Should we be worried?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bowser, Feb 16, 2017.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,069
    Bottom line boys and girls:
    We will never know the whole truth of the matter.
    All we have to go on is each others attitudes.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    So now we will never know the truth? We do know the truth. Some have trouble reconciling the truth with their biases. But that doesn't mean the truth isn't known.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,069
    Precisely so young sir!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,968
    Flynn's conversations occurred while Obama was President, and appear to have been direct attempts to undermine the sitting President in his dealings with a hostile power that was directly attacking the US - as well as violations of various oaths Flynn took as a General in the US Military.

    So: lethal injection is the sole means of execution currently available to the US Military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_military)
    and has never been used on a General, even a retired one. But clearly something should be done - we can't have retired US Generals making private political deals with enemies of the US, especially not deals that undermine the country's foreign policy.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    A little research shows that Flynn may have been and still is suffering a clinical mental health issue and has been for some time.

    A lot of serious conditions avoid public disclosure out of sensitivity to the patients rehab prospects. Often a person may be forced to resign for reasons that cover-up to some extent the actual problem.

    I am not wishing to downplay the seriousness of Flyn's actions but suggest that any sentence after conviction will need to consider the degree of culpability involved.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Flynn was forced out of office by Obama and now by The Donald. That says something. He didn't even last 4 weeks in office.

    What does that say about The Donald's ability to hire people? Trump's hype about being great at hiring great people isn't evident.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    Yes it seems as if Trump has made a deliberate effort to appoint people more incompetent than he himself is. For obvious NPD. reasons no doubt.
     
  11. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,209
    You elected arguably the most incompetent, dishonest individual to ever occupy the office of president, and we’re supposed to be worried that there are bureaucratic elements still in place to keep his malfeasance in check?

    Is your president’s gender really that ambiguous?
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,854
    You know, Bowser, our neighbor Capracus and I so rarely have these moments―

    ―we ought to just run with, y'know, what he said.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,968
    Trump's record is that he goes through a bunch of people rapidly until he hits a good one, then keeps that one.

    It's a good way to hire, actually. It requires an unusual ability to evaluate performance in complex jobs quickly, on a small data set which does not include outcome, but this the Donald seems to possess - his campaign team hirings were, eventually, first rate for what he wanted.

    If he lasts, it would be no surprise if he went through several firings and hirings in his staff and possibly cabinet, and no surprise if his eventual hires were very intelligent, very competent, very focused, and utter scum - dangerous as hell.
     
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    More accurate would be to say that he goes through a bunch of people that have made contributions of some form to his or other Republicans campaigns regardless of their qualifications...
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,968
    However he does it, his track record so far is pretty good - from his point of view, anyway. We saw a political novice, running his first ever political campaign, initially with no help even from his endorsing Party, put together a polling operation, campaign staff, and media relations crew, better than than the Democratic Party professionals. On a shoestring budget. It would be unwise to underestimate his staff and cabinet and so forth now - they might be unlikely to govern well, but has that ever been his objective?
     
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I would question the "shoestring budget" part (sure, he may not have had the SuperPAC's like Koch supporting him, but he was hardly without sources of funding). However, I think in his mind, it's all about publicity... after all, he was able to double the fees for Mar-a-Lago to 200k, and now people are scrambling for a chance to buy a bit of face-to-face time with "El Presidente"...
     
    joepistole likes this.
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Trump might have connections with Russia, nooo, who would have thunk it?

    If information leaks proving criminal activity by members of the president's administration ... somehow it is the leak that is the problem?

    Imagine you witness a crime, your report said crime and then everyone attacks you.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    If it is such a good way then why is it no one does it? The reality is, it isn't a good way to hire people. That's why no one does it. Employers, especially larger ones, carefully screen and hire their employees. They don't hire just anyone and see who survives. You are confusing life with Trump's "reality" TV show.

    The hiring and training of employees is an expensive affair. It takes time and money to train someone, and their learning mistakes can be very expensive. Your assertion is no less than absurd, and if you had ever hired someone, you would know that.

    Yes, I expect his administration will be a turbulent one. But it doesn't follow that he will eventually wind up with some very intelligent and competent staffers.
     
  19. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,172
    That's not necessarily true joe. I was co-owner of a large call center (2000+ employees) for several years in the nineties and it turns out that this method of hiring is empirically the most cost-effective and efficient - for hiring TSRs and CSRs. They sort themselves out after about a week and we were unable to develop a screening process that got close in accurately predicting who would succeed - even with the help of a team from Arthur Anderson. These positions suffer a very high rate of turnover, we were hiring 80-100 people a week and "carefully screening" them would be way cost prohibitive.

    That said, I would highly not recommend using this method to hire people to do "complex jobs" but if the Donald (or anyone else) can evaluate performance in this type of position "quickly, on a small data set" with accurate results then more power to them. IMO, the risk on the downside for using this method to fill these positions is off the charts...
     
  20. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,399
    Wow, 10 replies since my last visit. Look, there's no proof the DNC servers were hacked by the Russians. The same people who leaked NATIONAL CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL are also the same people claiming Russian hacks within the DNC. At this point I have no faith in our intelligence community. People need to look beyond the politics and think about what this means and how it can affect our future.

    My main concern is that our own spies are working against our best interests. If you want to be concerned about underhanded influence, you should look at where it is actually arising.

    I apologize for not addressing all your comments focused in my direction. It would take forever to give each of them an honest reply. I just don't have that much time in my evening.
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    Why do you think your spies are working against you're best interests?
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,854
    "Unbelievable Turmoil", and Other Notes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    There is a point to be made about not so much the perspective, but the lack of subtlety and sincerity. Nonetheless, it's actually a pretty straightforward reason:

    • There are growing stacks of clues pointing toward communications both inappropriate and illegal between members of Donald Trump's political organization and the Russian government.

    • The intelligence community, upon finding a specific problem, wants the president told.

    • After the president is told, he does nothing as far as fixing the problem.

    • Career professionals find the situation dangerous.

    • The congressional majority does not seem interested.

    • Duty to country means disrupting the problem; this is the way they found to do it.​

    To the one, these are mostly career professionals, the allegedly apolitical. To the other, these are mostly career professionals; some of Trump's people―staffers who have more of a clue how Washington and the government work than Trump, Bannon, or any number of their inexperienced imports from the private sector―are leaking, too.

    And the reason they're doing so is that the Trump administration is not how it is supposed to go, to such degree that they perceive real and genuine danger.

    It all depends on what one means by maintaining poor relations. Wary adversarialism isn't the best, but playing #PutiPoodle, as President Trump so eagerly does, is not what we might describe as good relations.

    That's some conspiratorialism.

    The people get a couple tries at it, first. 2018 is next.

    Congress is welcome to have a go any time. Maybe even more so after 2018, if that's how the people want it.

    An actual coup isn't necessary until all other avenues and opportunities are exhausted and the Republic is lost.

    And as it's shaping up in the early going, it would seem Donald Trump and his Mad Munchkin Menagerie simply don't have what it takes to sack the Republic.

    The Trump administration needs to get control over itself.

    President Trump is a small, stupid, incompetent president; his administration is incompetent, corrupt, and very possibly insane. At the very least, they're dangerous. And out of everything else? The international question is a big one, and it's also the one that will move Republicans. History will tell whether the leaks are subversive or patriotic; current appearances suggest the latter, but we need to keep watching the progression. The day after Flynn's was one of the worst news days I have ever seen for a presidential administration; NYT hit the administration repeatedly; I couldn't keep up↱. But in the middle was an incredible couple paragraphs under the headline, "'Unbelievable Turmoil': Trump's First Month Leaves Washington Reeling"↱:

    Gen. Tony Thomas, head of the military's Special Operations Command, expressed concern about upheaval inside the White House. "Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil. I hope they sort it out soon because we're a nation at war," he said at a military conference on Tuesday.

    Asked about his comments later, General Thomas said in a brief interview, "As a commander, I'm concerned our government be as stable as possible."
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Shear, Michael D. "'Unbelievable Turmoil': Trump's First Month Leaves Washington Reeling". The New York Times. 14 February 2017. NYTimes.com. 16 February 2017. http://nyti.ms/2kob64Y
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Look, there is no proof the DNC servers were hacked by Russians if and only if you ignore all the evidence as you have done. If you ignore Shawn Henry, president of CrowdStrike, whose firm discovered the Russian hackers in real time on DNC servers, and if you ignore the findings of the FBI, and the CIA, and the 16 other US intelligence agencies, then there is no evidence DNC servers were hacked by Russians.

    But if you don't ignore and deny the evidence, then there is overwhelming evidence Russia hacked DNC servers and the servers of DNC operatives.

    And your evidence is where? Do you know who leaked the "NATIONAL CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL)? If you do, I'm sure Trump wants to talk to you. Because he doesn't know.

    So you think not reporting a compromised high level intelligence officer is working against our best interests? You is "our" comrade? Are you a Russian? I'm an American. I don't think letting a compromised intelligence officer in place and giving him access to the nations most valued secrets is a prudent thing to do.

    By his own admission, Flynn has deceived his superiors or he forgot. Neither is acceptable of a high level intelligence officer. He has lied to the FBI. Additionally, it appears he didn't report money he received from Russia as he is required to do.

    Outing serious misconduct isn't a bad thing in my book. And I don't see how exposing compromised intelligence officer is working against American interests. It's called counter intelligence, and we employ people to seek out compromised intelligence officers like Flynn. That's a good thing if you are an American.
     

Share This Page