It's pretty obvious you are just blindly supporting whoever Trump nominates. That's your prerogative.

He'll be lucky to make it to confirmation.

The question was who is better qualified, not who Trump would pick.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

It's pretty obvious you are just blindly supporting whoever Trump nominates. That's your prerogative.

He'll be lucky to make it to confirmation.

---

Right. The Swamp is going to continue to fight to own America. You're here for it.

It is Trump's prerogative to nominate the people he chooses. People like you think that prerogative only exists for democrat presidents. That's the double standard.

That is irrelevant. How many presidents have been in military command prior to becoming commander in chief?

What Trump wants is people with the will to fight, the loyalty to go the distance, and with no other agenda to interfere with the objective. In other words, warriors. His nominees, for the most part, fit that profile.

American Hardwood said:

---

That is irrelevant. How many presidents have been in military command prior to becoming commander in chief?

What Trump wants is people with the will to fight, the loyalty to go the distance, and with no other agenda to interfere with the objective. In other words, warriors. His nominees, for the most part, fit that profile.

---

ah, warriors for his agenda. I get what you're saying now. The will to fight and loyalty. Sounds like a good dog. Does competence matter?

It is his prerogative to nominate.

And the senate: "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." (Article II, section 2).

Democrats and republicans.

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.

---

What you consider qualifications I consider a problem.

fc2112 said:

---

The question was who is better qualified, not who Trump would pick.

---

Since he won election by a wide margin, including winning the popular vote, he gets to decide who he thinks he is qualified to fulfill his vision for the DoD. Doesn't matter if you or I think he is qualified or not. The starting qualification should be "willing to work with Trump and not be antagonistic towards his vision". McMaster would fail that one straight away. Trump had a cabinet full of "safe pick" bureaucrats last time and they spent 4 years fighting every effort he made to do things differently than how they wanted it done. State Department and parts of Defense (Milley) were in open revolt by the end of his term. Is it any surprise he isn't looking to recycle his 2nd term with those kinds of people in leadership positions under him?

ldag941 said:

---

Democrats and republicans.

---

Weird. It only works one way.

Well, I think it's time that we lead from the front and get this train back on the tracks.

Fdsa said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

That is irrelevant. How many presidents have been in military command prior to becoming commander in chief?

What Trump wants is people with the will to fight, the loyalty to go the distance, and with no other agenda to interfere with the objective. In other words, warriors. His nominees, for the most part, fit that profile.

---

ah, warriors for his agenda. I get what you're saying now. The will to fight and loyalty. Sounds like a good dog. Does competence matter?

---

As opposed for a Secretary of Defense to go rouge? We already have military leaders who have stated so publicly (Milley) and the Secretary who went awol with a medical crisis and not inform the CIC.

oldag941 said:

---

Well, I think it's time that we lead from the front and get this train back on the tracks.

---

Right. It only works one way.

Where were you when Biden's nominees were being confirmed?

"Does competence matter?".....

Does it matter to YOU?

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

---

McMaster brought Vindman in to NSC. His NSC was complicit in the Russia hoax and undermining diplomatic relations with Ukraine. McMaster isn't MAGA and has demonstrated no more confidence or loyalty to Trump than did Milley, Kelly, or Mattis. None of them supported the Trump agenda when they applied for jobs (save for Milley who was already CJCS). Trump has already had experience with "well qualified" creatures that grew up within the Pentagon.

Regardless of his disloyalty and anti-MAGA stance, McMaster has been retired from active duty for almost seven years and would not required a congressional waiver to be confirmed as SecDef. Buck, Galinis, and Downey would require congressional waivers because they have not been retired for seven years.

Hegseth wants the seven year cooling off period for Generals and Admirals to apply not only to the SecDef position but also to employment with companies that are contractors. I like his idea of creating more distance between retired Generals and the Pentagon rather than granting waivers so that Generals can be SecDef soon after they take off the uniform.

TAMU1990 said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

That is irrelevant. How many presidents have been in military command prior to becoming commander in chief?

What Trump wants is people with the will to fight, the loyalty to go the distance, and with no other agenda to interfere with the objective. In other words, warriors. His nominees, for the most part, fit that profile.

---

ah, warriors for his agenda. I get what you're saying now. The will to fight and loyalty. Sounds like a good dog. Does competence matter?

---

As opposed for a Secretary of Defense to go rouge? We already have military leaders who have stated so publicly (Milley) and the Secretary who went awol with a medical crisis and not inform the CIC.

---

he wants a guy that is loyal to him. We need a guy loyal to his agenda and the constitution….not just him.

Right here. Same lens. My expectations were much lower for that administration. I expect higher from this one.

Where should I have been?

pdc093 said:

---

"Does competence matter?".....

Does it matter to YOU?

---

Why is it that anyone that questions Trump is a Biden supporter? I've voted Trump each time…and expect his nominees to be the MOST qualified. This one is not and he won't make it to confirmation. Been fun chatting - going hunting.

Fdsa said:

---

pdc093 said:

---

"Does competence matter?".....

Does it matter to YOU?

---

Why is it that anyone that questions Trump is a Biden supporter? I've voted Trump each time…and expect his nominees to be the MOST qualified. This one is not and he won't make it to confirmation. Been fun chatting - going hunting.

---

Welcome to f16. This is the MO of this board, btw. You'll be labeled a concerned moderate soon, which is supposed to be an insult, even though you are a conservative/Republican.

txags92 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

The question was who is better qualified, not who Trump would pick.

---

Since he won election by a wide margin, including winning the popular vote, he gets to decide who he thinks he is qualified to fulfill his vision for the DoD. Doesn't matter if you or I think he is qualified or not. The starting qualification should be "willing to work with Trump and not be antagonistic towards his vision". McMaster would fail that one straight away. Trump had a cabinet full of "safe pick" bureaucrats last time and they spent 4 years fighting every effort he made to do things differently than how they wanted it done. State Department and parts of Defense (Milley) were in open revolt by the end of his term. Is it any surprise he isn't looking to recycle his 2nd term with those kinds of people in leadership positions under him?

---

That he does. And the Senate gets to vote on whether they agree with that nomination or not. So the character of that nominee, like it or not, matters.

txags92 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

The question was who is better qualified, not who Trump would pick.

---

Since he won election by a wide margin, including winning the popular vote, he gets to decide who he thinks he is qualified to fulfill his vision for the DoD. Doesn't matter if you or I think he is qualified or not. The starting qualification should be "willing to work with Trump and not be antagonistic towards his vision". McMaster would fail that one straight away. Trump had a cabinet full of "safe pick" bureaucrats last time and they spent 4 years fighting every effort he made to do things differently than how they wanted it done. State Department and parts of Defense (Milley) were in open revolt by the end of his term. Is it any surprise he isn't looking to recycle his 2nd term with those kinds of people in leadership positions under him?

---

Explored this in the how many picks will even get confirmed? thread.

This may be what Trump has to do.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3508358/replies/69072694

Absolutely not. Don't make me out to be something I'm not.

oldag941 said:

---

Right here. Same lens. My expectations were much lower for that administration. I expect higher from this one.

Where should I have been?

---

Pull up your old posts, then.

What are you implying? That I needed to be vocally critical on TexAgs against Biden appointments to qualify to be vocally critical of Trump appointments on TexAgs?

I didn't come here to convince you or anyone else of my perspective. Simply to give it among what are probably a majority on the same "team".

Making this personal, among us, seems fruitless to constructive discussion and dialogue.

You win.

fc2112 said:

---

The question was who is better qualified, not who Trump would pick.

---

implied in the question is "who would not suck?"

Your choices failed in that aspect.

Quote:

---

Making this personal, among us, seems fruitless to constructive discussion and dialogue.

You win.

---

I am making nothing personal. Lots of people demand republicans adhere to standards that are non-existent for democrats.

Carry on.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

It's pretty obvious you are just blindly supporting whoever Trump nominates. That's your prerogative.

He'll be lucky to make it to confirmation.

---

Right. The Swamp is going to continue to fight to own America. You're here for it.

It is Trump's prerogative to nominate the people he chooses. People like you think that prerogative only exists for democrat presidents. That's the double standard.

---

It is Trump's prerogative, but I don't want to give the Dems any easy reasons to say "See, we told you he'd screw things up" in 4 years because a couple of his noms that lack character and experience turn out to be a dumpster fire. Many Dems want these noms to be confirmed for this reason. To put people in a post because they will only follow orders and not think for themselves is a crisis waiting. Trump has a long list of people he can pick.

You can't keep blaming every single thing on "the swamp" or "deep state". We have to make good decisions....not just ones that are really only good to mess with the Dems about.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

It's pretty obvious you are just blindly supporting whoever Trump nominates. That's your prerogative.

He'll be lucky to make it to confirmation.

---

Right. The Swamp is going to continue to fight to own America. You're here for it.

It is Trump's prerogative to nominate the people he chooses. People like you think that prerogative only exists for democrat presidents. That's the double standard.

---

It is Trump's prerogative, but I don't want to give the Dems any easy reasons to say "See, we told you he'd screw things up" in 4 years because a couple of his noms that lack character and experience turn out to be a dumpster fire. Many Dems want these noms to be confirmed for this reason. To put people in a post because they will only follow orders and not think for themselves is a crisis waiting. Trump has a long list of people he can pick.

You can't keep blaming every single thing on "the swamp" or "deep state". We have to make good decisions....not just ones that are really only good to mess with the Dems about.

---

So we reelected the guy to finish what he started, but we are going to handicap him right off the bat by saying he can't have the people he wants running his government because they offend our sensibilities and/or aren't experienced enough at being swamp bureaucrats. Sounds like a great recipe for setting up the criticism four years from now that Trump did nothing to drain the swamp because his cabinet is full of long term swamp critters. I'd rather see what he can do with his people in charge and then deal with any shortcomings after they have been given a fair shake.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't keep blaming every single thing on "the swamp" or "deep state". We have to make good decisions....not just ones that are really only good to mess with the Dems about.

---

So we reelected the guy to finish what he started, but we are going to handicap him right off the bat by saying he can't have the people he wants running his government because they offend our sensibilities and/or aren't experienced enough at being swamp bureaucrats.

---

You're correct. Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Chuck Schumer have no interest whatsoever in shaking things up. They want unchecked spending, open borders, and rising crime. They also want the democrats back in power ASAP. They do not want to govern. They want to complain about the party in power (democrats) and pretend they're helpless. They also never take a conservative stand on any issue.

People have mostly lost faith in American elections. If McConnell, et al block Trump's agenda after his huge mandate, people will just give up altogether. You can call statist politics whatever you want to.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't keep blaming every single thing on "the swamp" or "deep state". We have to make good decisions....not just ones that are really only good to mess with the Dems about.

---

So we reelected the guy to finish what he started, but we are going to handicap him right off the bat by saying he can't have the people he wants running his government because they offend our sensibilities and/or aren't experienced enough at being swamp bureaucrats.

---

You're correct. Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Chuck Schumer have no interest whatsoever in shaking things up. They want unchecked spending, open borders, and rising crime. They also want the democrats back in power ASAP. They do not want to govern. They want to complain about the party in power (democrats) and pretend they're helpless. They also never take a conservative stand on any issue.

People have mostly lost faith in American elections. If McConnell, et al block Trump's agenda after his huge mandate, people will just give up altogether. You can call statist politics whatever you want to.

---

If they do "give up" altogether, lets hope its the kind that gives that whole bunch into the Atlantic kind of ` give up' on system. The abuse of power to thwart such a desire to get rid of the corruption and criminality and self-serving is its own condemnation.

I would treat all these cabinet nominees like HS football recruiting. Don't fall too much in love with any single recruit because there are always going to be decommits, flips, season ending injuries, and guys heading to the transfer portal within 1-2 years.

Already got the Gaetz decommit. That and this Hegseth pick shows the vetting isn't always thorough.

Turns out you're RIGHT.
Now, who you got Saturday; Indiana or Ohio State