnson and testicles too?

Big Brother, Authoritarian personality, has become a bully.

In the end, Bin Laden was indeed successful. He said that the attack on America has irrevocably changed democracy, that American freedom and ideals would never be the same again, that the 911 strike has irretrievably taken away America's inherent freedom forever.

Was he wrong?

So, once upon a time (last year) Biden was speaking at a campaign event and said "there's a guy that follows me that has the nuclear codes" and kind of waved towards the back of the building saying he was "back there".

And all of right wing media erupted with stories like this:

"Biden Puts Nuclear Codes At Risk"

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8398/bide ... exit-modal


"Biden Exposes His Military Aide Carrying Nuclear Codes"

http://www.hannity.com/articles/electio ... -15012327/


"Joe Biden Exposes Military Aide with Nuclear Codes During Campaign Rally for Hillary"

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... y-hillary/


....


Meet Rick. (The Independent censored his name, the facebook post this picture showed up in did not):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78366.html


I await the horror and outrage from the right at the president's nuclear football carrier posing for social media pics with the Presidents personal club guests.

And anyone want to take a guess how they knew who was carrying the football? Wild guess who told them? Anyone present in that building who has an established track record of only caring about making people think he's big and important (like, for example, guy who has someone trailing him with nuclear launch codes important) and not caring about any consequences of his actions perhaps?




Oh, and teeny tiny side detail:

"Reports from Mr Trump’s meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe over the weekend, said the two leaders had been briefed about a missile launch in North Korea, while they were eating. CNN said that the two leaders began to discuss how to respond in full public view, and images of the two men and their staffs were snapped by club members."


But you know, good thing we dodged the "private e-mail server" bullet (in favor of Trump still using his personal unsecured phone).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... ?CMP=fb_gu

Shortest tenure by a National Security Advisor ever, by a mile.

Boy, good thing we don't have to worry about Trump being completely incompetent, ignorant, and lacking any self control or maturity because his management style is "picking the best people" to do all those jobs he doesn't understand or have the capability to handle.



So....

Who had "less than a month" in the "Scandal bad enough to bring down a Cabinet Member" pool?

I doubt anyone put money on that.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Eyal wrote:

smr wrote:So, the liberals/progressives believe that a person (Ivanka Trump) should be punished for the sins of the father. That mindset is quite insane.

While I'd normally agree with you, she's prominently involved politically both during and after the campaign.

biochem wrote:Anyone noticed the anti-female bias of the media? The people around Trump who get the most attacks are KellyAnne and Ivanka. They're not being nearly so vicious to the men. So much for the liberal media being feminist. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

I'd say Bannon and Spicer are taking a lot more heat than Ivanka Trump is. The others aren't seeing as frequent attacks/criticism because they haven't done much in this administration yet.

cthia wrote:Biochem, it is because men are idiots and there's always been a double standard enjoyed by us, and less is expected from them overall. Everyone knows that Trump is an idiot but since he is POTUS more is expected of him and rightly so. But when it comes to Trump's lack of regard towards women, psychologically it blows back onto his wife and daughter. The world's most intelligent species, women, expect, at the very least a "Daddy or Honey, you shouldn't say those sexist, racist, irresponsible, disrespectful, appalling and idiotic things about women. I'm a woman, don't you care about me, and what and who I represent?"

The old adage is implied in this case. "For evil to prevail, good simply has to do nothing."

The women in Trump's life appear to be doing nothing. It appears that they care about nothing but profit. So what better way to counter their madness than by hitting their pockets. I assure you what is on the minds of every potential female customer when they see Ivanka's clothing... "BITCH PLEASE! I'LL SHOW YOU!!!"

Do you think any other First Lady or First Daughters would have tolerated the sexist attitudes outwardly displayed by their husband or father?

Michelle would have torn Barack a new ass when he got home. "I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT CRAP!"

There's also an old saying that says "Behind every successful man STANDS a woman telling him he's wrong."

There are a few women standing behind Trump.

Perhaps the dumber the First Lady the dumber the President.

****** *


A quote from Watters World.

If Ivanka Trump's father was a Democrat, wouldn't we be hearing about "girl power?"

My point exactly!

A day late and a daughter short? IMHO, there is nothing wrong with this picture. This admisnistration has forgotten that not only is the president in the public's eye, but the First Lady and First Daughters are as well. There is something implied, something that is expected of them as well. A certain amount of decorum and savoir faire.

The thing is, I like Ivanka. She is business minded. Nothing wrong with that. She is drop dead gorgeous. Certainly nothing wrong with that. She is daddy's little girl. Nothing wrong with that either. But she cannot use her First Daughter status to bolster her business. She cannot play her title, as First Daughter, as a Trump card, pardon the pun. But as soon as her father solicited her for his Transition Team, her business life was in jeopardy.

I hate it for her, but the Emoluments Clause is there for a reason. The American people have a right to know and feel confident that every single presidential decision will be made in the best interest of the people, not made in the best interest of the president's or his wife or daughter's business concerns. No one is above the law, not even the president or his family. Breaching the Emoluments Clause is a serious offense. The fact that Trump does it is alarming. It possibly bespeaks his motives in seeking the presidency in the first place. It is the one thing he should have gone out of his way to avoid. Putting his daughter on his transition team was a bad move and made her ineligible to play "Monopoly."

"I've landed on Park Place. Pay me $200."

"No Ivanka, we won't," says America's female professionals.

"...and hopefully I can be there for him. And for those causes I've cared about my whole professional career." What causes Ivanka? Do they not naturally include girl power? You know, women's rights and the like? Enquiring minds want to know. Enquiring women nationwide demand to know, at the expense of your clothing line.


Throw us a bone. Throw Ivanka a bone Donald. If he had said "I apologize to women around the world. My daughter has seriously gotten on my case. I relent, I genuinely apologize" would have caused her clothing line to sell faster than $1 Super Bowl tickets.

Instead he goes on to show that he's simply a meathead with no bones about it.

gcomeau wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/14/flynn-resigns-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-russia-links-live?CMP=fb_gu

Shortest tenure by a National Security Advisor ever, by a mile.

Boy, good thing we don't have to worry about Trump being completely incompetent, ignorant, and lacking any self control or maturity because his management style is "picking the best people" to do all those jobs he doesn't understand or have the capability to handle.



So....

Who had "less than a month" in the "Scandal bad enough to bring down a Cabinet Member" pool?

If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?

biochem wrote:

gcomeau wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/14/flynn-resigns-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-russia-links-live?CMP=fb_gu

Shortest tenure by a National Security Advisor ever, by a mile.

Boy, good thing we don't have to worry about Trump being completely incompetent, ignorant, and lacking any self control or maturity because his management style is "picking the best people" to do all those jobs he doesn't understand or have the capability to handle.



So....

Who had "less than a month" in the "Scandal bad enough to bring down a Cabinet Member" pool?

If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?

Hubris, Biochem. He was likely very capable but just didn't constrain himself until Trump took office. Glad his hubris flared this early. Later could have been worse.

As it stands, what doesn't lead to an impeachment conviction will only make the administration stronger.

biochem wrote:

gcomeau wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/feb/14/flynn-resigns-donald-trump-national-security-adviser-russia-links-live?CMP=fb_gu

Shortest tenure by a National Security Advisor ever, by a mile.

Boy, good thing we don't have to worry about Trump being completely incompetent, ignorant, and lacking any self control or maturity because his management style is "picking the best people" to do all those jobs he doesn't understand or have the capability to handle.



So....

Who had "less than a month" in the "Scandal bad enough to bring down a Cabinet Member" pool?

If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?

You have got to be kidding me. You're going to try to put the blame for this on the United States Military rather than the one guy who picked him for this job who is supposed to be responsible for the entire country? Long way from "The Buck Stops Here" these days aren't we?


The Military is huge. In any organization that big basic human nature is going to allow at least a certain percentage of people to rise through the ranks who just shouldn't be there. Sorry, it's just going to happen.

The question I have for you is... how high do you think that percentage is in the US military?

90%? Do you think 9 out of 10 people in the US military who rise to the rank of General are conspiracy peddling political opportunists, so Trump was going to be screwed almost no matter who he picked?


50% maybe? Was it a coin flip if Trump picked someone from the ranks of the generals who was going to be this big a screw up?


My evaluation would be that number is in the single digits somewhere for people who rose to those levels primarily through politics and patronage rather than primarily through ability. And if we're talking about people as *exceptionally* unsuitable as Flynn, put a 0 and a decimal point in front of whatever that number is.


And Mr. "Picks the very best people, trust me, I know all the best people, the greatest, just the best"... Mr. "I know more than the Generals"... managed to find him.


And if you had been paying any level of attention through the entire campaign you would know how that happened. You see Trump doesn't pick people based on ability. Trump doesn't understand how to do that, he can't gauge ability because he has it confused with "thinks I'm great". The only thing Trump knows how to do when picking people (and this should be painfully obvious to anyone who looked at his Cabinet picks) is to check one or more of the following boxes:

1. This person is rich/powerful (therefore smart and skilled and someone I crave the approval of)
2. This person is famous/controversial (therefore someone who will get me attention by association and also someone I crave the approval of)
3. This person tells me how great I am. (therefore they are smart and skilled and have good judgement because they recognize how great I am)

Now occasionally he's going to get good people doing that just by happenstance. And a lot of the time he's going to get people who can, oh, bankrupt a freaking Casino if they're left to manage one.



Wake. Up.


And it's not like Flynn is a big shock that just got sprung on everyone in late breaking new FFS. EVERYONE knew he was a problem. EVERYONE has known it for months, except freaking Trump. Because he lacks the capacity to evaluate people beyond their quality of ass kissing, levels of fame, or zeros in their bank balance.


He may be referred to as "retired" but everyone knows he was effectively fired during the Obama administration. (But of course to anyone clustering around Trump, that's just going to be a selling point)


Back in October 2015 he was going on RT peddling propaganda that the US made a willful decision to allow the rise of ISIS.


This was December 2015, beginning of the Primary campaign:

http://static4.businessinsider.com/imag ... 995132.jpg

Oh look who that is sitting next to Putin at dinner. How many retired Generals do you think would let themselves end up sitting at the right side of Vladimir Putin at some gala event for the Kremlin's propaganda channel? Red flag in a prospective US National security Advisor maybe? If you're reasonable sure, not if you're Trump.


This is the kind of whackjob conspiracy theory bullshit the dumbass was tweeting back in November a week before the election:




Did that cost him the job? Of course not, that kind of crap GOT HIM the job. Because Trump liked it.


Then while waiting for the inauguration he illegally goes behind the then administration's back and discusses sanctions with the Russians, word gets out, he denies it. But FFS, how many red flags does it take??? STILL gets made NSA


And the guy who appointed him after ALL of that is the guy you keep making arguments will be able to do the job of president based on a claim he "picks good people".



Trump is dangerously incompetent and frankly there are serious questions to be asked about his mental health. His ONE demonstrated skill in life is self promotion. That's it. And you're turning a blind eye and saying "well the military shouldn't have let Flynn make it to General" (before he got fired)???


I would make yet more references to rose colored glasses, but it's looking more like rose colored welding goggles at this point.

biochem wrote:If the MILITARY was doing it's job in picking generals. Trump should be able to pick ANY general (or admiral if Navy) for national security advisor. If this guy is so bad how did our military let him rise so high?

Because in US military, seniority and servicetime is the only thing that guarantees anything.
Survive long enough in the service without any blatant black marks, and a general you will be.

It´s one of the reasons US military officers average quality is, not so great.




##########

gcomeau wrote:My evaluation would be that number is in the single digits somewhere for people who rose to those levels primarily through politics and patronage rather than primarily through ability.

While you´re right that the percentage of poor vs ok or better isn´t huge, it´s almost certainly a lot worse than you think it is.

The US military is a huge mess of patronage and politics, and as i said above, add to that that servicetime can make almost any officer end up as a general, and well, the result isn´t pretty.

If the US MoD PM system was still open to the public, i could have sent you links to the most hilarious "domestic" arguments there, think "Yes, minister" mixed with "House of Cards" then take the weird up to 11 and throw in military leetspeak, including a crapload of arguing about how bad that is and how to get things changed, from what i read there, that discussion has been ongoing for decades, the internet just made it that much livelier.

The numbers often touted by posters there suggested that at least 10% of US military officers above captain rank were unable to do their jobs.
The discussions about whether it was more or less at captain and below was hot enough to melt stars.

On an institutional basis, the US military is a very very sick puppy. It generally works by throwing obscene amount of resources and effort against any problem.


You´re still not wrong that it takes effort or some serious idiocy to pick outstandingly BAD choices...