The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 (edited) Pet peeve of mine (oh, and I've got many of 'em): I've worked for the federal government. I've had clearances. I've been through the whole process. Interviewing neighbors and work associates about my behavior. Excessive drinking? Any illegal drug use? Extra-marital affairs? Contacts with undesirable people like strippers and hookers and drug dealers? Sexual harassment allegations and other workplace behavior? Getting my prints taken. Giving access to my tax records. Disclosing all my investments and any foreign contacts. Undergoing interviews under oath. I've been involved in hiring. I've vetoed good job candidates because I knew that wouldn't get the necessary clearance. And then some political appointee comes in who I know could never get hired/pass a security clearance for a career job. Never. The people in the most important jobs are the most compromised individuals. Edited November 18 by The Frankish Reich 1 1 1
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted November 18 Posted November 18 6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Pet peeve of mine (oh, and I've got many of 'em): I've worked for the federal government. I've had clearances. I've been through the whole process. Interviewing neighbors and work associates about my behavior. Excessive drinking? Any illegal drug use? Extra-marital affairs? Contacts with undesirable people like strippers and hookers and drug dealers? Sexual harassment allegations and other workplace behavior? Getting my prints taken. Giving access to my tax records. Disclosing all my investments and any foreign contacts. Undergoing interviews under oath. I've been involved in hiring. I've vetoed good job candidates because I knew that wouldn't get the necessary clearance. And then some political appointee comes in who I know could never get hired/pass a security clearance for a career job. Never. The people in the most important jobs are the most compromised individuals. Yet you are an unabashed admirer of the deep state. Interesting. 2 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 1 hour ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: Yet you are an unabashed admirer of the deep state. Interesting. If by "deep state" we mean a government of decent people who obey the laws and avoid scandalous behavior, well, then, count me in. 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 Question: Trump will have a clear Senate Majority. Does Trump strong-arming the Senate to go into a technical 10-day recess to allow him to make appointments without hearings bother those of you who support him? If not, why do you believe such a cynical manipulation of the constitution is a good idea? 1 1
nedboy7 Posted November 18 Posted November 18 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Question: Trump will have a clear Senate Majority. Does Trump strong-arming the Senate to go into a technical 10-day recess to allow him to make appointments without hearings bother those of you who support him? If not, why do you believe such a cynical manipulation of the constitution is a good idea? I believe there are a few decent R senators left who are planning on opposing that recess. His blatant attempt to shove unqualified idiots in by making his cult believe he’s draining the swamp aren’t fooling real republicans. “Loyalists”. I wonder where I’ve heard that one before. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted November 18 Posted November 18 Long history of recess appointments. Remember in 17 when the Dems and GOP blocked them under the guise of "Russia gate" https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRecess_appointment&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4 Eff, supreme Court judges have been put on the bench using this process. But the usual voices were told this is new and bad by the talking heads. 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted November 18 Posted November 18 5 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: I believe there are a few decent R senators left who are planning on opposing that recess. His blatant attempt to shove unqualified idiots in by making his cult believe he’s draining the swamp aren’t fooling real republicans. “Loyalists”. I wonder where I’ve heard that one before. Whose unqualified? 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 45 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Whose unqualified? Gaetz and Hegseth and Gabbard. and Kennedy. Take away the scandals, Gaetz is still ridiculously unqualified. About 2 years of actually practicing law at a completely local/private level 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted November 18 Posted November 18 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Gaetz and Hegseth and Gabbard. and Kennedy. Take away the scandals, Gaetz is still ridiculously unqualified. About 2 years of actually practicing law at a completely local/private level How is Tulsi unqualified? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: How is Tulsi unqualified? She's not unqualified for some things, but we are talking here about the DNI. She wasn't even on the congressional committees dealing with Intel. Wrong person for the job.
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 Meanwhile: the investment banker/hedge fund manager scrum for Treasury apparently got too hot even for Trump. So Mark Rowan is private jetting back from Asia to be interviewed. An upstanding member of the investor class, he started at Drexel Burnham of the 1990 junk bond fiasco, then worked with Leon Black at Apollo - the very same Leon Black who named Jeffrey Epstein as trustee of his foundation and paid him $50 million. Thank God Trump won; otherwise the Davos-Epstein class would have continued to run the world.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted November 18 Posted November 18 6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: She's not unqualified for some things, but we are talking here about the DNI. She wasn't even on the congressional committees dealing with Intel. Wrong person for the job. That's like your opinion man. 1 2
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: That's like your opinion man. Well, it's my opinion that she is unqualified. It is a fact that she has no real exposure to the Intel world.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted November 18 Posted November 18 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: If by "deep state" we mean a government of decent people who obey the laws and avoid scandalous behavior, well, then, count me in. Is that what you meant by it in your “three cheers for the deep state” thread? Or it just implied? One day you are going on about how, in reality, the office of the president is unimportant and the country trucks along just fine with a doddering old fool and now you bemoan the apparatus that allows that to be the case. Seems like you just want something to whine about. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 Just now, Biden is Mentally Fit said: Is that what you meant by it in your “three cheers for the deep state” thread? Or it just implied? One day you are going on about how, in reality, the office of the president is unimportant and the country trucks along just fine with a doddering old fool and now you bemoan the apparatus that allows that to be the case. Seems like you just want something to whine about. My "three cheers for the deep State" meant exactly that. There are people out there in the government who know what they're doing, who understand that a government of laws and not of men means that there is a continuity that must always be there regardless of who won the last election, because the constitution and the laws remain in place until they're changed. The advise and consent requirement for cabinet appointees is in that constitution for a reason. It isn't something to be cynically abandoned because Susan Collins (hah!) and a couple other Republican Senators won't just rubber stamp any fool or creep.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted November 18 Posted November 18 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: My "three cheers for the deep State" meant exactly that. There are people out there in the government who know what they're doing, who understand that a government of laws and not of men means that there is a continuity that must always be there regardless of who won the last election, because the constitution and the laws remain in place until they're changed. The advise and consent requirement for cabinet appointees is in that constitution for a reason. It isn't something to be cynically abandoned because Susan Collins (hah!) and a couple other Republican Senators won't just rubber stamp any fool or creep. And those people are all upstanding individuals worthy of security clearance? Please. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted November 18 Posted November 18 25 minutes ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: And those people are all upstanding individuals worthy of security clearance? Please. No. Not all of them. But I can assure that a 40ish applicant who has faced credible accusations of having sex with a 17 year old would not be cleared. Nor would a man who, in his 50s or 60s, admitted to dumping a dead bear cub in Central Park. Nor would a man who has been the subject of credible allegations of repeatedly using illegal drugs other than marijuana in the very recent past. These are not close calls.
Recommended Posts