Drinking alcohol never affected the way goat moderated the Cooler!
Confirming President-elect Trump's remaining most controversial nominees.
- Thread starter Aloha Hoosier
- Start date
This was totally stupid! Never make concession that early in a negotiation. Tell the left to go pound sand in their pie hole, or as SecDef I will use SOF on you. Mic drop.
Easy enough?
Once again, Aloha defending the left. It's not a first, it's a trend. A trend that he has perpetuated quite effectively.
Once again, I'm NOT defending the left. Recognizing that Hegseth isn't a good nominee (neither are Gabbard or RFK, and I'm OK with the rest - except possibly Kash) is NOT defending the left. Nothing requires you and every other Republican to snap to and salute every single nominee as if they were the best thing since slice bread. Trump is far from flawless and not everyone of his nominees is great. Rubio, no problem. Bondi, she'll be confirmed. I'd actually vote to confirm the large majority of his nominees.
But I actually think that Pete is exactly what we need. Not because of Trump (eff Trump), because of our recent mil leadership.
I would bet Murt $ that over a million of or service people agree. But you don't like him because you are honestly a leftist plant.
Pete's gonna rock the shit out of it! MAke men, men again. Warriors Warriors again. Stand quiet, ready and deployable within 30 minutes. Deployed to bring hell, not rainbow dildos (if reports are accurate).
No bet from me. I follow @DANC’s lead on all things boots on the ground. He’s seen the ugly stuff. So we don’t have to….
You're allowed to have that opinion. I don't share it. I don't think he has the qualifications, temperament or character necessary for the job. We'll see how the hearings go, but I don't expect them to be smooth for him.
Stop with the leftist plant bullshit. I'm almost certainly more conservative than you. Total devotion to Trump does not improve your conservative bona fides.
The only proof of this, is you saying that it is true. Otherwise, I would believe it.
You've play a good role. Quite commendable actually. Academy award level role. Quite (almost) convincing.
You know on DANC again if he says this is the guy then that’s all I need to hear. I hated when the libs, and you know which ones, would come to the board and attack him while he was sleeping in the morning. That’s why I’d come in his stead. Fight his fight. I’m not living with night terrors. I haven’t served in that kind of capacity
3 more drinks, and I understand all of that !!!
Either way, in the end, What DanC says, is embolden in stone. Other pretenders, pure enjoyment only!!
I have no problem with the FBI investigating the bejesus out of the objective facts concerning education, career, criminal activity, finances, associations and more. Based only on the article you linked, the FBI also seems to investigate and report about subjective feelings about the nominee. That sounds like the silly FBI email exchanges about Trump in2016. That’s pretty much unreliable and in the FBI’s case led to violations of the law.COH, I'm sorry, but that's just silly. FBI background investigations are not oppo research. Background investigations aren't about looking for good stuff - it's about looking for red flags and problems. I've had an initial background investigation and periodic background investigations since 1985. I was asked a lot of tough questions over the years. Of course they ask questions about my personal life. That shouldn't be off limits for a person who's going for the highest possible security clearance (which I held and still hold). Sometimes I wonder how in the hell they found certain things which I considered a bit embarrassing.Ultimately, I "passed" and retained my clearance every time. These things are supposed to be thorough looks, and I see absolutely nothing unusual in what we know about his. I also think the idea that the FBI is bringing politics into this to be ludicrous.
Incidentally, promising not to drink if confirmed is a large red flag.
They ask questions of friends, families, neighbors and colleagues too. It’s all about seeing whether we’re susceptible to bribery, blankmail, honey pots, etc., etc. There is nothing unusual about it and it’s not “oppo research.”
