Science Denier said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

txags92 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

---

What it means is that the days of bad actors being able to count on a "proportional response" or "limited humanitarian assistance" are likely over. If you come at us or our friends, we are going to use the amount of force in response that we think is necessary to bring the conflict to a quick and bloody (for the bad actors) end. No more slow rolling weapons to Ukraine just enough to keep them from getting overrun, no more threatening Israel by withholding arms sale approvals if they don't limit the scope of their retaliatory attacks on Iran.

People objecting to Pete seem to think he is going to be stuck into the role with zero support and no other experienced leaders supporting him. As SecDef, he is not going to be writing out orders for individual units and negotiating with contractors for pricing. He is there to be the hand on the tiller and to set the direction for the actions of the others working under him, just like every past SecDef.

---

I mean this respectfully, but it is clear that you lack a clear understanding of what the SECDEF does, his responsibilities in the chain of command/administration of the department of defense, and what his role entails in crisis situations. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just tough to have a discussion with people about it that view the role like they see it in the movies. It is an unfathomable amount of responsibility and tacit knowledge is required to do it well, and not just about the military.

Look at Robert Gates' qualifications. He managed organizations with huge budgets, had vast intelligence experience, and spent decades in the intelligence/defense ecosystem. His experience prepared him well, so well that he served two presidents from two opposing parties.

George C Marshall is another example of a great, well qualified SECDEF.

---

Correct- it's not just "get rid of DEI"

it's CAN YOU MANAGE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and deal with a massive bureaucracy laying traps for you at every turn.

I like Hegseth,

but you are telling me there are NO MAGA three star generals who have decades experience working within the E Ring and know how to get things done?!?!

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

He does if he wants anybody worthwhile to take him seriously.

Fdsa said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

First

Quote:

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

---

He is a veteran that served as an officer in the military. He is qualified. Fail number 1

Next

Quote:

---

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

---

Huh? Who gives a ***** How would some potential rumor about something be disqualifying? Just because worthless libs will go REEEEEEEEE? Well, that's not a reason for being not qualified. Fail number 2.

Next

Quote:

---

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

Well, while you trying to "figure it out" also doesn't make him not qualified. And, when you "figure it out", how does any of that make him not qualified? Having an affair makes you not qualified? Maybe to the loony left going REEEEEEEEEE IMMORAL, but not to the VAST majority of the public. Fail number 3.

Have a nice day.

Yeah, qualified will be better than unqualified... always.

Science Denier said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

First

Quote:

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

---

He is a veteran that served as an officer in the military. He is qualified. Fail number 1

Next

Quote:

---

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

---

Huh? Who gives a ***** How would some potential rumor about something be disqualifying? Just because worthless libs will go REEEEEEEEE? Well, that's not a reason for being not qualified. Fail number 2.

Next

Quote:

---

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

Well, while you trying to "figure it out" also doesn't make him not qualified. And, when you "figure it out", how does any of that make him not qualified? Having an affair makes you not qualified? Maybe to the loony left going REEEEEEEEEE IMMORAL, but not to the VAST majority of the public. Fail number 3.

Have a nice day.

---

Saying he's qualified because he's a veteran is like saying I am qualified to coach the Aggies because I played junior high football... it just shows you have zero idea what the job entails.

LMCane said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

txags92 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

---

What it means is that the days of bad actors being able to count on a "proportional response" or "limited humanitarian assistance" are likely over. If you come at us or our friends, we are going to use the amount of force in response that we think is necessary to bring the conflict to a quick and bloody (for the bad actors) end. No more slow rolling weapons to Ukraine just enough to keep them from getting overrun, no more threatening Israel by withholding arms sale approvals if they don't limit the scope of their retaliatory attacks on Iran.

People objecting to Pete seem to think he is going to be stuck into the role with zero support and no other experienced leaders supporting him. As SecDef, he is not going to be writing out orders for individual units and negotiating with contractors for pricing. He is there to be the hand on the tiller and to set the direction for the actions of the others working under him, just like every past SecDef.

---

I mean this respectfully, but it is clear that you lack a clear understanding of what the SECDEF does, his responsibilities in the chain of command/administration of the department of defense, and what his role entails in crisis situations. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just tough to have a discussion with people about it that view the role like they see it in the movies. It is an unfathomable amount of responsibility and tacit knowledge is required to do it well, and not just about the military.

Look at Robert Gates' qualifications. He managed organizations with huge budgets, had vast intelligence experience, and spent decades in the intelligence/defense ecosystem. His experience prepared him well, so well that he served two presidents from two opposing parties.

George C Marshall is another example of a great, well qualified SECDEF.

---

Correct- it's not just "get rid of DEI"

it's CAN YOU MANAGE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and deal with a massive bureaucracy laying traps for you at every turn.

I like Hegseth,

but you are telling me there are NO MAGA three star generals who have decades experience working within the E Ring and know how to get things done?!?!

---

Honestly, after the ideological purges Biden performed in 2020, I suspect they are rather rare, and if they managed to survive at that level politically, I don't think they are the guy Trump is looking for. He deliberately does not want "insiders" who know how the department they are going to manage currently works and who will be likely to protect the bureaucracy in place from efforts to change it.

There is a huge amount of bloat and waste in our current DOD contracting apparatus and we need somebody from the outside to come in and refocus the entire department on fighting wars instead of extraneous other crap. Is Hegseth the guy? I don't know. But I do know that I (and apparently Trump) don't want another insider whose first instinct will be to protect the entrenched bureaucracy.

Trump's first term was derailed by Russia AND he didn't know how to navigate DC landmines, what makes some of you all sure that Hegseth will be able to deal with DC landmines and really make change?

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

First

Quote:

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

---

He is a veteran that served as an officer in the military. He is qualified. Fail number 1

Next

Quote:

---

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

---

Huh? Who gives a ***** How would some potential rumor about something be disqualifying? Just because worthless libs will go REEEEEEEEE? Well, that's not a reason for being not qualified. Fail number 2.

Next

Quote:

---

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

Well, while you trying to "figure it out" also doesn't make him not qualified. And, when you "figure it out", how does any of that make him not qualified? Having an affair makes you not qualified? Maybe to the loony left going REEEEEEEEEE IMMORAL, but not to the VAST majority of the public. Fail number 3.

Have a nice day.

---

Saying he's qualified because he's a veteran is like saying I am qualified to coach the Aggies because I played junior high football... it just shows you have zero idea what the job entails.

---

He has 40 years of service. Served in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iran. That's a bit more than junior high football.

Shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Yeah, qualified will be better than unqualified... always.

---

Right. He meets the qualifications. Much better than Merrick Garland, who is unqualified because he's apparently never read the Constitution.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

First

Quote:

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

---

He is a veteran that served as an officer in the military. He is qualified. Fail number 1

Next

Quote:

---

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

---

Huh? Who gives a ***** How would some potential rumor about something be disqualifying? Just because worthless libs will go REEEEEEEEE? Well, that's not a reason for being not qualified. Fail number 2.

Next

Quote:

---

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

Well, while you trying to "figure it out" also doesn't make him not qualified. And, when you "figure it out", how does any of that make him not qualified? Having an affair makes you not qualified? Maybe to the loony left going REEEEEEEEEE IMMORAL, but not to the VAST majority of the public. Fail number 3.

Have a nice day.

---

Saying he's qualified because he's a veteran is like saying I am qualified to coach the Aggies because I played junior high football... it just shows you have zero idea what the job entails.

---

People are saying he is a decorated combat veteran in response to those who keep either ignoring his service in the military entirely or who claim he just did 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks per year in the reserves and nothing else. Nobody thinks that alone makes him qualified. He also has also studied and written about the leadership of our military for years, which by itself doesn't make him qualified. But the idea that because he hasn't been an administrative wonk within a highly politicized organization or hasn't been the CEO of a major defense contractor then he is unqualified is just stupid and explains how we got in this mess to begin with.

You do realize pointing the finger at past failures does absolutely nothing to support your argument, right? Merrick Garland has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. You're just trying to distract from what I'm really bringing up... that this guy lacks the experience and qualifications to do the job.

The difference between where he served in the DOD and the SECDEF is about the same level of difference. It's the same sport, but it isn't even close.

Read up on what the SECDEF's responsibilities are vs what he did in his service. The analogy will hold up much better if you do.

txags92 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

txags92 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

---

What it means is that the days of bad actors being able to count on a "proportional response" or "limited humanitarian assistance" are likely over. If you come at us or our friends, we are going to use the amount of force in response that we think is necessary to bring the conflict to a quick and bloody (for the bad actors) end. No more slow rolling weapons to Ukraine just enough to keep them from getting overrun, no more threatening Israel by withholding arms sale approvals if they don't limit the scope of their retaliatory attacks on Iran.

People objecting to Pete seem to think he is going to be stuck into the role with zero support and no other experienced leaders supporting him. As SecDef, he is not going to be writing out orders for individual units and negotiating with contractors for pricing. He is there to be the hand on the tiller and to set the direction for the actions of the others working under him, just like every past SecDef.

---

I mean this respectfully, but it is clear that you lack a clear understanding of what the SECDEF does, his responsibilities in the chain of command/administration of the department of defense, and what his role entails in crisis situations. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just tough to have a discussion with people about it that view the role like they see it in the movies. It is an unfathomable amount of responsibility and tacit knowledge is required to do it well, and not just about the military.

Look at Robert Gates' qualifications. He managed organizations with huge budgets, had vast intelligence experience, and spent decades in the intelligence/defense ecosystem. His experience prepared him well, so well that he served two presidents from two opposing parties.

George C Marshall is another example of a great, well qualified SECDEF.

---

Correct- it's not just "get rid of DEI"

it's CAN YOU MANAGE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and deal with a massive bureaucracy laying traps for you at every turn.

I like Hegseth,

but you are telling me there are NO MAGA three star generals who have decades experience working within the E Ring and know how to get things done?!?!

---

Honestly, after the ideological purges Biden performed in 2020, I suspect they are rather rare, and if they managed to survive at that level politically, I don't think they are the guy Trump is looking for. He deliberately does not want "insiders" who know how the department they are going to manage currently works and who will be likely to protect the bureaucracy in place from efforts to change it.

There is a huge amount of bloat and waste in our current DOD contracting apparatus and we need somebody from the outside to come in and refocus the entire department on fighting wars instead of extraneous other crap. Is Hegseth the guy? I don't know. But I do know that I (and apparently Trump) don't want another insider whose first instinct will be to protect the entrenched bureaucracy.

---

The point is that THERE ARE more qualified candidates.

General Jack Keane just off the top of my head is MAGA!

you think he can't do it- or doesn't know ONE fellow MAGA General?

you are trying to claim in a military of two million there is not one who is MAGA?!

Has been addressed over and over again. He has no experience running large organizations nor managing billion, not to mention trillion dollar budgets.

Have you ever hired anyone for your company or business? And had to evaluate if candidate is qualified or not?

There is technically qualified and there is best qualified. Both are technically qualified but that's typically a low bar or rather where the analysis starts, not ends.

LMCane said:

---

txags92 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

txags92 said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

What does that even mean?

I questioned his ability to manage crisis and the duties inherent in the position due to his lack of experience dealing with those situations or having exposure to the ecosystem in which they are managed.

Your response is that he's going to make potential adversaries afraid of us because we will kill a bunch of people if they do? I don't get it.

---

What it means is that the days of bad actors being able to count on a "proportional response" or "limited humanitarian assistance" are likely over. If you come at us or our friends, we are going to use the amount of force in response that we think is necessary to bring the conflict to a quick and bloody (for the bad actors) end. No more slow rolling weapons to Ukraine just enough to keep them from getting overrun, no more threatening Israel by withholding arms sale approvals if they don't limit the scope of their retaliatory attacks on Iran.

People objecting to Pete seem to think he is going to be stuck into the role with zero support and no other experienced leaders supporting him. As SecDef, he is not going to be writing out orders for individual units and negotiating with contractors for pricing. He is there to be the hand on the tiller and to set the direction for the actions of the others working under him, just like every past SecDef.

---

I mean this respectfully, but it is clear that you lack a clear understanding of what the SECDEF does, his responsibilities in the chain of command/administration of the department of defense, and what his role entails in crisis situations. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just tough to have a discussion with people about it that view the role like they see it in the movies. It is an unfathomable amount of responsibility and tacit knowledge is required to do it well, and not just about the military.

Look at Robert Gates' qualifications. He managed organizations with huge budgets, had vast intelligence experience, and spent decades in the intelligence/defense ecosystem. His experience prepared him well, so well that he served two presidents from two opposing parties.

George C Marshall is another example of a great, well qualified SECDEF.

---

Correct- it's not just "get rid of DEI"

it's CAN YOU MANAGE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and deal with a massive bureaucracy laying traps for you at every turn.

I like Hegseth,

but you are telling me there are NO MAGA three star generals who have decades experience working within the E Ring and know how to get things done?!?!

---

Honestly, after the ideological purges Biden performed in 2020, I suspect they are rather rare, and if they managed to survive at that level politically, I don't think they are the guy Trump is looking for. He deliberately does not want "insiders" who know how the department they are going to manage currently works and who will be likely to protect the bureaucracy in place from efforts to change it.

There is a huge amount of bloat and waste in our current DOD contracting apparatus and we need somebody from the outside to come in and refocus the entire department on fighting wars instead of extraneous other crap. Is Hegseth the guy? I don't know. But I do know that I (and apparently Trump) don't want another insider whose first instinct will be to protect the entrenched bureaucracy.

---

The point is that THERE ARE more qualified candidates.

General Jack Keane just off the top of my head is MAGA!

you think he can't do it- or doesn't know ONE fellow MAGA General?

you are trying to claim in a military of two million there is not one who is MAGA?!

---

I was assuming you were talking about current 3-stars, not retired. And sure, there are MAGA folks in the military, but the top level brass (2-3 stars and up) are very political as I am sure you know. Biden made a big effort to purge the military leadership of anybody with MAGA leanings shortly after he took office. Even going so far was to terminate Trump's appointments to the Military Advisory Board (including Keane) despite their 3 years terms.

Do you understand what a lieutenant to captain in the army does? I wouldn't even consider it "middle-management" as it's loosely defined.

oldag941 said:

---

Do you understand what a lieutenant to captain in the army does? I wouldn't even consider it "middle-management" as it's loosely defined.

---

Do you understand that he was higher ranked than captain?

oldag941 said:

---

Have you ever hired anyone for your company or business? And had to evaluate if candidate is qualified or not?

There is technically qualified and there is best qualified. Both are technically qualified but that's typically a low bar or rather where the analysis starts, not ends.

---

Been a hiring manager for over 20 years. Many of those as a senior VP level.

There are way more important traits than "running budgets" to be this person. The ability to sell the POTUS vision to everyone. The ability to effectively communicate. The ability to lead teams. The ability to IMPLEMENT POTUS wishes?

Who is more qualified than Hegseth? Some desk jockey General trying to get a huge payday when he retires? LMAO

Yes. Major. You realize his time as major was all inactive ready reserve (IRR). That means you don't do anything. I was in it. Nothing.

Science Denier said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Have you ever hired anyone for your company or business? And had to evaluate if candidate is qualified or not?

There is technically qualified and there is best qualified. Both are technically qualified but that's typically a low bar or rather where the analysis starts, not ends.

---

Been a hiring manager for over 20 years. Many of those as a senior VP level.

There are way more important traits than "running budgets" to be this person. The ability to sell the POTUS vision to everyone. The ability to effectively communicate. The ability to lead teams. The ability to IMPLEMENT POTUS wishes?

Who is more qualified than Hegseth? Some desk jockey General trying to get a huge payday when he retires? LMAO

---

This. If we put Hegseth in as SecDef and he winds up spending a much time worrying about the budget, he has failed. Running the budget is an administrative task that you bring in a crack finance guy with a military background to deal with as an undersecretary.

Briefly. some guys I think are better qualified.

Vice Adm. Bill Galinis
Rear Adm. Jim Downey
Vice Adm. Sean Buck
Gen Sean McFarland
Gen H.R. McMaster
Gen Stephen Lanza

Science Denier said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

First

Quote:

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

---

He is a veteran that served as an officer in the military. He is qualified. Fail number 1

Next

Quote:

---

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

---

Huh? Who gives a ***** How would some potential rumor about something be disqualifying? Just because worthless libs will go REEEEEEEEE? Well, that's not a reason for being not qualified. Fail number 2.

Next

Quote:

---

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

Well, while you trying to "figure it out" also doesn't make him not qualified. And, when you "figure it out", how does any of that make him not qualified? Having an affair makes you not qualified? Maybe to the loony left going REEEEEEEEEE IMMORAL, but not to the VAST majority of the public. Fail number 3.

Have a nice day.

---

Saying he's qualified because he's a veteran is like saying I am qualified to coach the Aggies because I played junior high football... it just shows you have zero idea what the job entails.

---

He has 40 years of service. Served in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iran. That's a bit more than junior high football.

Shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

That's quite the accomplishment for a man born in 1980

wtmartinaggie said:

---

You do realize pointing the finger at past failures does absolutely nothing to support your argument, right?

---

There's that double-standard again.

No to any generals. The whole point is to get out of the wheelhouse.

tremble said:

---

No to any generals. The whole point is to get out of the wheelhouse.

---

So no to the vast majority of qualified candidates. Gotcha.

fc2112 said:

---

Briefly. some guys I think are better qualified.

Vice Adm. Bill Galinis
Rear Adm. Jim Downey
Vice Adm. Sean Buck
Gen Sean McFarland
Gen H.R. McMaster
Gen Stephen Lanza

---

I think it is absurd to suggest that Trump should appoint a guy like McMaster who literally just released a book that is quite critical of Trump and his previous experience working for him. Given the rumors of how he tried to fight against Trump and may have been part of the efforts against him from within, I think it says a lot about you that you think he should be given a job like SecDef despite clear reasons why Trump should never trust him. And Buck having recently been the superintendent over the NA should be a non-starter given that rooting out the DEI efforts in the academies is a priority. Haven't dug deep into the others, but if they are more of the same, your list says a lot about where you are coming from.

fc2112 said:

---

tremble said:

---

No to any generals. The whole point is to get out of the wheelhouse.

---

So no to the vast majority of qualified candidates. Gotcha.

---

So no to anybody who isn't part of the current entrenched and rotten bureaucracy? Gotcha.

There's a literal statute on the books that prohibits a GO on Active Duty (or within 7 years of their AD time) serving as SECDEF. Neither Mattis nor Austin were particularly good SECDEFs and both required waivers of the statute to be appointed. For the record, the waiver has only been granted three times since the 1947 National Security Act passed.

He won't make it to confirmation …

Science Denier said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Nope. I want a leader, with strong experience and conviction. Matched by strength in character.

Trustworthy.

One that has a solid vision with a track record of delivering on both vision and plans.

Heck, I'd perhaps settle on simply one that exudes the principles of the Aggie Code of Honor. That would be a good start.

---

Name somebody.

---

He doesn't have to. The argument isn't an either/or, it's whether this candidate is qualified.

And he isn't.

---

Why is he not qualified? Just curious.

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

First

Quote:

---

There are many reasons why he is not qualified - experience (in any capacity) being the main one. But I understand experience is not something we value here. I'll accept that.

---

He is a veteran that served as an officer in the military. He is qualified. Fail number 1

Next

Quote:

---

How about he failed to notify his potential new boss that there might be a little issue from 2017 about a consensual encounter in Monterey. Might get some attention - just be aware.

---

Huh? Who gives a ***** How would some potential rumor about something be disqualifying? Just because worthless libs will go REEEEEEEEE? Well, that's not a reason for being not qualified. Fail number 2.

Next

Quote:

---

Im trying to figure out how he squeezed in this consensual encounter in between having an affair, getting a divorce, having a new baby, getting married…all in the same 6 months.

---

Well, while you trying to "figure it out" also doesn't make him not qualified. And, when you "figure it out", how does any of that make him not qualified? Having an affair makes you not qualified? Maybe to the loony left going REEEEEEEEEE IMMORAL, but not to the VAST majority of the public. Fail number 3.

Have a nice day.

---

I can't tell if you are a bot or a drunk troll…

I won't address all your nonsense, but to summarize the moral side of things:


2010 - divorce, he had an affair, remarried.
2017- divorce, he had an affair, got office mate pregnant, remarried.
2017-some time around the above. Tried to hook up with a woman in hotel bar. Got rejected. Tried next girl. Something happened, but he claims it was consensual. Police report filed. No charges, cool - done deal. (Not sure where wife #3 fits in here or how she feels about all this).

The above happened - it is not a rumor. It's going to get a lot of attention and questioning from those that care. Many Republican Senators do. It might have served him well to mention it, so the administration had an answer when the question comes up. Not a good look to not know your nominees past….and it's his fault they were unaware. They maybe should have done a background check. Either way, rumor is they are looking for a new nominee.

fc2112 said:

---

Briefly. some guys I think are better qualified.

Vice Adm. Bill Galinis
Rear Adm. Jim Downey
Vice Adm. Sean Buck
Gen Sean McFarland
Gen H.R. McMaster
Gen Stephen Lanza

---

No Generals or Admirals. These dudes have been in charge of the wussification of the military. They are all politicians at this point. Screw the hell out of that.

If you step back and realize that Trump's appointment look more like selecting warriors to execute a mission and not selecting bureaucrats to maintain the status quo in perpetuity, it makes a lot more sense.

I don't believe this warrior ever held company command. He was a platoon leader. One step below that is company command in the Corps of Cadets.