Mass shootings in America

[SpartyBlue]

3 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

lol yeah, bu that;s just  the Sheriff, consider this....

 

"Hey, I'd like to be, um, like president of the America"

"OK, qualifications - have you ever been the president of a country before?"

"Um, no"

"World leaders - are you friends with any, speak a foreign language maybe?"

"Sorta, I've seen Spanglish twice"

"Ok, well, have you ever been in charge of a military? Nuclear subs, stealth bombers, battle tanks, launch codes for MIRV's and such?"

"Um, what?"

"Are you 35, born in America, no felonies?"

"yeah"

"Fuck yeah dude, you're qualified to lead the free world, sign here!"

"Sweet"

 

Makes sheriff requirements seems reasonable, no?

Fair point. Luckily we have a system where any presidential candidates are thoroughly vetted by their competitors and by the media. If  they are found to be unqualified for the job of president they have no chance at all to win an election.

[Sibdane]

16 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

Fair point. Luckily we have a system where any presidential candidates are thoroughly vetted by their competitors and by the media. If  they are found to be unqualified for the job of president they have no chance at all to win an election.

Are you aware of our current president?

[Ghoat]

Honestly, I'm really not sure anyone is qualified job, it is so big and encompassing, and it's 24/7 at any given time. A former vice-president is probably the closest thing to a "qualified" candidate. A damn community organizer, a brash New York businessman/reality TV host, the son of a wealthy Texan/CIA spook (but governor of a large state) and the son of a bootlegger who is governor of a small Southern State. 

That's our last four presidents, and regardless of what they did and how well they did/didn't do it, none of those resumes even remotely prepare them for the responsibilities and enormity of that job. 

"Leader of the Free World" is in my opinion, a bit of an overstatement, but there is some truth to it. Who the hell has that ego to think they have the experience to be qualified for that? (Yes it's rhetorical)

[SpartyBlue]

4 hours ago, Sibdane said:

Are you aware of our current president?

There was a small amount of sarcasm there.

[SpartyBlue]

1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

Honestly, I'm really not sure anyone is qualified job, it is so big and encompassing, and it's 24/7 at any given time. A former vice-president is probably the closest thing to a "qualified" candidate. A damn community organizer, a brash New York businessman/reality TV host, the son of a wealthy Texan/CIA spook (but governor of a large state) and the son of a bootlegger who is governor of a small Southern State. 

That's our last four presidents, and regardless of what they did and how well they did/didn't do it, none of those resumes even remotely prepare them for the responsibilities and enormity of that job. 

"Leader of the Free World" is in my opinion, a bit of an overstatement, but there is some truth to it. Who the hell has that ego to think they have the experience to be qualified for that? (Yes it's rhetorical)

You're not wrong. The job is being able to process information from (presumably) expert sources and making the best decisions you can. Of course that system breaks down if you ignore their information and their advice and decide to just wing it.

[Sibdane]

9 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

You're not wrong. The job is being able to process information from (presumably) expert sources and making the best decisions you can. Of course that system breaks down if you ignore their information and their advice and decide to just wing it.

100% this. A good president is one that considers all information received and makes the best possible decision.

[SpartyBlue]

39 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

100% this. A good president is one that considers all information received and makes the best possible decision.

I don’t want to make this completely about Trump but I suppose some mention is unavoidable. Of all the things I find alarming about him one of the most disturbing for me  is that he simply doesn’t like to read. It’s been confirmed on many occasions that intelligence  reports have to be boiled down to a single page in many cases with lots of visuals and he still gets bored and often doesn’t pay attention. 

[Sibdane]

1 hour ago, SpartyBlue said:

I don’t want to make this completely about Trump but I suppose some mention is unavoidable. Of all the things I find alarming about him one of the most disturbing for me  is that he simply doesn’t like to read. It’s been confirmed on many occasions that intelligence  reports have to be boiled down to a single page in many cases with lots of visuals and he still gets bored and often doesn’t pay attention. 

I've read the same. It's very alarming that we have a President that doesn't like to read. That tells me he doesn't like get into the details and is easily persuaded by the voices in his ears, but then again he does what he wants regardless of advice. I really don't understand him as president.

[Ghoat]

14 minutes ago, SpartyBlue said:

I don’t want to make this completely about Trump but I suppose some mention is unavoidable. Of all the things I find alarming about him one of the most disturbing for me  is that he simply doesn’t like to read. It’s been confirmed on many occasions that intelligence  reports have to be boiled down to a single page in many cases with lots of visuals and he still gets bored and often doesn’t pay attention. 

Look Sparty, if the man can run the whole county 140 characters at a time, then why should a briefing be any longer? I kid, I kid!

Honestly, given his background, I'd be surprised of much different - that's a CEO mentality.  If I have questions or need more info, I'll ask them. Broadly speaking, I'm ok with that - and that's not a defense of Trump per se, every president I remember has been accused of that. That was "reported" often about Clinton. But he also had an idiot savant-like memory when it came to names and places, he likely didn't need info repeatedly drilled and got a bit impatient (allegedly) when it was. Carter allegedly was prone to get down into the weeds and trying to micro-manage, bogging everything else down.

Frankly, I'm always very skeptical of "reports" like this. If for no other reason, it can only come from a source at the highest level of security clearance, with direct access to POTUS - at the risk of career suicide.

Do I think Trump is is a really impatient guy that could be an absolute dismissive prick to brief - yeah I can see that. easily  Do I think he routinely risks lives and US security if HUMINT and SIGNET doesn't come to him in the right color crayons... um, no.

 

 

 

[SpartyBlue]

5 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Look Sparty, if the man can run the whole county 140 characters at a time, then why should a briefing be any longer? I kid, I kid!

Honestly, given his background, I'd be surprised of much different - that's a CEO mentality.  If I have questions or need more info, I'll ask them. Broadly speaking, I'm ok with that - and that's not a defense of Trump per se, every president I remember has been accused of that. That was "reported" often about Clinton. But he also had an idiot savant-like memory when it came to names and places, he likely didn't need info repeatedly drilled and got a bit impatient (allegedly) when it was. Carter allegedly was prone to get down into the weeds and trying to micro-manage, bogging everything else down.

Frankly, I'm always very skeptical of "reports" like this. If for no other reason, it can only come from a source at the highest level of security clearance, with direct access to POTUS - at the risk of career suicide.

Do I think Trump is is a really impatient guy that could be an absolute dismissive prick to brief - yeah I can see that. easily  Do I think he routinely risks lives and US security if HUMINT and SIGNET doesn't come to him in the right color crayons... um, no.

 

 

 

Trump’s administration has been a sieve for stuff like this coming out so it seems plausible to me. It also corroborates quotes attributed to people who worked closely with him at one time or another. Just this week it’s been reported that the administration limited information on domestic terrorism within its assessments because “it would set off the boss”. Everything I’ve read paints the picture of a group of people who feel they need to walk on eggshells around Trump on issues that anger him (Russia, the darker corners of his base etc..). Beyond that,  some administration officials have been directly quoted as saying they feel the need to protect the country from his worst impulses. Consider the Mueller Report where there are multiple instances of his subordinates simply ignoring his demands because they felt they were crazy or potentially illegal. The historic turnover in his administration further makes the case that it’s a chaotic, difficult environment to work in (even for the west wing). I wonder who will play him in the eventual Disney+ series about his time in the White House. Perhaps Daniel Day Lewis would be willing to come out of retirement and portray a second famous Republican President.

[Matt]

Trump, like GWB, makes for a great scape goat for the real powers behind the scenes. Difference between them is that Trump actually seems to enjoy playing the villain, GWB was just dim. 

[Ghoat]

I agree with the sieve part - and I have a real problem with that. I don't think he realized how deep the swamp was he wanted to drain, and how hard said swamp would fight back. He is a bull in the china shop, and has stepped on toes everywhere and I don't think he gives a damn. In some cases, that's probably a pretty good thing, in he other cases it's detrimental - and frankly I don't think he does well distinguishing between the two.

I absolutely think he should be held accountable, and if he is doing something illegal, or recklessly detrimental, I hope to God people go thru the proper channels to bring those issues to light. "Whistle-blowers" are critical, especially within a democratic government. But by the same token, if your toes are stepped on, feelings are hurt, or just don't like the guy or the way he does things, you should probably stfu and do your job, and grumble to your co-workers like the rest of us do. Unelected mid-level bureaucrats have the right to opinions,  but it's not their place or their job to attempt to undermine an administration or policy by going to the press reporting things that cannot be verified. It goes on in every administration, but far far more in this one, because of Trump being Trump. But that doesn't mean it's ok, or for that matter, even true. And yes, even if was Hillary in the Oval Office, and things being leaked validated my opinions on why she shouldn't be President...I still have a big problem with that.

 

 

[Ghoat]

7 minutes ago, Matt said:

Trump, like GWB, makes for a great scape goat for the real powers behind the scenes. Difference between them is that Trump actually seems to enjoy playing the villain, GWB was just dim. 

I don't know if I agree, disagree - I think both - but I laughed at regardless!

I'm aware most of y'all here loath Trump, and will disagree with whatever he does or says, and that's totally fair.

But I am also certain most of you would be pretty shocked at the discussions and opinions of the administration in private among Trump voters. By in private, I mean in person or messages boards, when we're not be called racists or Nazis by someone before a word is said. Almost everyone that I know who voted for Trump has very similar thoughts about him - and none of us have MAGA hats, and try to avoid conversations with those who do...

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I don't know if I agree, disagree - I think both - but I laughed at regardless!

I'm aware most of y'all here loath Trump, and will disagree with whatever he does or says, and that's totally fair.

But I am also certain most of you would be pretty shocked at the discussions and opinions of the administration in private among Trump voters. By in private, I mean in person or messages boards, when we're not be called racists or Nazis by someone before a word is said. Almost everyone that I know who voted for Trump has very similar thoughts about him - and none of us have MAGA hats, and try to avoid conversations with those who do...

I’ll move my reply to the Trump thread in a minute, so as not to detract from the original post/thread. 

Theres a big difference between a Trump fan and a republican. 

Edit; can’t do it on my phone. If one of the others in the admin team could leave a link here and move the post to the Trump thread, would be much appreciated 

[Cornish Steve]

On 08/08/2019 at 11:40, Sibdane said:

I've read the same. It's very alarming that we have a President that doesn't like to read. That tells me he doesn't like get into the details and is easily persuaded by the voices in his ears, but then again he does what he wants regardless of advice. I really don't understand him as president.

He reads daily Twitter trends. This is apparently why he tweeted this weekend that the Clintons murdered Epstein in jail. You read what you choose to. 

[SpartyBlue]

On 08/08/2019 at 14:52, Ghoat said:

I don't know if I agree, disagree - I think both - but I laughed at regardless!

I'm aware most of y'all here loath Trump, and will disagree with whatever he does or says, and that's totally fair.

But I am also certain most of you would be pretty shocked at the discussions and opinions of the administration in private among Trump voters. By in private, I mean in person or messages boards, when we're not be called racists or Nazis by someone before a word is said. Almost everyone that I know who voted for Trump has very similar thoughts about him - and none of us have MAGA hats, and try to avoid conversations with those who do...

The interesting thing, for me, will be what happens when he's gone. As you've pointed out, there is a big difference between people who voted for Trump because of a Republican ideology or for a single issue like abortion and the true MAGA's. While it is not likely to result in a true third party I do think there is going to be quite a wide fissure between these two groups. If this isn't reconciled and you get a situation where MAGA voters won't support traditional conservatives or vice versa it's a potential disaster for the right. You could argue that this is also true of the democrats (progressives vs moderates) but I think the left is going to be more cohesive, at least in the short term.

[Ghoat]

23 hours ago, SpartyBlue said:

The interesting thing, for me, will be what happens when he's gone. As you've pointed out, there is a big difference between people who voted for Trump because of a Republican ideology or for a single issue like abortion and the true MAGA's. While it is not likely to result in a true third party I do think there is going to be quite a wide fissure between these two groups. If this isn't reconciled and you get a situation where MAGA voters won't support traditional conservatives or vice versa it's a potential disaster for the right. You could argue that this is also true of the democrats (progressives vs moderates) but I think the left is going to be more cohesive, at least in the short term.

I don't disagree. If you recall, the right was NOT united behind Trump, at all. He wasn't exactly warmly embraced by the right in congress when he arrived either. Among other things, the "drain the swamp" mantra was not simply a shot of the left, but the system, which includes republicans. I'd offer that what has brought more unity to the right, is the left itself. Trump has unified the left "Anyone but Trump" and the incessant banging of the drum, both legitimate and the way over the top, has united the right. I'd submit It's far less rallying behind Trump, and more a result of the nonstop shotgun approach to everything on the right. All the folks I know that voted for Trump basically like what he is doing or trying to do policy-wise, but absolutely hate HOW he goes about it. Besides my brother-in-law, who is a full-blown MAGA dork, that would wear a raincoat if Rush Limbaugh told him it was going to rain. But for the rest of, being generalized as racists, supremacist, xenophobes, nazis, misogynists and generally ignorant on everything via social media and traditional media has done more to unite the right -it just gets old. We will never love Trump as much as the left hates him, ever. 

I think the fractures in the GOP will reappear post-Trump, be in 2020 or 2024. The RNC is going to have a hell of a time trying to find "their guy" - especially when you figure the RNC never wanted Trump until it's base told them to fuck off and put him on the ticket. The moderates and progressives are at war internally on the left, but are united against Trump - which I agree in the short term will give more unity to the left in the first post-Trump election.