This. Political contribution requests work better when offered with a side of moral outrage.
President-elect Trump's appointments part II
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
-
Hi Guest, we are working on updating the site servers and software. We're also 'forcing' everyone to read and agree to our site privacy policy and terms of service. There are no significant changes to either of these but the terms page does clarify a few things that are mostly in the legalese. You can just click the checkbox for both and continue using the site as usual! We'll update you more on the site upgrades VERY soon! THANK YOU AS ALWAYS for supporting the site and being an active participant!
Pretty ridiculous to suggest that the problem is the group that doesn't have a majority. The nominees are going to be confirmed because the GOP has given itself totally to the cult of Trump.
I’ll pass that along to Chris when I see him again.
And no, the nominees will be confirmed because Dems have spent 4 years salting the earth and now they can’t grow anything. Yeah, they’re mad, but they did it to themselves. Talk about cult-like behavior….
I have no quarrel with Rubio as SoS. Though I disagree with him on some issues, he's certainly qualified for the position.
Washington Post gift linkI’ll pass that along to Chris when I see him again.
President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have exaggerated his victory since the November election, claiming a “landslide” win and a sweeping mandate despite having prevailed relatively narrowly — assertions Trump continued to press during a pre-inauguration rally in Washington.
“We achieved the most epic political victory our country has ever seen,” Trump told supporters Sunday at Capital One Arena.
Such claims are not supported by the election results, which show a starkly divided electorate and a historically slim win by Trump. His margin of victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the national popular vote — 1.5 percentage points — is the smallest of any president who secured a popular-vote win since Richard M. Nixon in 1968.
And though Trump won the popular vote, he did not secure a majority, coming just shy with 49.9 percent of the vote, according to certified state results compiled by the Associated Press.
I can't believe this is barely even being talked about....
Just a full on 'Sieg Heil' behind a Presidential Seal during an Inauguration.
I mean what are we doing? How is crap like this being tolerated and allowed?
I personally can't get out of this country fast enough.
Just a full on 'Sieg Heil' behind a Presidential Seal during an Inauguration.
I mean what are we doing? How is crap like this being tolerated and allowed?
I personally can't get out of this country fast enough.
I was thinking about posting this earlier, but then we'd just get a slew of responses explaining it away like they explain away everything else Trump has done or said.
Last edited:
It's Gaslighting.
He made the gesture twice and it's exactly what it looks like.
I would challenge anyone who says differently to film themselves doing the same gesture and post it to their Social Media feed under their real name and see if there is any fallout from it.
Oh Jon Stewart destroyed him on it…. That and Fetterman wore shorts and a hoodie to a freezing inaugurationI can't believe this is barely even being talked about....
Just a full on 'Sieg Heil' behind a Presidential Seal during an Inauguration.
I mean what are we doing? How is crap like this being tolerated and allowed?
I personally can't get out of this country fast enough.
It's not being made a big deal of basically because if you watch the whole clip you see that Elon displays a lot of characteristics of someone on the spectrum (he's stated he as Asperger's). If you know people on the spectrum, emotional displays can be pretty awkward at times.I can't believe this is barely even being talked about....
Just a full on 'Sieg Heil' behind a Presidential Seal during an Inauguration.
I mean what are we doing? How is crap like this being tolerated and allowed?
I personally can't get out of this country fast enough.
The ADL agrees:
But I get that Elon is a lightning rod that attracts attention, and there are many who view him as an 'enemy' and he is therefore afforded no grace.
I gave the Elon the benefit of the doubt on the gesture, but when he invaded Poland this morning, that's where he lost me.
Ironically, Hans Asperger was a nazi.
FWIW, Asperger's syndrome was retired in 2013 with the publication of the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
Yes, I'm fully aware, I have a family member with it. It's considered part of the autistic spectrum now.
Former officials urge closed-door Senate hearings on Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's pick for intel chief
The former officials, who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, said they were “alarmed” by the choice of Gabbard to oversee all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies.
apnews.com
Seriously, what the hell? What are these scumbags trying to hide from us now?
Senate Armed Services Committee advances Pete Hegseth's nomination to lead the Pentagon
A cloud of controversy has hung over Hegseth, but he now appears to be on track to be confirmed as Trump's defense secretary.
The substantive objection to the Hegseth nomination seem to center around diversity and objective standards.
For me, diversity is a means to an end (a competent and fully recruited force). If an otherwise qualified candidate declines to enlist/try out because he (or she) will be the only black/hispanic/asian in the unit, then the service loses out on a quality candidate. That is not good. If the military can adopt a policy that makes it more likely he (or she) will enlist, then good.
But we should not mistake the means (diversity) for the end (a fully-recruited and qualified force). I want every qualified man or woman, whether they are white, black , hispanic or asian that wants to serve to feel they belong. If they meet the standard, great. If they do not meet the standard, I do not care whether they fill some racial or gender quota.
I have seen this first-hand. You have 100 candidates for a school. They have to ruck x distance in y time (or run A distance in B time, or swim C distance in D time, or whatever). Those that meet the standard meet the standard.
Once you are not getting the right demographics (white, black hispanic, asian male or female), then the Army's solution is to look at the non-qualifiers and ask why we exclude those who meet the quota (even though they will be adamant that it is not a "quota" but a "goal" or "floor"). Candidate 67 (a member of whatever quota we did not meet this term) finished the ruck in Y-time plus 10 minutes. 10 minutes is not very much. Why can't we waive/relax the standard and let him in? That way our higher headquarters will get off the Old Man's back about not meeting our quota. Weak leaders who value their continued careers will give in an fudge/waive/relax the standard.*
It happened when women went to Ranger School. When they got to the Florida Phase, the Deputy Commanding General of the Infantry Center (a Brigadier General) flew from Fort Benning to Camp Rudder to grade the female candidates' patrols. Never mind that the last time the general had been on a patrol was 20 years prior. The Infantry Center sent him down so that nobody could second guess his judgment when he gave her a passing grade. Boom. Female quota met. Did she meet the standard? I don't know. Maybe. What I do know is that the DCG did not come down to Florida at all for my class. He stayed in his air conditioned office in Building 4, Ft. Benning, Georgia when I was in Florida.
I want every candidate that can meet the standard to have an opportunity. If a candidate does not meet the standard, I could not care less about their demographics.
* The military is not the only ones vulnerable to this. United Airlines says by 2030, they want 50% of their pilot candidates to be women or people of color. Why does a pilot's color or sex matter? United did not say. But in 2029, when a candidate who meets the quota just barely fails to meet the standard for entry, the organizational pressure on the tester will be intense to pass the failure who meets the quota. ("You know, Jim. We are looking to promote someone out of the schoolhouse to be the new Vice President for Instruction. Corporate would really like to be able to say United has achieved its goal by 2030, and Candidate 51 would make that possible. We know he failed to meet the standard on the eyesight test, but just barely. Couldn't you see your way to "fix" those results so 51 gets into our Aviate Academy?")
For me, diversity is a means to an end (a competent and fully recruited force). If an otherwise qualified candidate declines to enlist/try out because he (or she) will be the only black/hispanic/asian in the unit, then the service loses out on a quality candidate. That is not good. If the military can adopt a policy that makes it more likely he (or she) will enlist, then good.
But we should not mistake the means (diversity) for the end (a fully-recruited and qualified force). I want every qualified man or woman, whether they are white, black , hispanic or asian that wants to serve to feel they belong. If they meet the standard, great. If they do not meet the standard, I do not care whether they fill some racial or gender quota.
I have seen this first-hand. You have 100 candidates for a school. They have to ruck x distance in y time (or run A distance in B time, or swim C distance in D time, or whatever). Those that meet the standard meet the standard.
Once you are not getting the right demographics (white, black hispanic, asian male or female), then the Army's solution is to look at the non-qualifiers and ask why we exclude those who meet the quota (even though they will be adamant that it is not a "quota" but a "goal" or "floor"). Candidate 67 (a member of whatever quota we did not meet this term) finished the ruck in Y-time plus 10 minutes. 10 minutes is not very much. Why can't we waive/relax the standard and let him in? That way our higher headquarters will get off the Old Man's back about not meeting our quota. Weak leaders who value their continued careers will give in an fudge/waive/relax the standard.*
It happened when women went to Ranger School. When they got to the Florida Phase, the Deputy Commanding General of the Infantry Center (a Brigadier General) flew from Fort Benning to Camp Rudder to grade the female candidates' patrols. Never mind that the last time the general had been on a patrol was 20 years prior. The Infantry Center sent him down so that nobody could second guess his judgment when he gave her a passing grade. Boom. Female quota met. Did she meet the standard? I don't know. Maybe. What I do know is that the DCG did not come down to Florida at all for my class. He stayed in his air conditioned office in Building 4, Ft. Benning, Georgia when I was in Florida.
I want every candidate that can meet the standard to have an opportunity. If a candidate does not meet the standard, I could not care less about their demographics.
* The military is not the only ones vulnerable to this. United Airlines says by 2030, they want 50% of their pilot candidates to be women or people of color. Why does a pilot's color or sex matter? United did not say. But in 2029, when a candidate who meets the quota just barely fails to meet the standard for entry, the organizational pressure on the tester will be intense to pass the failure who meets the quota. ("You know, Jim. We are looking to promote someone out of the schoolhouse to be the new Vice President for Instruction. Corporate would really like to be able to say United has achieved its goal by 2030, and Candidate 51 would make that possible. We know he failed to meet the standard on the eyesight test, but just barely. Couldn't you see your way to "fix" those results so 51 gets into our Aviate Academy?")
