Orlando Buffalo Posted December 2 Posted December 2 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: I'll start with the old-fashioned qualifier ... ... With all due respect, don't you see that there is something just a little different about how Trumpworld is now treating character issues? That's what David Brooks is talking about. Someone with the known, umm, sexual libertinism of Matt Gaetz (setting aside whether a minor was involved) would never, ever have been nominated for a Cabinet position - much less the nation's leading law enforcement authority - under any other President. Someone like Hegseth would have been considered disqualified based on his own inability to keep it in his pants. These two aren't close issues historically. Never would have even dreamed of nominating him (Swingin' Matt), or would have been forced to withdraw (Horndog Hegseth) as soon as it became clear that the behavior was true. (again, setting aside any issue of assault). His own mother's letter would have been thought so damning that it would be over. But not anymore Rush Limbaugh loved to cite the old Daniel Patrick Moynihan line about "defining deviancy down." What was once deemed utterly unacceptable and a disqualification from serving in public life becomes acceptable. And then, as Brooks points out, almost a good thing - a powerful man takes what he wants. I won't defend Gaetz because I don't like him and I don't think he was ever a serious candidate, I think Trump put him up so the Dems would fire their missiles so he could get Pam Bondi through unscathed. As for Hegseth the only believable accusations is he had an affair, which is a bad thing but hardly new for a politician. If you believe something else about him I would be interested in that I might have missed a believable accusation. I will state though when your side just gave carte blanche to all the crimes committed for a decade by known criminal it is hard for you to accuse us of defining it down.
The Frankish Reich Posted December 2 Posted December 2 1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I won't defend Gaetz because I don't like him and I don't think he was ever a serious candidate, I think Trump put him up so the Dems would fire their missiles so he could get Pam Bondi through unscathed. As for Hegseth the only believable accusations is he had an affair, which is a bad thing but hardly new for a politician. If you believe something else about him I would be interested in that I might have missed a believable accusation. I will state though when your side just gave carte blanche to all the crimes committed for a decade by known criminal it is hard for you to accuse us of defining it down. Affairs, plural. Again, I hate to be an old prude here, but affairs while serving as a military officer too. You've gotta go pretty far to have your own mother take your wife's side in a split-up. Obviously she thought her son was a complete creep and that his behavior harmed the grandkids. That's the only thing a momma loves more than her own son....
The Frankish Reich Posted December 2 Posted December 2 I read the New Yorker story (did anyone criticizing it do so?), and it strikes me as solid and fair reporting. I will point out that all of the Misadventures of Pete are the kinds of things that come up in a security clearance background investigation, and again, someone with this history would almost certainly not be granted a clearance if ordinary rules apply.
Orlando Buffalo Posted December 2 Posted December 2 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Affairs, plural. Again, I hate to be an old prude here, but affairs while serving as a military officer too. You've gotta go pretty far to have your own mother take your wife's side in a split-up. Obviously she thought her son was a complete creep and that his behavior harmed the grandkids. That's the only thing a momma loves more than her own son.... I will assume you have never been divorced if you believe a mother would not say those things if she thought her grandkids were being harmed by her sons behavior. I know multiple men who cheated and each of their mothers ripped into them harshly, but none of them published it in the NYT. You have to wonder what kind of women would give that information to someone trying to destroy her child.
The Frankish Reich Posted December 2 Posted December 2 8 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I will assume you have never been divorced if you believe a mother would not say those things if she thought her grandkids were being harmed by her sons behavior. I know multiple men who cheated and each of their mothers ripped into them harshly, but none of them published it in the NYT. You have to wonder what kind of women would give that information to someone trying to destroy her child. Kind of what I said - a mom's love for her son is surpassed only by love for her grandkids. The mom here didn't leak the email. Mom sent the email to Pete and to Pete's ex. It's not officially attributed to the ex, but we all know. Just messy and, shall we say, conduct unbecoming an officer. Lots of allegations of excessive drinking and other behavior that is only excusable as a "youthful indiscretion," which typically doesn't apply to those beyond college age.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted December 3 Posted December 3 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: it strikes me as solid and fair reporting. Beyond meaningless. You would say the same for any left-leaning piece that put a republican in the crosshairs. I believe you found Politico’s laptop reporting to be solid and fair. 1 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted December 3 Posted December 3 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Kind of what I said - a mom's love for her son is surpassed only by love for her grandkids. The mom here didn't leak the email. Mom sent the email to Pete and to Pete's ex. It's not officially attributed to the ex, but we all know. Just messy and, shall we say, conduct unbecoming an officer. Lots of allegations of excessive drinking and other behavior that is only excusable as a "youthful indiscretion," which typically doesn't apply to those beyond college age. If he is still drinking I have an issue but don't care in the least if he once did, if he is currently sleeping around I care but I don't care if he once did so long as it has ended. If a man is currently dressing as a woman and making people call him ma'am I care, but not if he did before. There are issues that matter only in the moment, and the ones you matter for a long time, such as real rape allegations, or taking advantage of under age girls, but as I stated nothing he did previously is overly concerning so long as it is a past action 1
The Frankish Reich Posted December 3 Posted December 3 1 hour ago, Orlando Buffalo said: If he is still drinking I have an issue but don't care in the least if he once did, if he is currently sleeping around I care but I don't care if he once did so long as it has ended. If a man is currently dressing as a woman and making people call him ma'am I care, but not if he did before. There are issues that matter only in the moment, and the ones you matter for a long time, such as real rape allegations, or taking advantage of under age girls, but as I stated nothing he did previously is overly concerning so long as it is a past action And there may be issues in your past that make you a security threat, subject to blackmail, etc. All reports say that the Trump transition team was pissed that Hegseth didn't disclose the police report naming him. Think about it: someone knows about that, the public doesn't, they use that information for leverage. Or other information that is similarly embarrassing/illegal. This is why we have the clearance process.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted December 3 Posted December 3 14 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: I read the New Yorker story (did anyone criticizing it do so?), and it strikes me as solid and fair reporting. I will point out that all of the Misadventures of Pete are the kinds of things that come up in a security clearance background investigation, and again, someone with this history would almost certainly not be granted a clearance if ordinary rules apply. If he ends up in the job let’s hope he doesn’t make like the current guy. Going awol for five days during a time of heightened global tensions and all that.
B-Man Posted December 3 Posted December 3 Smearing Pete Hegseth Sohrab Ahmari An essay published by The New Yorker on Monday claims that Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, “was forced to step down” as president of the advocacy group Concerned Veterans for America amid “serious allegations” of misconduct. We’re talking manhandling strippers, public drunkenness, lewd and obnoxious behavior—the kind of thing that would raise questions about someone slated to lead the Pentagon. Except: In interviews with me, two former senior leaders of CVA have denied the “whistleblower” allegations against Hegseth. They insisted that he left the organization voluntarily, without any pressure bearing down on him from its funders. And unlike The New Yorker’s sources, one of Hegseth’s CVA defenders spoke on the record. “I was there for most of those alleged incidents, and this stuff is just complete fabrications,” said Sean Parnell, a former US Army airborne ranger who retired as a captain with a Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars and served as a senior adviser at CVA during Hegseth’s tenure. Parnell asserted that the “whistleblower” claims had come from “people who were let go as the organization was growing, who weren’t fulfilling their duties. They just weren’t.” “All false,” said a veteran of the Global War on Terror who served alongside Hegseth in a senior role at CVA. “These were false allegations made by a group of disgruntled employees fired by Pete.” In some cases, the CVA veteran said, the complainants attributed their own carousing to Hegseth. Parnell and the second CVA veteran also rejected The New Yorker’s claim that Hegseth was forced out of his position at the organization owing to personal misconduct. “That couldn’t be further from the truth,” said Parnell. “This was right before President Trump began his first term. Pete and I were on the media all the time, talking about national security and foreign policy. And he and I became big believers in Trump’s vision of foreign policy. The funders of that organization [CVA] didn’t necessarily believe that. And because of that policy difference, over what America’s foreign and national-security policy should be, Pete parted ways. It was 100 percent professional, political differences.” The New Yorker also suggested that Hegseth’s departure from CVA was abrupt, leaving him with no immediate job options. This also wasn’t true, Parnell told me. “He was a Fox News contributor,” he noted, and in negotiations to become a full-time anchor at the cable network. “ABC was interested in him, as well, if memory serves. So it wasn’t just Fox.” The second CVA veteran echoed this characterization: “He left because his role on Fox was growing and he had a book deal. ‘Pete didn’t have another job lined up,’ the piece says, but very shortly after he left, he became a full-time Fox & Friends host.” https://www.compactmag.com/article/smearing-pete-hegseth/ 1
The Frankish Reich Posted December 3 Posted December 3 https://www.salon.com/2024/12/03/pete-hegseths-mother-begged-him-to-get-some-help---he-joined-a-misogynist-church-instead/ Pete favors doggy.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted December 3 Posted December 3 6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: https://www.salon.com/2024/12/03/pete-hegseths-mother-begged-him-to-get-some-help---he-joined-a-misogynist-church-instead/ Pete favors doggy. No doubt perverse to a puritan such as yourself. Sad! 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted December 4 Posted December 4 So why nominate this trainwreck and not somebody like Tom Cotton?
ChiGoose Posted December 4 Posted December 4 Just now, Coffeesforclosers said: So why nominate this trainwreck and not somebody like Tom Cotton? He’s on TV
Recommended Posts