|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 01 2018 11:27 Slaughter wrote:
I wasn't even aware of this group until Oliver did a show on them.
That's how I learned about it as well. That's one of the other pitfalls that comes from not regulating your free-market capitalism at the top end. All your TV stations end up basically owned by one dude, and then when that one dude has political opinions that are in line with your proponents of unregulated free-market, because of course he will, he can just use that capital, power and influence to further peddle those views and his own interests.
But as an aside, John Oliver's a funny dude, and has a legitimate interest in providing exposure to the lesser well-known stories, which is something we need. He's an entertainer first, so grain of salt and all that, but he does give his topics decent coverage.
|
None of this would have been possible in the 1980s or early 1990s. But we regulated cable networks and everyone else along with them. This is just the logical extension of removing all the regulations we put in place post WW2.
|
On April 01 2018 11:44 Plansix wrote:
None of this would have been possible in the 1980s or early 1990s. But we regulated cable networks and everyone else along with them. This is just the logical extension of removing all the regulations we put in place post WW2.
The CIA seemed to do just fine at doing the same type of stuff during those years. I doubt some regulations would do much to resolve the underlying issues.
|
On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 08:46 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 07:39 Mercy13 wrote:On April 01 2018 07:06 A3th3r wrote:[quote] I thought it was pretty clear that Fox News has a bit of a conservative bent to them, whereas MSNBC tends to lean liberal, generally. These news organizations do try to maintain their neutrality on their stances on various topics, but the positions & views of the "head honchos" of the organizations do come through in terms of how the "rank & file" people think. There's just no way around that so the only thing is to just accept that & just go with the two-party system that exists in America. That being said, in America there are elections every four years that matter & the results do count. Similarly, in France, Emmanuel Macron was elected as a bit of a "firebrand" who was going to shake things up a bit & get the people excited about politics again - and he has succeeded at doing that to some degree. He does not seem to consider Turkey to be liberal enough or cosmopolitan enough to succeed, however. I guess Macron reprimanded the Turks for their actions against the Kurdish ethnic group. http://www.france24.com/en/20180331-france-turkey-macron-kurds-erdogan-syria-ypg-manbij-crossed-line What does that have to do with Trump’s reasoning for hiring a guy known for manipulating intelligence for political reasons into a position which is responsible for delivering unbiased intelligence assessments? Or did you want to discuss something else? I guess I don't care why he hired this guy or that guy except that they have positions in the cabinet that they need filled & so it is good that they have made progress on that. That being said, I hope that Bolton doesn't just become a "soundbite guy" who provides the national news media with sound bites that they can talk about on their news programs for an hour or two every day or every few days. I guess Trump is now considered insufficiently conservative to the Koch brothers, who are big donors to their favorite political candidates year after year. https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/11/30/44-trump-administration-officials-have-close-ties-koch-brothers-public-citizenI'm not too sure how much that will impact things on the national stage but I guess this is their time to shine in terms of there is a Republican in the Oval Office now so they should try to capitalize on that as far as the hot button issues that they are trying to see some change on. why not care about the quality of the people hired? just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions.
Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video
|
On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 08:46 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 07:39 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
What does that have to do with Trump’s reasoning for hiring a guy known for manipulating intelligence for political reasons into a position which is responsible for delivering unbiased intelligence assessments? Or did you want to discuss something else? I guess I don't care why he hired this guy or that guy except that they have positions in the cabinet that they need filled & so it is good that they have made progress on that. That being said, I hope that Bolton doesn't just become a "soundbite guy" who provides the national news media with sound bites that they can talk about on their news programs for an hour or two every day or every few days. I guess Trump is now considered insufficiently conservative to the Koch brothers, who are big donors to their favorite political candidates year after year. https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/11/30/44-trump-administration-officials-have-close-ties-koch-brothers-public-citizenI'm not too sure how much that will impact things on the national stage but I guess this is their time to shine in terms of there is a Republican in the Oval Office now so they should try to capitalize on that as far as the hot button issues that they are trying to see some change on. why not care about the quality of the people hired? just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video
You're talking like one of Trump's communications people. Lots of nice words with no real substance, and certainly not addressing any of the concerns people are bringing up - specifically relating to Bolton's role in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholesale deception of the American public that the Bush administration engaged in to drum up support for it.
We don't care that Bolton has no problem with the role as it is. We don't care that Mattis gets along with him. What's important is that Bolton was an enthusiastic supporter if not key part of lying to the US populace and flagrantly violating international law by invading Iraq.
|
On April 01 2018 12:24 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 08:46 A3th3r wrote:[quote] I guess I don't care why he hired this guy or that guy except that they have positions in the cabinet that they need filled & so it is good that they have made progress on that. That being said, I hope that Bolton doesn't just become a "soundbite guy" who provides the national news media with sound bites that they can talk about on their news programs for an hour or two every day or every few days. I guess Trump is now considered insufficiently conservative to the Koch brothers, who are big donors to their favorite political candidates year after year. https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/11/30/44-trump-administration-officials-have-close-ties-koch-brothers-public-citizenI'm not too sure how much that will impact things on the national stage but I guess this is their time to shine in terms of there is a Republican in the Oval Office now so they should try to capitalize on that as far as the hot button issues that they are trying to see some change on. why not care about the quality of the people hired? just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video You're talking like one of Trump's communications people. Lots of nice words with no real substance, and certainly not addressing any of the concerns people are bringing up - specifically relating to Bolton's role in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholesale deception of the American public that the Bush administration engaged in to drum up support for it. We don't care that Bolton has no problem with the role as it is. We don't care that Mattis gets along with him. What's important is that Bolton was an enthusiastic supporter if not key part of lying to the US populace and flagrantly violating international law by invading Iraq.
Ok, you may have a legitimate point there. I understand that he is a partisan. He does happen to be a partisan who is of the same political party as the president. The liberals do the same thing when they are in power - they put in people that they feel are in touch with what is best for the world as a whole & not just their constituents. That's how politics goes - I'm not sure how that is an issue, I guess
|
On April 01 2018 11:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 11:07 Plansix wrote:
This video is striking. People should be very concerned about the Sinclair Broadcast Group and their efforts to control local media. I am surprised how obvious the effort to push this narrative is. They've been doing this for a long time. People noticed years ago that local news stations would all repeat the same stories as if all reading the same script but with no public coordination/attribution. If people find this concerning or novel they would be well served to learn about Operation Mockingbird. I'm glad Trump has managed to make people more aware/alarmed by it though. Here's an old write up about how this works: Show nested quote +How exactly does this happen? And why does it keep happening?
The answer is one of the little-known facts about “local” TV news: In some instances it isn’t local at all.
The “salty” story was produced by an “affiliate service,” CNN Newsource, and syndicated to dozens of stations around the country. Stations not only get prepackaged footage from such services, but a script that introduces the footage, as well. Stations then “localize” the canned package by having one of their anchors read the one-size-fits-all copy.
Viewers typically have no idea that a seemingly local story has come from a centralized source in New York, Los Angeles or, in this case, Washington. The CNN Newsource story, for example, doesn’t mention CNN Newsource or CNN, its parent company. The reporter on the story simply signed off, “In Washington, I’m Karin Caifa.” (Caifa and CNN Newsource were also behind the widely played story about “social networking” for dogs via a Web site that connects pet owners.)
CBS’s affiliate service, called CBS Newspath, produced a piece last year about Conan O’Brien that became raw material for another clip job on Conan’s show. The story was about O’Brien’s plan to be the officiant in the marriage of a same-sex couple on his program. More than a dozen stations ran the story with the same scripted intro from the CBS service: “Conan O’Brien may be about to push the envelope on late-night television.” www.washingtonpost.com
Yes, it's not unusual for small stations to use information from the same press agency word for word, due to small budgets, laziness, even marketing. But a political manifesto sent top down by a media conglomerate is pretty insane. Obviously we've seen media conglomerates push the same political themes via all their outlets before, but they were cautious enough to make those outlets freestyle a little with it. Sinclair's hubris deserves all the backlash they are getting for this cacotopian collage.
|
On April 01 2018 13:01 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 12:24 Kyadytim wrote:On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
why not care about the quality of the people hired?
just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video You're talking like one of Trump's communications people. Lots of nice words with no real substance, and certainly not addressing any of the concerns people are bringing up - specifically relating to Bolton's role in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholesale deception of the American public that the Bush administration engaged in to drum up support for it. We don't care that Bolton has no problem with the role as it is. We don't care that Mattis gets along with him. What's important is that Bolton was an enthusiastic supporter if not key part of lying to the US populace and flagrantly violating international law by invading Iraq. Ok, you may have a legitimate point there. I understand that he is a partisan. He does happen to be a partisan who is of the same political party as the president. The liberals do the same thing when they are in power - they put in people that they feel are in touch with what is best for the world as a whole & not just their constituents. That's how politics goes - I'm not sure how that is an issue, I guess
It's got very little to do with that he's partisan, but what policies he's specifically known for. I'd be substantially more okay with an partisan who was for isolationism or at least wasn't known for basically wanting America to be a de-facto ruler of the world via military might and a willingness to use it.
|
On April 01 2018 14:00 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 13:01 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 12:24 Kyadytim wrote:On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:
[quote]
I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession.
Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video You're talking like one of Trump's communications people. Lots of nice words with no real substance, and certainly not addressing any of the concerns people are bringing up - specifically relating to Bolton's role in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholesale deception of the American public that the Bush administration engaged in to drum up support for it. We don't care that Bolton has no problem with the role as it is. We don't care that Mattis gets along with him. What's important is that Bolton was an enthusiastic supporter if not key part of lying to the US populace and flagrantly violating international law by invading Iraq. Ok, you may have a legitimate point there. I understand that he is a partisan. He does happen to be a partisan who is of the same political party as the president. The liberals do the same thing when they are in power - they put in people that they feel are in touch with what is best for the world as a whole & not just their constituents. That's how politics goes - I'm not sure how that is an issue, I guess It's got very little to do with that he's partisan, but what policies he's specifically known for. I'd be substantially more okay with an partisan who was for isolationism or at least wasn't known for basically wanting America to be a de-facto ruler of the world via military might and a willingness to use it.
Not at all. I think that is a bad idea because there just isn't enough manpower for that to be a realistic goal. The US doesn't even allow Puerto Rico in to the union and they have been an American territory for decades & decades. There is no interest in America controlling vast swaths of crappy turf that isn't productive or successful on it's own. Hawaii & Alaska are the newest states in the Union and they have a strategic location that is of interest for national security. Come on now - that just simply isn't very smart thinking.
|
On April 01 2018 14:05 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 14:00 Kyadytim wrote:On April 01 2018 13:01 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 12:24 Kyadytim wrote:On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem?
and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video You're talking like one of Trump's communications people. Lots of nice words with no real substance, and certainly not addressing any of the concerns people are bringing up - specifically relating to Bolton's role in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholesale deception of the American public that the Bush administration engaged in to drum up support for it. We don't care that Bolton has no problem with the role as it is. We don't care that Mattis gets along with him. What's important is that Bolton was an enthusiastic supporter if not key part of lying to the US populace and flagrantly violating international law by invading Iraq. Ok, you may have a legitimate point there. I understand that he is a partisan. He does happen to be a partisan who is of the same political party as the president. The liberals do the same thing when they are in power - they put in people that they feel are in touch with what is best for the world as a whole & not just their constituents. That's how politics goes - I'm not sure how that is an issue, I guess It's got very little to do with that he's partisan, but what policies he's specifically known for. I'd be substantially more okay with an partisan who was for isolationism or at least wasn't known for basically wanting America to be a de-facto ruler of the world via military might and a willingness to use it. Not at all. I think that is a bad idea because there just isn't enough manpower for that to be a realistic goal. The US doesn't even allow Puerto Rico in to the union and they have been an American territory for decades & decades. There is no interest in America controlling vast swaths of crappy turf that isn't productive or successful on it's own. Hawaii & Alaska are the newest states in the Union and they have a strategic location that is of interest for national security. Come on now - that just simply isn't very smart thinking.
Let's be clear about this. Puerto Rico and Washington DC are not allowed proper representation because the GOP don't want to let them in because they know they will vote Democrat in major elections.
All of the motions for votes or even debates on these topics have been heavily voted down by REPUBLICANS over the last few decades.
I mean we just need to look at the current administration to see just how much animosity there is from the party towards the region.
Source Notice how consistently Democrats have supported the statehood movement. It's a completely partisan reason why they are not given proper representation.
|
On April 01 2018 13:01 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 12:24 Kyadytim wrote:On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
why not care about the quality of the people hired?
just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video You're talking like one of Trump's communications people. Lots of nice words with no real substance, and certainly not addressing any of the concerns people are bringing up - specifically relating to Bolton's role in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq and the wholesale deception of the American public that the Bush administration engaged in to drum up support for it. We don't care that Bolton has no problem with the role as it is. We don't care that Mattis gets along with him. What's important is that Bolton was an enthusiastic supporter if not key part of lying to the US populace and flagrantly violating international law by invading Iraq. Ok, you may have a legitimate point there. I understand that he is a partisan. He does happen to be a partisan who is of the same political party as the president. The liberals do the same thing when they are in power - they put in people that they feel are in touch with what is best for the world as a whole & not just their constituents. That's how politics goes - I'm not sure how that is an issue, I guess The man fabricated a war that killed thousands of Americans.
But sure, hes 'a little partisan'.
|
On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 08:46 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 07:39 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
What does that have to do with Trump’s reasoning for hiring a guy known for manipulating intelligence for political reasons into a position which is responsible for delivering unbiased intelligence assessments? Or did you want to discuss something else? I guess I don't care why he hired this guy or that guy except that they have positions in the cabinet that they need filled & so it is good that they have made progress on that. That being said, I hope that Bolton doesn't just become a "soundbite guy" who provides the national news media with sound bites that they can talk about on their news programs for an hour or two every day or every few days. I guess Trump is now considered insufficiently conservative to the Koch brothers, who are big donors to their favorite political candidates year after year. https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/11/30/44-trump-administration-officials-have-close-ties-koch-brothers-public-citizenI'm not too sure how much that will impact things on the national stage but I guess this is their time to shine in terms of there is a Republican in the Oval Office now so they should try to capitalize on that as far as the hot button issues that they are trying to see some change on. why not care about the quality of the people hired? just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video
I did not ever say HE was the one that was not well qualified. I said that trump has hired several people who are not; like Betsy DeVos, and that is troubling. Our conversation had shifted somewhat to the more general patterns of hiring and of trump's hiring, and issues therein, rather than being exclusively about bolton. There are issues/objections with Bolton, but they are not ones of qualifications, and they have been well detailed by others' responses to you in this thread.
|
United States42291 Posts
A3th3r, the purpose of saying that an individual has job experience is to implicitly say “we know he’d be good at the job because he’s done it before and was good then”. Bolton has done the job before and been terrible. It’s job experience in the same way that Enron’s accountants have job experience. Zero job experience would actually put you ahead of Bolton at this point. The job experience argument relies upon their past experience being something you would want to happen again.
As for all that shit about how top corporate figures don’t want to do public service, McNamara. They don’t want to do it in the Trump White House. That’s different.
|
On April 01 2018 20:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 08:46 A3th3r wrote:[quote] I guess I don't care why he hired this guy or that guy except that they have positions in the cabinet that they need filled & so it is good that they have made progress on that. That being said, I hope that Bolton doesn't just become a "soundbite guy" who provides the national news media with sound bites that they can talk about on their news programs for an hour or two every day or every few days. I guess Trump is now considered insufficiently conservative to the Koch brothers, who are big donors to their favorite political candidates year after year. https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/11/30/44-trump-administration-officials-have-close-ties-koch-brothers-public-citizenI'm not too sure how much that will impact things on the national stage but I guess this is their time to shine in terms of there is a Republican in the Oval Office now so they should try to capitalize on that as far as the hot button issues that they are trying to see some change on. why not care about the quality of the people hired? just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video I did not ever say HE was the one that was not well qualified. I said that trump has hired several people who are not; like Betsy DeVos, and that is troubling. Our conversation had shifted somewhat to the more general patterns of hiring and of trump's hiring, and issues therein, rather than being exclusively about bolton. There are issues/objections with Bolton, but they are not ones of qualifications, and they have been well detailed by others' responses to you in this thread.
So I guess Betsy DeVos isn't some kind of deviant, she is a Michigan education reform advocate. I guess she has been pushing for "school choice" in famously blighted Detroit. That is a thing that makes sense there as things are not so hot in terms of test scores & education rankings nowadays in that part of the country. Education is pretty good there in Minnesota in general so that's not really an issue of contention around this neck of the woods. That being said, yeah, sounds like she's been involved in education matters for 20-30 years & knows all the topics inside & out, so, yep, that's a good person to be the US Secretary of Education. I guess the political party affiliation isn't supposed to matter but I know a lot of people pay attention to that in this "hot-button issue politics" age we live in. I guess she is rich & pro-life, if that matters (doesn't seem relevant)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?utm_term=.912c7879de83
Trump is going to find fresh hires where he can, and that does tend to be in that range of folks who aren't in the Fortune 500 but aren't work-from-home types either. People in that spectrum. At work they hire a lot of people but about half don't make it through the (extensive, fully paid) three month training period
|
On April 02 2018 02:59 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 20:04 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
why not care about the quality of the people hired?
just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video I did not ever say HE was the one that was not well qualified. I said that trump has hired several people who are not; like Betsy DeVos, and that is troubling. Our conversation had shifted somewhat to the more general patterns of hiring and of trump's hiring, and issues therein, rather than being exclusively about bolton. There are issues/objections with Bolton, but they are not ones of qualifications, and they have been well detailed by others' responses to you in this thread. So I guess Betsy DeVos isn't some kind of deviant, she is a Michigan education reform advocate. I guess she has been pushing for "school choice" in famously blighted Detroit. That is a thing that makes sense there as things are not so hot in terms of test scores & education rankings nowadays in that part of the country. Education is pretty good there in Minnesota in general so that's not really an issue of contention around this neck of the woods. That being said, yeah, sounds like she's been involved in education matters for 20-30 years & knows all the topics inside & out, so, yep, that's a good person to be the US Secretary of Education. I guess the political party affiliation isn't supposed to matter but I know a lot of people pay attention to that in this "hot-button issue politics" age we live in. I guess she is rich & pro-life, if that matters (doesn't seem relevant) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?utm_term=.912c7879de83Trump is going to find fresh hires where he can, and that does tend to be in that range of folks who aren't in the Fortune 500 but aren't work-from-home types either. People in that spectrum. At work they hire a lot of people but about half don't make it through the (extensive, fully paid) three month training period
dude, the article you cited literally asserts my own point and establishes that devos is unqualified with plenty of backup. you're clearly INCREDIBLY unfamiliar with the basic facts of the situation, and not even reading things at all, you didnt' even read your own cite, let alone what other people say. you really need to work on your posting and your basic knowledge.
|
On April 02 2018 02:59 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2018 20:04 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 11:56 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 10:32 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 10:09 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:49 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:44 zlefin wrote:On April 01 2018 09:20 A3th3r wrote:On April 01 2018 09:03 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
why not care about the quality of the people hired?
just because the positions need filling doesn't mean you should just put anyone in; you should put in the best people for the job. and the opinions and views of the people put in will have a considerable effect on the world through the policies they put in. I'd like to say that it is important the name of the person who has the job but I guess I should qualify that & say that it matters and it doesn't matter. I guess that it matters because you want a person with a name filling that role. It doesn't matter because what you're looking for as president is a person to complete a specific task for you. Hiring & firing people is fairly easy because there are a lot of people who need jobs but only a few people who provide jobs. That's pretty steady in any profession. Trump is hiring & firing people to help out in the Oval Office for a few years in a public service sector job where the pay is reasonably good but not better than what the Fortune 500 would give. Therefore, he will get the civil servants that "aren't good enough" for the Fortune 500 but are better than the people who work for the accountant in the office attached to the gas station near my workplace. I'm sorry if this is offensive but work in politics pays alright but isn't spectacular so there are "shining star" type guys who just aren't going to do it because they can do better in the Fortune 500 or on their own. there can still be substantial variation in the quality of the person selected though. no matter what skill level you're at there's quite a bit of variation, and if a boss is hiring people considerably worse than could be gotten for the position, isn't that a problem? and these positions aren't exactly simple "do a task" positions, they're quite a bit more complex than that, and involve a lot of decision making. it's not just simply following orders straightforwardly, there's a great deal of implementation details to work out. For sure, but, even with that in mind, there are a lot of people who do have the know how & decision making prowess to do all of that. I know a lot of people with college degrees who are unemployed! Just sayin'. Skills are nice but there are plenty of people who have skills but don't have jobs. Generally there is plenty of talented folks who want to work for someone else but there are only a few people who are hiring & firing other people that are available. That's just how it goes. Trump is filling out his cabinet with reasonably qualified people who are willing to take a pay cut to do the work or are seeking a politics job as a "passion project" & they really believe in what they do. That's good, that's great, the US Government needs that, that's an important thing. Not everybody is a college grad with a lot of spare cash to just spend on random business endeavors for fun. are you aware that trump has hired several people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions? and just because he finds some people, doesn't mean there weren't numerous better people available. I think you overestimate how common the skillset is to do management at a high level effectively; and you may underestimate the value of havin the best people you can get for the job, rather than simply somebody passable. also consider the effect of small benefits: if a position oversees a budget of tens of billions of dollars a year, even a small improvement in the quality of the person holding the position can have a considerable impact. I think that people over estimate the difficulty & danger of hiring & firing folks because they are poor. That's ok, there are lots of poor people who can't afford to do anything. That being said, there are a number of rich people in this world who do exist and are able to "waste" their money on business endeavors at will. That does happen to include USA President Donald Trump, who currently holds the top Oval Office job & is in for the duration of his tenure. In the US, that tenure is four years. Generally, people who are interested in politics tend to be the folks who are really fired up about it, & that is a useful characteristic for a commander-in-chief to have. OR (can't forget) for a middle-management-type guy who is a subordinate to the commander in chief! In other news, I guess Trump is betting big on the economy here & is trying to revitalize things a bit & get people feisty about politics again. That's a good thing, I suppose. I continue to wish that he were a little bit more suave about what he did & was a little bit less of a firebrand, but, that's just what he does, I guess! It's kind of tiresome at times. At times I miss the Obama Administration's "behind the scenes" approach to governance. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-is-betting-everything-on-the-economy/article/2012133 i'm not sure how what you said counters or is even a response to my key points; in particular the hiring of people who are not reasonably qualified for their positions. Ok, I'll bite. John Bolton is a reasonably savvy political mind who is well-qualified to be the National Security Advisor. The guy has previous experience in a political role & is well-suited to the current Trump administration in that he will get along well enough with the people in charge. I feel that he is a good person to do that job. The current US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, gets along well with John Bolton. That is an indication that this person is going to do well in politics & is not a danger to the public in this current role. Bolton served admirably under George W. Bush, a Republican President, before, & has no problem with the role as it is. I believe that he understand that the position only will last three years. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/mar/30/us-defence-secretary-welcomes-devil-incarnate-john-bolton-to-the-pentagon-video I did not ever say HE was the one that was not well qualified. I said that trump has hired several people who are not; like Betsy DeVos, and that is troubling. Our conversation had shifted somewhat to the more general patterns of hiring and of trump's hiring, and issues therein, rather than being exclusively about bolton. There are issues/objections with Bolton, but they are not ones of qualifications, and they have been well detailed by others' responses to you in this thread. So I guess Betsy DeVos isn't some kind of deviant, she is a Michigan education reform advocate. I guess she has been pushing for "school choice" in famously blighted Detroit. That is a thing that makes sense there as things are not so hot in terms of test scores & education rankings nowadays in that part of the country. Education is pretty good there in Minnesota in general so that's not really an issue of contention around this neck of the woods. That being said, yeah, sounds like she's been involved in education matters for 20-30 years & knows all the topics inside & out, so, yep, that's a good person to be the US Secretary of Education. I guess the political party affiliation isn't supposed to matter but I know a lot of people pay attention to that in this "hot-button issue politics" age we live in. I guess she is rich & pro-life, if that matters (doesn't seem relevant) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/?utm_term=.912c7879de83Trump is going to find fresh hires where he can, and that does tend to be in that range of folks who aren't in the Fortune 500 but aren't work-from-home types either. People in that spectrum. At work they hire a lot of people but about half don't make it through the (extensive, fully paid) three month training period
I'm sorry my sarcasm detector broke.
DeVos has repeatedly failed at basic education questions, both in her confirmation and after (recently she apparently had a horrible interview on 60 minutes, tho I haven't watched it myself).
|
On April 02 2018 01:13 KwarK wrote:
A3th3r, the purpose of saying that an individual has job experience is to implicitly say “we know he’d be good at the job because he’s done it before and was good then”. Bolton has done the job before and been terrible. It’s job experience in the same way that Enron’s accountants have job experience. Zero job experience would actually put you ahead of Bolton at this point. The job experience argument relies upon their past experience being something you would want to happen again.
As for all that shit about how top corporate figures don’t want to do public service, McNamara. They don’t want to do it in the Trump White House. That’s different.
This is the McNamara from 50 years ago right? As an example he's not very topical and there are less controversial ones also. When people say the Iraq War was this generation's Vietnam, it's his Vietnam they're talking about. So far Trump has had Tillerson, Mnuchin, Zinke, Ross, Cohn, if you remember Puzder wanted in also.
|
On April 02 2018 03:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2018 01:13 KwarK wrote:
A3th3r, the purpose of saying that an individual has job experience is to implicitly say “we know he’d be good at the job because he’s done it before and was good then”. Bolton has done the job before and been terrible. It’s job experience in the same way that Enron’s accountants have job experience. Zero job experience would actually put you ahead of Bolton at this point. The job experience argument relies upon their past experience being something you would want to happen again.
As for all that shit about how top corporate figures don’t want to do public service, McNamara. They don’t want to do it in the Trump White House. That’s different. This is the McNamara from 50 years ago right? As an example he's not very topical and there are less controversial ones also. When people say the Iraq War was this generation's Vietnam, it's his Vietnam they're talking about. So far Trump has had Tillerson, Mnuchin, Zinke, Ross, Cohn, if you remember Puzder wanted in also.
Ageed. I wish that Trump kept on more people for longer terms but he seems to really resist that for some reason. There really is high turnover in the White House & that isn't good. That being said, certainly there are a few high points to point out there for sure. I thought Rex Tillerson really had something as Secretary of State & it seemed like that was a good type of character for that job. Public service is unnecessarily difficult at times. Thank goodness the private sector is generally pretty stable & the pay often seems to be better.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-turnover-rate-firings-resignations-compared-obama-bush-clinton-2018-3
|
United States42291 Posts
On April 02 2018 03:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2018 01:13 KwarK wrote:
A3th3r, the purpose of saying that an individual has job experience is to implicitly say “we know he’d be good at the job because he’s done it before and was good then”. Bolton has done the job before and been terrible. It’s job experience in the same way that Enron’s accountants have job experience. Zero job experience would actually put you ahead of Bolton at this point. The job experience argument relies upon their past experience being something you would want to happen again.
As for all that shit about how top corporate figures don’t want to do public service, McNamara. They don’t want to do it in the Trump White House. That’s different. This is the McNamara from 50 years ago right? As an example he's not very topical and there are less controversial ones also. When people say the Iraq War was this generation's Vietnam, it's his Vietnam they're talking about. So far Trump has had Tillerson, Mnuchin, Zinke, Ross, Cohn, if you remember Puzder wanted in also.
McNamara is a better example than any of those. He was the first President of the Ford Motor Company outside of the Ford family, at the time the highest paying and most prestigious corporate job in the nation. And he had only held the position for weeks before resigning to serve Kennedy. It wasn't a career move or a way to increase the value of his stock options, unlike Tillerson or Pai, there was no financial incentive. He wasn't planning on a post politics lobbying career. The man just genuinely believed that when your JFK calls you to serve your nation, you serve.
That's why I picked McNamara. Your counterexamples are illustrations of exactly how far the bar has fallen since that time. Tillerson served because of what his country can do for him, McNamara served because of what he could do for his country.
|
I'm citing Poe's law on A3th3r. Given some of the oddities of his phrasing choices and the way he keeps citing articles that more or less contradict the posts he cites them in, his posts make a lot more sense if you work from the assumption he's parodying being a Trump supporter rather than actually being a Trump supporter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
