I am not convinced there were nearly that many suitable candidates (for instance, for a position like the Secretary of Defense, you likely need certain combinations of experience and qualifications that may not be that widespread). And then there are processes like confirmation hearings and the like. Holding the House and the Senate without any RINOs or traitors would likely help matters greatly. That said, I could be wrong about it.
EDIT: Used 'secretary of defense' for the example instead.
Could you name one "bad" hire by Barry Soetoro? Has Soetoro ever mistakenly hired some Conservative patriot for any of his Cabinet positions during his 8-year reign of terror? Same question for Clinton's regime. Was jihadi Soetoro or Bill the Rapist exceptional in their hiring? Not really. The implication is hiring someone with an acceptable level of qualifications AND loyalty is not as hard as you think.
Except they were part of the deep state, and the swamp is incredibly deep, so they had lots and lots of people to hire from. The main "bad" hire they had as far as I know was General Flynn, because it turns out he had far too much integrity. Besides, they like to assassinate, destroy, etc. those that don't submit to them.
Except they were part of the deep state, and the swamp is incredibly deep, so they had lots and lots of people to hire from.
Are you saying most qualified people work for Deep State? How many of 74-80 million of Trump legal voters do you think qualify for positions under Trump administration?
The main "bad" hire they had as far as I know was General Flynn, because it turns out he had far too much integrity.
Has General Flynn stirred up any trouble at any point in time during Soetoro's reign of terror, like many of Trump's appointments have under Trump administration?
Are you saying most qualified people work for Deep State? How many of 74-80 million of Trump legal voters do you think qualify for positions under Trump administration?
But it very much depends on what one means by "qualifications". To take the Secretary of Defense as an example, how many people have years of experience working with the bureaucracy reg. the US military and the US government in general? How many also have lots of experience and knowledge reg. military, modern warfare, etc.? And as I wrote before in https://thedonald.win/p/11QSH0nvGR/x/c/4DpLP6oW0fg, there are processes like confirmation hearings and the like. Holding the House and the Senate without any RINOs or traitors would likely help matters greatly.
Has General Flynn stirred up any trouble at any point in time during Soetoro's reign of terror, like many of Trump's appointments have under Trump administration?
Well he had too much integrity for them, which likely fit what the deep state considered "stirring up trouble" (which is in stark contrast to the appointments under Trump, whom have sabotaged things due to loyalty to and fear of the deep state and the causes of the left and the like as well as (extreme) corruption). See for instance https://thedonald.win/p/11QS7cJvpF/synopsis-of-what-happened-to-gen/c/ , where he among other aspects was concerned about the threat of Islamic terrorism and the likes of (extremely enslaving and genocidal) ISIS. And then, under Trump, ISIS was quickly annihilated after Trump find out Mad Bitch Mattis was lying and stalling to him about how easily and quickly ISIS could be annihilated (I can look for the source for that if you would like it, I read it among other places a few days ago).
While you do have a very good point that there were very few such examples under them, the deep state has also had things greatly under control for very many decades, pushing out the competent people with integrity and inserting and keeping the deep-state-loyal ones over time. And if you have 10,000 people whom are more than intelligent, social, driven, excellent, etc. enough to handle the position of for instance Secretary of Defense, but they don't have years of experience with the military bureaucracy, have not studied warfare in depth, etc. etc. etc., then are such people really great candidates? Worse, would it be easy to get them into position reg. processes such as hearings and the like?
That said, you could possibly make a very good (or better) argument that the current in-effect criteria there are for these positions might have to be changed. Some of them are there for possibly good reasons, such as hearings, but there may of course be parts of them that are problematic and/or have been subverted and the like. Would it make sense to either permanently or temporarily change some of these processes? But how easy would it be to change them? Then again, given how extremely important this is (and you do have a very good point reg. that), maybe it would be best to seek to change them (though care should of course be taken reg. such things, among other aspects).
I am not convinced there were nearly that many suitable candidates (for instance, for a position like the Secretary of Defense, you likely need certain combinations of experience and qualifications that may not be that widespread). And then there are processes like confirmation hearings and the like. Holding the House and the Senate without any RINOs or traitors would likely help matters greatly. That said, I could be wrong about it.
EDIT: Used 'secretary of defense' for the example instead.
Could you name one "bad" hire by Barry Soetoro? Has Soetoro ever mistakenly hired some Conservative patriot for any of his Cabinet positions during his 8-year reign of terror? Same question for Clinton's regime. Was jihadi Soetoro or Bill the Rapist exceptional in their hiring? Not really. The implication is hiring someone with an acceptable level of qualifications AND loyalty is not as hard as you think.
Except they were part of the deep state, and the swamp is incredibly deep, so they had lots and lots of people to hire from. The main "bad" hire they had as far as I know was General Flynn, because it turns out he had far too much integrity. Besides, they like to assassinate, destroy, etc. those that don't submit to them.
Are you saying most qualified people work for Deep State? How many of 74-80 million of Trump legal voters do you think qualify for positions under Trump administration?
Has General Flynn stirred up any trouble at any point in time during Soetoro's reign of terror, like many of Trump's appointments have under Trump administration?
But it very much depends on what one means by "qualifications". To take the Secretary of Defense as an example, how many people have years of experience working with the bureaucracy reg. the US military and the US government in general? How many also have lots of experience and knowledge reg. military, modern warfare, etc.? And as I wrote before in https://thedonald.win/p/11QSH0nvGR/x/c/4DpLP6oW0fg, there are processes like confirmation hearings and the like. Holding the House and the Senate without any RINOs or traitors would likely help matters greatly.
Well he had too much integrity for them, which likely fit what the deep state considered "stirring up trouble" (which is in stark contrast to the appointments under Trump, whom have sabotaged things due to loyalty to and fear of the deep state and the causes of the left and the like as well as (extreme) corruption). See for instance https://thedonald.win/p/11QS7cJvpF/synopsis-of-what-happened-to-gen/c/ , where he among other aspects was concerned about the threat of Islamic terrorism and the likes of (extremely enslaving and genocidal) ISIS. And then, under Trump, ISIS was quickly annihilated after Trump find out Mad Bitch Mattis was lying and stalling to him about how easily and quickly ISIS could be annihilated (I can look for the source for that if you would like it, I read it among other places a few days ago).
While you do have a very good point that there were very few such examples under them, the deep state has also had things greatly under control for very many decades, pushing out the competent people with integrity and inserting and keeping the deep-state-loyal ones over time. And if you have 10,000 people whom are more than intelligent, social, driven, excellent, etc. enough to handle the position of for instance Secretary of Defense, but they don't have years of experience with the military bureaucracy, have not studied warfare in depth, etc. etc. etc., then are such people really great candidates? Worse, would it be easy to get them into position reg. processes such as hearings and the like?
That said, you could possibly make a very good (or better) argument that the current in-effect criteria there are for these positions might have to be changed. Some of them are there for possibly good reasons, such as hearings, but there may of course be parts of them that are problematic and/or have been subverted and the like. Would it make sense to either permanently or temporarily change some of these processes? But how easy would it be to change them? Then again, given how extremely important this is (and you do have a very good point reg. that), maybe it would be best to seek to change them (though care should of course be taken reg. such things, among other aspects).
Oh, cool, more excuses.
What are your views on Donald Trump's choices and selections?