J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy .

---

Define the qualifications.

---

are you serious. He has NO meaningful mgt experience, particularly with a huge , huge organzation. Please tell me different.

---

How can you claim someone is not qualified if you cannot list the qualifications?

---

I did above. Experience in managing large organizations. He has shown that he cannot manage a small non profit with out bankrupting both.

---

How large must the organization be?

For how many years must one run said organization?

What type of organization? Does it mater?

Is that the only qualifications? Anything else?

Do you think those above the DOD secretary have similar qualifications?

---

very large

enough time to master management of said organizations. ones with budgets he couldn't squander

organizations can be varied, it could be in the private or public. Size and complexity do matter

Not the only qualification, to be sure. He is definitely smart which is certainly important. Needs to be an independent thinker, well organized , focused, leadership,, people skills, international negotiations experience (he has non and said so today), ability to manage headcount, manage budgets. As I said above, I don't have issues with his past as long as he changed. I'm all for 2nd chances.

---

You need to take a serious look at past defense secretaries, and how much experience they have running very large businesses. Virtually none of them held that experience. So you're setting up a standard here that not even past defense secretaries could meet.

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Assassin said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy . Please don't think im against all Trumps potential appts. I take each individually. I think Bondy is qualified, Bessent for Sec State is a good pick, Wright for Energy is a good one also.

---

You mean his main disqualification is working for Fox, eh?

An anonymous whistle-blower? Come on. Even lefties should be able to see through smear campaigns

---

Need to work on your reading comp. Has ZERO to do with Fox. He was qualified to be a talking head. He is not qualified because there is nothing in his background that says he is qualified. Again, he has never run a medium size organization , much less the DOD which is the largest organization in our govt. He bankrupted 2 very small non profits which says he has ZERO understanding of budgets and the relative complexity. I will turn the tables on you that you think since he is a Trump nominee, he's qualified. He just isn't, period. Please tell me why you think he is qualified.

---

It's interesting that you believe running the defense dept. is similar to running a private business. I don't recall you being up in arms when Biden made the controversial choice of Lloyd Austin, a career military man (much like Hegseth), with no experience managing a business, as his pick for Defense Secretary. And of course, after his military career, he went and worked for a defense contractor.

Rumsfeld had such experience, of course, and may have been the worst Sec. of Defense in modern history, responsible for thousands of our young men's deaths in Iraq.

I am not sure serving on the board of a defense contractor - or even being able to run a private business - makes one qualified to be Sec. of Defense.

---

Rumsfeld was horrid as Sec Def and just as horrible as a big Pharma CEO leveraging contacts to bring aspertame to the food eating public

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I love watching you guys who profess to be of high moral character twist and turn your values into the ground for Trump.

---

Sorry you hate redemption and forgiveness. Those are core Christian values.

I'm sorry your TDS has rotted your brain and makes you so hateful.

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I love watching you guys who profess to be of high moral character twist and turn your values into the ground for Trump.

---

I am not a fan of Trump's personal morals, but what was the alternative if you were conservative? Vote for an immoral individual who holds policy positions that are the antithesis of your conservative beliefs?

Of course not. Conservatives were forced to vote for the lesser of the evils this election cycle.

---

Mo,

It's not just Trump's morals anymore. You accommodated him, now, Hegseth? There will be more.

it will be real hard for trump admin to do worse than bidens

The U.S. Senate is an embarrassment.

Mazie Hirono may be the stupidest person in the United States. I cannot believe Fauxhauntos looked like such a moron.

She is not qualified to be a dog catcher much less a senator.

Hegseth really did a great job putting up with some of the inquisitors, including General Elizabeth Warren. That is one nasty gal.

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Assassin said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy . Please don't think im against all Trumps potential appts. I take each individually. I think Bondy is qualified, Bessent for Sec State is a good pick, Wright for Energy is a good one also.

---

You mean his main disqualification is working for Fox, eh?

An anonymous whistle-blower? Come on. Even lefties should be able to see through smear campaigns

---

Need to work on your reading comp. Has ZERO to do with Fox. He was qualified to be a talking head. He is not qualified because there is nothing in his background that says he is qualified. Again, he has never run a medium size organization , much less the DOD which is the largest organization in our govt. He bankrupted 2 very small non profits which says he has ZERO understanding of budgets and the relative complexity. I will turn the tables on you that you think since he is a Trump nominee, he's qualified. He just isn't, period. Please tell me why you think he is qualified.

---

It's interesting that you believe running the defense dept. is similar to running a private business. I don't recall you being up in arms when Biden made the controversial choice of Lloyd Austin, a career military man (much like Hegseth), with no experience managing a business, as his pick for Defense Secretary. And of course, after his military career, he went and worked for a defense contractor.

Rumsfeld had such experience, of course, and may have been the worst Sec. of Defense in modern history, responsible for thousands of our young men's deaths in Iraq.

I am not sure serving on the board of a defense contractor - or even being able to run a private business - makes one qualified to be Sec. of Defense.

---

Doesn't have to be public sector or military, Govt. could be a mix of both or one or the other. However, the organization that one needs to. have mgt experience needs to be an extremely large and complex one with many stakeholders. DOD is a $9T budget. The person needs to have serious large budget expertise. Bankrupting a 50 person non profit ain't the skill sets necessary for a $9T job, period.

4th and Inches said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Assassin said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy . Please don't think im against all Trumps potential appts. I take each individually. I think Bondy is qualified, Bessent for Sec State is a good pick, Wright for Energy is a good one also.

---

You mean his main disqualification is working for Fox, eh?

An anonymous whistle-blower? Come on. Even lefties should be able to see through smear campaigns

---

Need to work on your reading comp. Has ZERO to do with Fox. He was qualified to be a talking head. He is not qualified because there is nothing in his background that says he is qualified. Again, he has never run a medium size organization , much less the DOD which is the largest organization in our govt. He bankrupted 2 very small non profits which says he has ZERO understanding of budgets and the relative complexity. I will turn the tables on you that you think since he is a Trump nominee, he's qualified. He just isn't, period. Please tell me why you think he is qualified.

---

It's interesting that you believe running the defense dept. is similar to running a private business. I don't recall you being up in arms when Biden made the controversial choice of Lloyd Austin, a career military man (much like Hegseth), with no experience managing a business, as his pick for Defense Secretary. And of course, after his military career, he went and worked for a defense contractor.

Rumsfeld had such experience, of course, and may have been the worst Sec. of Defense in modern history, responsible for thousands of our young men's deaths in Iraq.

I am not sure serving on the board of a defense contractor - or even being able to run a private business - makes one qualified to be Sec. of Defense.

---

Doesn't have to be public sector or military, Govt. could be a mix of both or one or the other. However, the organization that one needs to. have mgt experience needs to be an extremely large and complex one with many stakeholders. DOD is a $9T budget. The person needs to have serious large budget expertise. Bankrupting a 50 person non profit ain't the skill sets necessary for a $9T job, period.

---

non profits go bankrupt all the time.. way more often than not

---

Unless they are deeply connected to liberalism and the Democratic party

Then they get a steady stream of taxpayer income to keep them afloat

[According to available data, Washington D.C. has approximately 13,500 registered non-profit organizations, making it one of the cities with the highest concentration of nonprofits in the United States]

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy .

---

Define the qualifications.

---

are you serious. He has NO meaningful mgt experience, particularly with a huge , huge organzation. Please tell me different.

---

How can you claim someone is not qualified if you cannot list the qualifications?

---

I did above. Experience in managing large organizations. He has shown that he cannot manage a small non profit with out bankrupting both.

---

How large must the organization be?

For how many years must one run said organization?

What type of organization? Does it mater?

Is that the only qualifications? Anything else?

Do you think those above the DOD secretary have similar qualifications?

---

very large

enough time to master management of said organizations. ones with budgets he couldn't squander

organizations can be varied, it could be in the private or public. Size and complexity do matter

Not the only qualification, to be sure. He is definitely smart which is certainly important. Needs to be an independent thinker, well organized , focused, leadership,, people skills, international negotiations experience (he has non and said so today), ability to manage headcount, manage budgets. As I said above, I don't have issues with his past as long as he changed. I'm all for 2nd chances.

---

I appreciate that ... genuinely.

I have no idea of he'll be a good Secretary of Defense. Here is what I do know ...

1. There literally could not be anyone worse that the current Didn't Earn It hire whose career is based on nothing but his skin color and who 1) oversaw the worst military defeat in U.S. history; and 2) disappeared from the office for weeks and no one realized he was gone ... which underscores how Token the DEI hires are ...

2. You voted voted for Barack Obama as PRESIDENT ... and he never managed a single person nor oversaw any organization

3. There is a clear divide emerging between the Democrat Military-Industrial Complex and the Trump voters who oppose it ... I trusted Eisenhower in 1960 when he warned us against it. That's why there is such a hatred of Hegpeth.

The reaction you see is to the hypocrisy and not necessarily the nominees. Hard to sympathize with you "qualifications claims" when Biden's cabinet' sole qualification was mental illness / wearing a dress, sucking cock. or being non-White.

The tribal hypocrisy is stupid. Surely you can understand the eye rolls from those who celebrated the crazy old rac/pist president who nominated mentally ill psychos whose only qualification was being men who liked to wear dresses and pretend they were women.

---

You just replied without addressing his comment in any meaningful way, other than "well he's better than a Democrat and btw I HATE DEMOCRATS."

Anyway, I'm not opposed to the nomination. He is a flawed guy but who is Trump going to nominate, great guys and gals?

It does seem the main detraxtions are personal, and I don't care about that so much, his experience managing a bureaucracy, which is obviously significant, and his comments on not valuing diversity. Which I totally agree with.

And for Republicans, lack of experience managing large government organizations is normally a plus. So I get why he was nominated.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy .

---

Define the qualifications.

---

are you serious. He has NO meaningful mgt experience, particularly with a huge , huge organzation. Please tell me different.

---

How can you claim someone is not qualified if you cannot list the qualifications?

---

I did above. Experience in managing large organizations. He has shown that he cannot manage a small non profit with out bankrupting both.

---

How large must the organization be?

For how many years must one run said organization?

What type of organization? Does it mater?

Is that the only qualifications? Anything else?

Do you think those above the DOD secretary have similar qualifications?

---

very large

enough time to master management of said organizations. ones with budgets he couldn't squander

organizations can be varied, it could be in the private or public. Size and complexity do matter

Not the only qualification, to be sure. He is definitely smart which is certainly important. Needs to be an independent thinker, well organized , focused, leadership,, people skills, international negotiations experience (he has non and said so today), ability to manage headcount, manage budgets. As I said above, I don't have issues with his past as long as he changed. I'm all for 2nd chances.

---

I appreciate that ... genuinely.

I have no idea of he'll be a good Secretary of Defense. Here is what I do know ...

1. There literally could not be anyone worse that the current Didn't Earn It hire whose career is based on nothing but his skin color and who 1) oversaw the worst military defeat in U.S. history; and 2) disappeared from the office for weeks and no one realized he was gone ... which underscores how Token the DEI hires are ...

2. You voted voted for Barack Obama as PRESIDENT ... and he never managed a single person nor oversaw any organization

3. There is a clear divide emerging between the Democrat Military-Industrial Complex and the Trump voters who oppose it ... I trusted Eisenhower in 1960 when he warned us against it. That's why there is such a hatred of Hegpeth.

The reaction you see is to the hypocrisy and not necessarily the nominees. Hard to sympathize with you "qualifications claims" when Biden's cabinet' sole qualification was mental illness / wearing a dress, sucking cock. or being non-White.

The tribal hypocrisy is stupid. Surely you can understand the eye rolls from those who celebrated the crazy old rac/pist president who nominated mentally ill psychos whose only qualification was being men who liked to wear dresses and pretend they were women.

---

You just replied without addressing his comment in any meaningful way, other than "well he's better than a Democrat and btw I HATE DEMOCRATS."

Anyway, I'm not opposed to the nomination. He is a flawed guy but who is Trump going to nominate, great guys and gals?

It does seem the main detraxtions are personal, and I don't care about that so much, his experience managing a bureaucracy, which is obviously significant, and his comments on not valuing diversity. Which I totally agree with.

And for Republicans, lack of experience managing large government organizations is normally a plus. So I get why he was nominated.

---

He answered my question and presented his qualifications. It is purely subjective on whether he meets said qualifications. I have listed to an extended interview with him, and he took full accountability for his mistakes bankrupting his first non-profit. While not a qualification per se, have more respect for a man that owns a failure than one who only owns success.

As I have consistently noted on these board, my general frustration - which I think is bad for culture and democracy - is the rhegardly regular hypocrisy of the TDSers.

One loses the ability to cry about qualifications when:
1) Barack Obama was the least qualified president in U.S. history
2) Joe Biden literally said he was just appointing people - from the VP to SCOTUS to Cabinet - based on sex, race, butt frucking, and mentally men wearing dresses.

quash accidentally defeats his own argument. As he noted, the Pentagon is a massive bureaucracy with tens of thousands of employees. What is that implication? The Secretary of DOD is not running P&Ls and hiring janitors. Lloyd Austin is a Didn't Earn It moron ... the guys clearly is an imbecile. Hegspeth may be good or bad, but he clearly has a vision and can communicate it and get people to follow him. That is what leaders do (the Secretary of DOD is a leader not a manager). quash wants a good manager: Trump is hiring leaders. There is a difference.

I think it could be beneficial and refreshing to have an actual combat veteran and solider lead vs. a career bureaucrat or defense contractor.

You will see a clear consistency with me - I like facts and details and hate hypocrisy.

Overall, I think the Democrats have turned all nominating processes into political theater circuses. The Senate should approve virtually all nominees unless there is a clear disqualifier and stop wasting time playing dress up on camera. It's embarrassing because not only is it childish and hypocritical but also it shows really how stupid most Democrat pols are.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

just for the record , I did not vote for Obama and his lack of experience was one of the reasons. I in no way voted for Biden and I think he was a clown show and he had many non qualified folks. I am just voicing my concern with Pete's qualifications or lack there of, not anything related to the Biden years. As I mentioned above, I think Bondy, Energy Sec, Sec. of state are all solid picks.

---

While you may no have voted for Obama, you were not on here daily gnashing teeth that he literally is the least qualified person ever to run for president. I think what you TDSers refuse to get is there is less a loyalty to Trump and more of a double standard that praises the deep state and Military-Industrial complex ... Trump's support is more a reaction against the Military-Industrial complex as an inherent love of Trump.

---

The problem is they don't believe there's a deep state or MIC despite overwhelming evidence of such.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy .

---

Define the qualifications.

---

are you serious. He has NO meaningful mgt experience, particularly with a huge , huge organzation. Please tell me different.

---

How can you claim someone is not qualified if you cannot list the qualifications?

---

I did above. Experience in managing large organizations. He has shown that he cannot manage a small non profit with out bankrupting both.

---

How large must the organization be?

For how many years must one run said organization?

What type of organization? Does it mater?

Is that the only qualifications? Anything else?

Do you think those above the DOD secretary have similar qualifications?

---

very large

enough time to master management of said organizations. ones with budgets he couldn't squander

organizations can be varied, it could be in the private or public. Size and complexity do matter

Not the only qualification, to be sure. He is definitely smart which is certainly important. Needs to be an independent thinker, well organized , focused, leadership,, people skills, international negotiations experience (he has non and said so today), ability to manage headcount, manage budgets. As I said above, I don't have issues with his past as long as he changed. I'm all for 2nd chances.

---

I appreciate that ... genuinely.

I have no idea of he'll be a good Secretary of Defense. Here is what I do know ...

1. There literally could not be anyone worse that the current Didn't Earn It hire whose career is based on nothing but his skin color and who 1) oversaw the worst military defeat in U.S. history; and 2) disappeared from the office for weeks and no one realized he was gone ... which underscores how Token the DEI hires are ...

2. You voted voted for Barack Obama as PRESIDENT ... and he never managed a single person nor oversaw any organization

3. There is a clear divide emerging between the Democrat Military-Industrial Complex and the Trump voters who oppose it ... I trusted Eisenhower in 1960 when he warned us against it. That's why there is such a hatred of Hegpeth.

The reaction you see is to the hypocrisy and not necessarily the nominees. Hard to sympathize with you "qualifications claims" when Biden's cabinet' sole qualification was mental illness / wearing a dress, sucking cock. or being non-White.

The tribal hypocrisy is stupid. Surely you can understand the eye rolls from those who celebrated the crazy old rac/pist president who nominated mentally ill psychos whose only qualification was being men who liked to wear dresses and pretend they were women.

---

You just replied without addressing his comment in any meaningful way, other than "well he's better than a Democrat and btw I HATE DEMOCRATS."

Anyway, I'm not opposed to the nomination. He is a flawed guy but who is Trump going to nominate, great guys and gals?

It does seem the main detraxtions are personal, and I don't care about that so much, his experience managing a bureaucracy, which is obviously significant, and his comments on not valuing diversity. Which I totally agree with.

And for Republicans, lack of experience managing large government organizations is normally a plus. So I get why he was nominated.

---

He answered my question and presented his qualifications. It is purely subjective on whether he meets said qualifications. I have listed to an extended interview with him, and he took full accountability for his mistakes bankrupting his first non-profit. While not a qualification per se, have more respect for a man that owns a failure than one who only owns success.

As I have consistently noted on these board, my general frustration - which I think is bad for culture and democracy - is the rhegardly regular hypocrisy of the TDSers.

One loses the ability to cry about qualifications when:
1) Barack Obama was the least qualified president in U.S. history
2) Joe Biden literally said he was just appointing people - from the VP to SCOTUS to Cabinet - based on sex, race, butt frucking, and mentally men wearing dresses.

quash accidentally defeats his own argument. As he noted, the Pentagon is a massive bureaucracy with tens of thousands of employees. What is that implication? The Secretary of DOD is not running P&Ls and hiring janitors. Lloyd Austin is a Didn't Earn It moron ... the guys clearly is an imbecile. Hegspeth may be good or bad, but he clearly has a vision and can communicate it and get people to follow him. That is what leaders do (the Secretary of DOD is a leader not a manager). quash wants a good manager: Trump is hiring leaders. There is a difference.

I think it could be beneficial and refreshing to have an actual combat veteran and solider lead vs. a career bureaucrat or defense contractor.

You will see a clear consistency with me - I like facts and details and hate hypocrisy.

Overall, I think the Democrats have turned all nominating processes into political theater circuses. The Senate should approve virtually all nominees unless there is a clear disqualifier and stop wasting time playing dress up on camera. It's embarrassing because not only is it childish and hypocritical but also it shows really how stupid most Democrat pols are.

---

Do republicans do this nonsense and I just don't remember?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

just for the record , I did not vote for Obama and his lack of experience was one of the reasons. I in no way voted for Biden and I think he was a clown show and he had many non qualified folks. I am just voicing my concern with Pete's qualifications or lack there of, not anything related to the Biden years. As I mentioned above, I think Bondy, Energy Sec, Sec. of state are all solid picks.

---

While you may no have voted for Obama, you were not on here daily gnashing teeth that he literally is the least qualified person ever to run for president. I think what you TDSers refuse to get is there is less a loyalty to Trump and more of a double standard that praises the deep state and Military-Industrial complex ... Trump's support is more a reaction against the Military-Industrial complex as an inherent love of Trump.

---

The problem is they don't believe there's a deep state or MIC despite overwhelming evidence of such.

---

Democrats are much more willing to talk about the military industrial complex than Republicans, has been that way for decades. To think the libs don't believe in it is just silliness.

Thuh Deep State is usually recognized as a conspiracy nut term. If it were describing all the ways in which government and capitalism intersect, creating all sorts of corruption and backroom deals, that would be one thing, but instead it is used by frothing at the mounth nuts to describe Joe Biden's puppet masters.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

the guy is NOT qualified for the job. I'm not even speaking of the booze ,, cheating, ect. Hell, he isn't remotely qualified to run one of my companies. He drove 2 Non Profits into the ground. Now, he's up for running the biggest govt. bureaucracy .

---

Define the qualifications.

---

are you serious. He has NO meaningful mgt experience, particularly with a huge , huge organzation. Please tell me different.

---

How can you claim someone is not qualified if you cannot list the qualifications?

---

I did above. Experience in managing large organizations. He has shown that he cannot manage a small non profit with out bankrupting both.

---

How large must the organization be?

For how many years must one run said organization?

What type of organization? Does it mater?

Is that the only qualifications? Anything else?

Do you think those above the DOD secretary have similar qualifications?

---

very large

enough time to master management of said organizations. ones with budgets he couldn't squander

organizations can be varied, it could be in the private or public. Size and complexity do matter

Not the only qualification, to be sure. He is definitely smart which is certainly important. Needs to be an independent thinker, well organized , focused, leadership,, people skills, international negotiations experience (he has non and said so today), ability to manage headcount, manage budgets. As I said above, I don't have issues with his past as long as he changed. I'm all for 2nd chances.

---

I appreciate that ... genuinely.

I have no idea of he'll be a good Secretary of Defense. Here is what I do know ...

1. There literally could not be anyone worse that the current Didn't Earn It hire whose career is based on nothing but his skin color and who 1) oversaw the worst military defeat in U.S. history; and 2) disappeared from the office for weeks and no one realized he was gone ... which underscores how Token the DEI hires are ...

2. You voted voted for Barack Obama as PRESIDENT ... and he never managed a single person nor oversaw any organization

3. There is a clear divide emerging between the Democrat Military-Industrial Complex and the Trump voters who oppose it ... I trusted Eisenhower in 1960 when he warned us against it. That's why there is such a hatred of Hegpeth.

The reaction you see is to the hypocrisy and not necessarily the nominees. Hard to sympathize with you "qualifications claims" when Biden's cabinet' sole qualification was mental illness / wearing a dress, sucking cock. or being non-White.

The tribal hypocrisy is stupid. Surely you can understand the eye rolls from those who celebrated the crazy old rac/pist president who nominated mentally ill psychos whose only qualification was being men who liked to wear dresses and pretend they were women.

---

You just replied without addressing his comment in any meaningful way, other than "well he's better than a Democrat and btw I HATE DEMOCRATS."

Anyway, I'm not opposed to the nomination. He is a flawed guy but who is Trump going to nominate, great guys and gals?

It does seem the main detraxtions are personal, and I don't care about that so much, his experience managing a bureaucracy, which is obviously significant, and his comments on not valuing diversity. Which I totally agree with.

And for Republicans, lack of experience managing large government organizations is normally a plus. So I get why he was nominated.

---

He answered my question and presented his qualifications. It is purely subjective on whether he meets said qualifications. I have listed to an extended interview with him, and he took full accountability for his mistakes bankrupting his first non-profit. While not a qualification per se, have more respect for a man that owns a failure than one who only owns success.

As I have consistently noted on these board, my general frustration - which I think is bad for culture and democracy - is the rhegardly regular hypocrisy of the TDSers.

One loses the ability to cry about qualifications when:
1) Barack Obama was the least qualified president in U.S. history
2) Joe Biden literally said he was just appointing people - from the VP to SCOTUS to Cabinet - based on sex, race, butt frucking, and mentally men wearing dresses.

quash accidentally defeats his own argument. As he noted, the Pentagon is a massive bureaucracy with tens of thousands of employees. What is that implication? The Secretary of DOD is not running P&Ls and hiring janitors. Lloyd Austin is a Didn't Earn It moron ... the guys clearly is an imbecile. Hegspeth may be good or bad, but he clearly has a vision and can communicate it and get people to follow him. That is what leaders do (the Secretary of DOD is a leader not a manager). quash wants a good manager: Trump is hiring leaders. There is a difference.

I think it could be beneficial and refreshing to have an actual combat veteran and solider lead vs. a career bureaucrat or defense contractor.

You will see a clear consistency with me - I like facts and details and hate hypocrisy.

Overall, I think the Democrats have turned all nominating processes into political theater circuses. The Senate should approve virtually all nominees unless there is a clear disqualifier and stop wasting time playing dress up on camera. It's embarrassing because not only is it childish and hypocritical but also it shows really how stupid most Democrat pols are.

---

Do republicans do this nonsense and I just don't remember?

---

Maybe someone can find a clip, but I do not think so to this extent. I'm 100% sure no Republican has asked a nominee if he would resign if he had a one drink at any time during his tenure. Democrats generally are exponentially nastier and more stupid.

Assassin said:

---

---

I'm curious about something. If there are all these "former" men wearing dresses to prove that they are indeed a real "woman", why does the VP wear pants 97% of the time?

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

just for the record , I did not vote for Obama and his lack of experience was one of the reasons. I in no way voted for Biden and I think he was a clown show and he had many non qualified folks. I am just voicing my concern with Pete's qualifications or lack there of, not anything related to the Biden years. As I mentioned above, I think Bondy, Energy Sec, Sec. of state are all solid picks.

---

While you may no have voted for Obama, you were not on here daily gnashing teeth that he literally is the least qualified person ever to run for president. I think what you TDSers refuse to get is there is less a loyalty to Trump and more of a double standard that praises the deep state and Military-Industrial complex ... Trump's support is more a reaction against the Military-Industrial complex as an inherent love of Trump.

---

The problem is they don't believe there's a deep state or MIC despite overwhelming evidence of such.

---

Democrats are much more willing to talk about the military industrial complex than Republicans, has been that way for decades. To think the libs don't believe in it is just silliness.

Thuh Deep State is usually recognized as a conspiracy nut term. If it were describing all the ways in which government and capitalism intersect, creating all sorts of corruption and backroom deals, that would be one thing, but instead it is used by frothing at the mounth nuts to describe Joe Biden's puppet masters.

---

Joe Biden was his own man running things eh? Ya don't say

Deep State = pee pee dossier and anything like it

Or aides being murdered walking him that may have just given some info to someone.

Etc etc

It doesn't exist. You're right

Malbec said:

---

Assassin said:

---

---

I'm curious about something. If there are all these "former" men wearing dresses to prove that they are indeed a real "woman", why does the VP wear pants 97% of the time?

---

In fairness, she did grow-up in a middle class family.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

J.R. said:

---

just for the record , I did not vote for Obama and his lack of experience was one of the reasons. I in no way voted for Biden and I think he was a clown show and he had many non qualified folks. I am just voicing my concern with Pete's qualifications or lack there of, not anything related to the Biden years. As I mentioned above, I think Bondy, Energy Sec, Sec. of state are all solid picks.

---

While you may no have voted for Obama, you were not on here daily gnashing teeth that he literally is the least qualified person ever to run for president. I think what you TDSers refuse to get is there is less a loyalty to Trump and more of a double standard that praises the deep state and Military-Industrial complex ... Trump's support is more a reaction against the Military-Industrial complex as an inherent love of Trump.

---

The problem is they don't believe there's a deep state or MIC despite overwhelming evidence of such.

---

Democrats are much more willing to talk about the military industrial complex than Republicans, has been that way for decades. To think the libs don't believe in it is just silliness.

Thuh Deep State is usually recognized as a conspiracy nut term. If it were describing all the ways in which government and capitalism intersect, creating all sorts of corruption and backroom deals, that would be one thing, but instead it is used by frothing at the mounth nuts to describe Joe Biden's puppet masters.

---

Joe Biden was his own man running things eh? Ya don't say

Deep State = pee pee dossier and anything like it

Or aides being murdered walking him that may have just given some info to someone.

Etc etc

It doesn't exist. You're right

---

The swamp gets deeper

🚨COUP ALERT!!!🚨

Top Pentagon Advisor FIRED After Revealing Plot To “Protect People From Trump!”

Advisor To The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Admits To Participating In A “Huge Meeting With Military Leaders” To Undermine Trump In Undercover Video!

» X STREAM:https://t.co/O5HsSZqZML pic.twitter.com/GgZk4nixsn

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) January 15, 2025

I heard Qanon made another appearance today lol in the discussion

I think all R should always ask Ds "is this something russia may have done?"

pic.twitter.com/FsXxrLgRui

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) January 15, 2025

That pretty much sums it up

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “If you’re a rifleman, and you lose your rifle, they’re throwing the book at you. If you’re a general and you lose a war, you get a promotion.” pic.twitter.com/PBiQMOAEpe

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 14, 2025