Happy Holidays!

[O Really]

Say we don't call them "shortcomings." Let's not even get sidetracked by umm, "controversial" opinions. Let's focus on demonstrable knowledge and experience that would normally be expected to perform the responsibilities of the job. Can you truthfully say these people are qualified?

[Supsalemgr]

I would not be destroyed if Kennedy and Gabbert don't make it. Hegseth will be a "bull in a china shop", but in my view, that is what the Pentagon needs.

[O Really]

I would not be destroyed if Kennedy and Gabbert don't make it. Hegseth will be a "bull in a china shop", but in my view, that is what the Pentagon needs.

Interesting analogy. Bulls in China shops are good for destroying stuff but not so good at putting it back together. That's really what you think the organization responsible for avoiding/conducting war involving the US needs? And that would make us safer how? So let's assume the Pentagon needs a major shakeup. Do we not want somebody with extensive knowledge and experience in effective military matters?

[Supsalemgr]

In my view, the Pentagon has become just another federal bureaucracy. It is being run by a bunch of desk jockey generals. Hegseth has at least been on the front lines. There is no question recruitment has been a challenge recently. That is due to the perception of the military by the "folks". That is why there needs to be a reset. No question there is too much waste in military spending. Hegseth probably knows where a lot of that may be. Hence, a lot of hand wringing over him in Washington.

[O Really]

... No question there is too much waste in military spending. Hegseth probably knows where a lot of that may be. ...

How would he know that? It's easy to criticize when you're making up your own assumptions. Not saying there isn't any - heck we've got a whole thread about Pentagon bloat, etc., but where do you think it is mostly?

[O Really]

Here's the actual law regarding authority and responsibility of the Secretary of Defense.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... %20Defense.

Which of these does Hegseth have knowledge and/or experience and willingness to perform?

[O Really]

While you're here, Supe, can you tell me why Trump supporters never seem to criticize anything he says or does, regardless of how off the wall it may be? Biden supporters certainly found fault with a lot of his efforts; Obama was regularly criticized by his own team as was Bush the Younger. But Trump can talk about "taking back" the Panama Canal, which he doesn't have any authority whatsoever to do, or "buying" Greenland, which is ridiculous, or making Canada a state, which isn't within his authority by any stretch of the imagination, yet his supporters just smile and go along. Serious question - why is that? Do they actually think making Canada a state is a good idea, or do they not know the actual process of adding states?

[Vrede too]

In my view, the Pentagon has become just another federal bureaucracy. It is being run by a bunch of desk jockey generals.

Duh.

Hegseth has at least been on the front lines.

So have millions of others. Many are more qualified than Hegseth, as is anyone with irl managerial experience. You and we all know that Hegseth's real qualification is being an unwavering Trumpette, as is true of all the sycophantic appointees.

There is no question recruitment has been a challenge recently. That is due to the perception of the military by the "folks".

What perception would that be and what "folks" do you mean?

That is why there needs to be a reset. No question there is too much waste in military spending.

Duh. Which party is more likely to endorse military spending without question?

Hegseth probably knows where a lot of that may be. Hence, a lot of hand wringing over him in Washington.

It's hilarity more than handwringing.

How would he know that? It's easy to criticize when you're making up your own assumptions. Not saying there isn't any - heck we've got a whole thread about Pentagon bloat, etc., but where do you think it is mostly?

Exactly. If I want someone to take a chainsaw to the Pentagon budget, which I do, I want them to be competent enough to do it effectively and thoroughly, not just be some drunken, misogynistic, inexperienced Faux Noise whiner who will need 2 years just to learn what a budget spreadsheet is.

[Vrede too]

So gracious as usual from Verde [sic]. Just as an irritant I may stay and enjoy his rants for awhile.

So whiny and desperately deflecting from the point, as usual from handwashing and weirdly self-congratulatory SoupySales.

Still. Awww . . .

Btw, if CPFools was a normal forum, rather than a cowardly and insular echo chamber, you could just register a new Pontius SoupySales, just as anyone may do here on BRD.

Opps.

Cool, if I've baited you into staying, even if it's only because you stupidly didn't preserve your CPFools access credentials and can't preach to the choir there, I can only say 'Mission Accomplished!'

What do you think of:
Drunken, groping Hegseth?
Looney Tunes and dangerous KINO?
Russian asset Gabbard?
Having both an Ambassador and a Special Envoy to the UK?
Vengeful MAGAts Bondi and Patel?
Rabid bigot Homan?
Government-ignorant Ramaswamy?
Puppetmaster and irl POTUS Elon?
Loser Loeffler?
Rotten lawyer and not so rotten bimbo HabbaDabbaDoo?
Ambassador Herschel, durp, Ambassador Junior-castoff Kim, and felonious Ambassador Kushner?
"Wrestling" mogul McMahon overseeing Education?
Unqualified Noem?
The other conflicted and self-serving billionaires?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-might- ... p-cabinet/

Don't be bashful.

I won.t take that bait,

Ouch, the list really is embarrassing for you cultists, isn't it?

First you're going to stay because you're deluded that it will annoy me. Now, you're painting your cowering from conversation as somehow annoying me. Self-contradiction much? We can always ID CPFools drones by their inability to make a coherent argument in the real world where there are no nannies to protect them.

In reality, I'm thoroughly entertained and you did just take that bait, dummy. The Holidays are indeed happier, thank you.

but is does suggest a severe case TDS.

”TDS" is one of the dumber things ovine Trumpettes are screeching in obedient lockstep. TRE45ON is the uber-dictatorial leader of the GQP and he's POTUS-elect. Of course we pay attention, as does clown SoupySales. Duh.

I would not be destroyed if Kennedy and Gabbert don't make it. Hegseth will be a "bull in a china shop", but in my view, that is what the Pentagon needs.

There we go, fishy. 3 down, 14+ to go. I can't wait.

[O Really]

How would he know that? It's easy to criticize when you're making up your own assumptions. Not saying there isn't any - heck we've got a whole thread about Pentagon bloat, etc., but where do you think it is mostly?

Exactly. If I want someone to take a chainsaw to the Pentagon budget, which I do, I want them to be competent enough to do it effectively and thoroughly, not just be some drunken, misogynistic, inexperienced Faux Noise whiner who will need 2 years just to learn what a budget spreadsheet is.

Well, everybody talks about cutting costs in defense/military, but historically repugs have left the money faucet on full and nobody ever gives much detail on what should/can be done. Ultimately there are only three ways to cut costs: (a) buy less stuff; (b) buy cheaper stuff; or (c) do it with fewer people. Lets say we want to buy less stuff. What stuff don't we need? Ships started too late that have built-in obsolescence? Sure, but does anybody know it's a boondoggle when the project is proposed? And besides, there are legit economists who'd argue that the positive impact on the civilian economy is greater than the loss to the government of building an obsolete ship. And most of the cost horror stories have another side to the story if the facts are understood. Back in the 80's Grumman was widely ridiculed for charging the Air Force $5,000 for an ashtray. The rest of the story? It incorporated a bit of safety tech with it so it wasn't your kid's clay project, but also it was a unique piece that they had to machine a bunch of equipment to build it. But if they'd ordered more, each other one would have been like $20. Point being, there are savings to be had, but it takes work and knowledge to find them in significant amounts without hindering the actual mission of Defense. Chopping up whole departments, arbitrarily lopping off purchases or cutting huge numbers of people won't have a happy ending.

[Vrede too]

Pentagon spending is very capital intensive, thus largely benefiting fat cat execs who stash their money in offshore tax shelters. Numerous studies assert that spending money on just about anything other than the military creates more jobs and acts as more of a boost to the economy.

[O Really]

Pentagon spending is very capital intensive, thus largely benefiting fat cat execs who stash their money in offshore tax shelters. Numerous studies assert that spending money on just about anything other than the military creates more jobs and acts as more of a boost to the economy.

Yes, but defense/military spending is necessary at some level, no matter whether the cats on the "industrial" side are fat or not. Your comment appears to support the "buy less stuff" solution. What do you want them to buy less of?

[O Really]

I guess I forgot one other avenue - (d) don't use up so much stuff.
I'd tend to favour that one actually - stay out of other people's wars and they'd spend a lot less money.

[Vrede too]

Yes, but defense/military spending is necessary at some level, no matter whether the cats on the "industrial" side are fat or not. Your comment appears to support the "buy less stuff" solution. What do you want them to buy less of?

I'm not as well-versed in Pentagon expenditures as I used to be. Off the top of my head:
Fewer ships;
Fewer planes;
More reliance on existing hardware that is already more advanced than all potential rivals have;
Fewer bases;
Fewer personnel;
Reduction of nuclear weapons forces to as near zero as possible;
Fewer interventions, as you say, etc

It's great to see cons like SoupySales finally on board with what I've advocated for decades. Funny how all it takes to get the cultists nodding in agreement is pronouncements from their idol.

[Supsalemgr]

by O Really » Mon Dec 23, 2024 8:22 pm
While you're here, Supe, can you tell me why Trump supporters never seem to criticize anything he says or does, regardless of how off the wall it may be? Biden supporters certainly found fault with a lot of his efforts; Obama was regularly criticized by his own team as was Bush the Younger. But Trump can talk about "taking back" the Panama Canal, which he doesn't have any authority whatsoever to do, or "buying" Greenland, which is ridiculous, or making Canada a state, which isn't within his authority by any stretch of the imagination, yet his supporters just smile and go along. Serious question - why is that? Do they actually think making Canada a state is a good idea, or do they not know the actual process of adding states?

I am sure this is a question many non Trumpers may ask. My personal view is they know many of his comments are absurd by purpose. They get attention. Rush made a lucrative career with this approach. Also, it adds to his reputation of being hard to read.

[Vrede too]

While you're here, Supe, can you tell me why Trump supporters never seem to criticize anything he says or does, regardless of how off the wall it may be? Biden supporters certainly found fault with a lot of his efforts; Obama was regularly criticized by his own team as was Bush the Younger. But Trump can talk about "taking back" the Panama Canal, which he doesn't have any authority whatsoever to do, or "buying" Greenland, which is ridiculous, or making Canada a state, which isn't within his authority by any stretch of the imagination, yet his supporters just smile and go along. Serious question - why is that? Do they actually think making Canada a state is a good idea, or do they not know the actual process of adding states?

Breaking news: Denali National Park, Panama, Greenland, Denmark and Canada have formed an 'Axis of Sanity'. They briefly considered an invasion, but have instead settled on a strategy of mocking pity. Other nations are rushing to join their alliance.

I am sure this is a question many non Trumpers may ask. My personal view is they know many of his comments are absurd by purpose. They get attention. Rush made a lucrative career with this approach. Also, it adds to his reputation of being hard to read.

Do you understand how revoltingly childish and desperate for attention this is?

Anyhow, I'm leaving the door open for this just being massive stupidity on the part of DonOLD and his adoring MAGAts.

[neoplacebo]

How would he know that? It's easy to criticize when you're making up your own assumptions. Not saying there isn't any - heck we've got a whole thread about Pentagon bloat, etc., but where do you think it is mostly?

Exactly. If I want someone to take a chainsaw to the Pentagon budget, which I do, I want them to be competent enough to do it effectively and thoroughly, not just be some drunken, misogynistic, inexperienced Faux Noise whiner who will need 2 years just to learn what a budget spreadsheet is.

Well, everybody talks about cutting costs in defense/military, but historically repugs have left the money faucet on full and nobody ever gives much detail on what should/can be done. Ultimately there are only three ways to cut costs: (a) buy less stuff; (b) buy cheaper stuff; or (c) do it with fewer people. Lets say we want to buy less stuff. What stuff don't we need? Ships started too late that have built-in obsolescence? Sure, but does anybody know it's a boondoggle when the project is proposed? And besides, there are legit economists who'd argue that the positive impact on the civilian economy is greater than the loss to the government of building an obsolete ship. And most of the cost horror stories have another side to the story if the facts are understood. Back in the 80's Grumman was widely ridiculed for charging the Air Force $5,000 for an ashtray. The rest of the story? It incorporated a bit of safety tech with it so it wasn't your kid's clay project, but also it was a unique piece that they had to machine a bunch of equipment to build it. But if they'd ordered more, each other one would have been like $20. Point being, there are savings to be had, but it takes work and knowledge to find them in significant amounts without hindering the actual mission of Defense. Chopping up whole departments, arbitrarily lopping off purchases or cutting huge numbers of people won't have a happy ending.

Rumsfeld was a big advocate for (c) in relation to the invasion of Iraq. The generals were telling him his force estimate was way too low. And it was. But initially we went with what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz said. Turns out the generals were right. And all that happened in spite of Rumsfeld being "qualified" for the job of SecDef. Hell, he had the job once before, he was a fighter pilot, and had extensive magagement experience. But he was still a disaster in his second coming.

Hegseth may be qualified for a junior staff position for some Army general. And that's being generous.

[Supsalemgr]

Supsalemgr wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2024 7:29 am
I am sure this is a question many non Trumpers may ask. My personal view is they know many of his comments are absurd by purpose. They get attention. Rush made a lucrative career with this approach. Also, it adds to his reputation of being hard to read.

Do you understand how revoltingly childish and desperate for attention this is?

It obviously went over Vrede's head that all politicians are looking for ways to receive attention.

[O Really]

I am sure this is a question many non Trumpers may ask. My personal view is they know many of his comments are absurd by purpose. They get attention. Rush made a lucrative career with this approach. Also, it adds to his reputation of being hard to read.

He was, and will be the President of the United States - one of the most influential countries in the world. His every move and comment is covered 24/7 ad infinitum. He doesn't need to make absurd comments to get attention. I think it's more just to keep everybody stirred up chasing unicorns either for fun or to cover up something he doesn't want to public to know about. Either way, it's not something it would seem most people would want from their President regardless of the foibles others may have had.

And yet everybody on your side just goes along as if it's real and a good thing. Are there NO republicans who disagree with withdrawal from WHO - an organization that literally every other country in the world except 4 are members of? Conversely, has there been any significant demand from the public to get out of WHO or has it even been an issue for many people?

You may be an exception personally, but I think it's that most Trumpers really don't pay attention to issues or anything other than fandom.

[GoCubsGo]

I am sure this is a question many non Trumpers may ask. My personal view is they know many of his comments are absurd by purpose. They get attention. Rush made a lucrative career with this approach. Also, it adds to his reputation of being hard to read.

He was, and will be the President of the United States - one of the most influential countries in the world. His every move and comment is covered 24/7 ad infinitum. He doesn't need to make absurd comments to get attention. I think it's more just to keep everybody stirred up chasing unicorns either for fun or to cover up something he doesn't want to public to know about. Either way, it's not something it would seem most people would want from their President regardless of the foibles others may have had.

And yet everybody on your side just goes along as if it's real and a good thing. Are there NO republicans who disagree with withdrawal from WHO - an organization that literally every other country in the world except 4 are members of? Conversely, has there been any significant demand from the public to get out of WHO or has it even been an issue for many people?

You may be an exception personally, but I think it's that most Trumpers really don't pay attention to issues or anything other than fandom.

Not weird at all. Serious issues for serious people.

Oh wait, someone explain how hilarious this is.

Merry Christmas, good will towards men.