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).
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.?
Do you know that 1,300 West Point grad per year? In 3-4 decades (most assume cabinet positions in administration in their late 40's-early 50's), it's 39,000-52,000 officers, from just 1 school. Now add those from Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, etc. Each of them gets commission though for the obvious reason, not all have real wartime experience, which is not as critical in today's drone an simulation era. All in all, you get an ample source of more than 100,000 qualified candidates in the pool to pick from in any given year. And yes, many of them got plenty of various experiences needed to be leaders in the government. Depending on the individual's career goals, he or she is actually required to attain those. So it's not a haphazard process at all, but a streamline, copious production of future military and administration leaders.
It's not like picking a Nobel prize winning scientist.
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)
My point still stands that General Flynn did not cause Soetoro any issue during his terms, regardless of his moral stance. None of the Trump's bad picks would have caused any issue, either, had they not openly acted out their leftist subversion or refused to do their darn jobs.
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?
Please see above. Also, if you can pick out a builder/contractor, who should be easier to find than a potential Secretary of Defense, to build or renovate your home without betraying you or destroying it, why can't you pick out a decent SoD without his sabotaging you? If you can pick out an eye doctor (ophthalmologist), who should be harder to find than a potential SoD, to fix the cataract without blinding you, why can't you pick out a decent SoD without his stabbing you in the back?
Did Generals Mattis and Kelly not have good military experiences? How did these scums turn out?
Do you know that 1,300 West Point grad per year? In 3-4 decades (most assume cabinet positions in administration in their late 40's-early 50's), it's 39,000-52,000 officers, from just 1 school. Now add those from Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, etc. Each of them gets commission though for the obvious reason, not all have real wartime experience, which is not as critical in today's drone an simulation era. All in all, you get an ample source of more than 100,000 qualified candidates in the pool to pick from in any given year. And yes, many of them got plenty of various experiences needed to be leaders in the government. Depending on the individual's career goals, he or she is actually required to attain those. So it's not a haphazard process at all, but a streamline, copious production of future military and administration leaders.
It's not like picking a Nobel prize winning scientist.
Good arguments, though of those officers, how many attain higher-ranking positions? I imagine that there are very many qualified people in the (relatively speaking) lower-ranking positions, and somewhat fewer in the higher-ranking positions. If the deep state then imposes a considerable filter on whom gets promoted and gets the corresponding experience and the like based not on competence but on loyalty to the deep state and the like, it decreases considerably the pool of non-corrupt candidates.
This would fit with what I have heard other commenters talk about (in the context of a hypothetical civil war): The lower-ranking officers would generally join Trump, while the higher-ranking officers would mostly join the deep state and related. (however, I have also heard that diversity training, courses, requirements, hiring practices, etc., have had more and more impact on the military the last few decades, and I would imagine that would also affect the composition of officers).
That said, you still have (very) good points, but I still don't believe the pool is nearly as large as it could (or should) be. You do have very good arguments reg. that there are a very large pool of candidates that shouldn't be half-bad picks reg. both competence (and experience and the like) and also being non-corrupt.
As a side-note, I would imagine that the reason that non-corrupt people like General Flynn did not cause "problems" (I believe they are against intentional sabotage as such), apart from raising alarms (which regrettably mostly marked them as targets given how thorough the deep state, leftist, etc. etc. etc. infiltration and subversion was and is) was that they did not as such realize how utterly horrifyingly corrupt and wretched the deep state, leftists, etc. etc. etc. were and are. I do believe that high-ranking non-corrupt people are not that many in number.
I do believe that the situation and conditions for Trump and other non-corrupt leaders are in many ways fundamentally different than for deep state leaders.
Reg. how easy it is to identify candidates that are both loyal and competent (and will also have a good chance of being accepted reg. the different processes and other aspects):
I am uncertain how easy or difficult this is; very many people, including on /r/the_donald (and also on some of the chans as I recall) were deeply fooled reg. Mad Bitch Mattis. And it may be the case that Donald Trump was also fooled by him. I mean, Mad Bitch Mattis was fired by Barack Obama as well, and that was an indication that maybe he wasn't corrupt. But he turned out to be deeply corrupt (among other aspects).
I also wonder whether Trump's approaches to hiring may have had a bad effect here. I get the impression that some of the approaches Trump use is to give people a chance, and then fire them if they turn out bad. And if so, that is arguably a bad approach, especially when so incredibly ludicrously much is at stake. Though, I don't know nearly enough about Donald Trump to ascertain this, and as far as I know, Trump's Supreme Court picks have all been good (though he and his trusted people may have put much, much more effort and/or consciously chosen other approaches given that you cannot simply fire Supreme Court justices (unless you are the deep state and directly assassinate them like Justice Scalia..............)).
It might also have been strategy to some degree, to expose these people among other aspects, and that is not necessarily the best approach if so given the very large/extreme potential and practical drawbacks. But these things are not as such easy.
And then there are people such as one of Trump's lawyers. My impression is that he was a good lawyer for many years, but then turned on Trump (and I recall even broke the law reg. that).
My point still stands that General Flynn did not cause Soetoro any issue during his terms, regardless of his moral stance. None of the Trump's bad picks would have caused any issue, either, had they not openly acted out their leftist subversion or refused to do their darn jobs.
[...]
Please see above. Also, if you can pick out a builder/contractor, who should be easier to find than a potential Secretary of Defense, to do build or renovate your home without betraying you or destroying it, why can't you pick out a decent SoD without his sabotaging you? If you can pick out an eye doctor (ophthalmologist), who should be harder to find than a potential SoD, to fix the cataract without blinding you, why can't you pick out a decent SoD without his stabbing you in the back?
Did Generals Mattis and Kelly not have good military experiences? How did these scums turn out?
I imagine that General Flynn (and many other non-corrupt people) did not realize how things were at all. One of the effects of Donald Trump's presidency (and things before and during it) was extreme revelation of the deep state and many other aspects. At the same time, the corrupt, leftists, deep state, the people behind them, etc. etc. etc., or at least their core, were the ones scheming and planning and were very much aware of their own schemes and plans and goals (and a few/some of the non-core may be corrupt opportunists). And of the non-core, the "useful idiots", NPCs, golems, etc. etc. etc., follow their orders and programming (unless they are released from it, at this point they can end up filled with rage at the absolutely insanely extreme evil of the deep state, leftists, etc. etc. etc. - one of the stories about "golems" is that golems are powerful, obedient, unwitting slaves, but that their "creator" should be careful not to have the golem turn on them - in practice it seems that the people behind this seek to be prepared and then make their move if they see that their targets are awakening... with different moves depending on the situation). One possibly unrelated image is this: bankers and communists cooperating - and then consider the fully intentional, planned and organized genocides that the communists in China committed against ethnic Chinese with tens of millions murdered. You can also consider Gh-islai---ne Ma-xwe--ll's father and whom honored him at his funeral. There are still major revelations about the world that many even here do not know, but these revelations are incredibly, horribly bitter.
That reminds me of an image with two tweets shared recently, by the same tweet author, one from 2016 and the other from 2020. The first decried Trump as completely horrible. The second was something among the line of "I will walk on burning coals to vote for Trump".
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).
Do you know that 1,300 West Point grad per year? In 3-4 decades (most assume cabinet positions in administration in their late 40's-early 50's), it's 39,000-52,000 officers, from just 1 school. Now add those from Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, etc. Each of them gets commission though for the obvious reason, not all have real wartime experience, which is not as critical in today's drone an simulation era. All in all, you get an ample source of more than 100,000 qualified candidates in the pool to pick from in any given year. And yes, many of them got plenty of various experiences needed to be leaders in the government. Depending on the individual's career goals, he or she is actually required to attain those. So it's not a haphazard process at all, but a streamline, copious production of future military and administration leaders.
It's not like picking a Nobel prize winning scientist.
My point still stands that General Flynn did not cause Soetoro any issue during his terms, regardless of his moral stance. None of the Trump's bad picks would have caused any issue, either, had they not openly acted out their leftist subversion or refused to do their darn jobs.
Please see above. Also, if you can pick out a builder/contractor, who should be easier to find than a potential Secretary of Defense, to build or renovate your home without betraying you or destroying it, why can't you pick out a decent SoD without his sabotaging you? If you can pick out an eye doctor (ophthalmologist), who should be harder to find than a potential SoD, to fix the cataract without blinding you, why can't you pick out a decent SoD without his stabbing you in the back?
Did Generals Mattis and Kelly not have good military experiences? How did these scums turn out?
Good arguments, though of those officers, how many attain higher-ranking positions? I imagine that there are very many qualified people in the (relatively speaking) lower-ranking positions, and somewhat fewer in the higher-ranking positions. If the deep state then imposes a considerable filter on whom gets promoted and gets the corresponding experience and the like based not on competence but on loyalty to the deep state and the like, it decreases considerably the pool of non-corrupt candidates.
This would fit with what I have heard other commenters talk about (in the context of a hypothetical civil war): The lower-ranking officers would generally join Trump, while the higher-ranking officers would mostly join the deep state and related. (however, I have also heard that diversity training, courses, requirements, hiring practices, etc., have had more and more impact on the military the last few decades, and I would imagine that would also affect the composition of officers).
That said, you still have (very) good points, but I still don't believe the pool is nearly as large as it could (or should) be. You do have very good arguments reg. that there are a very large pool of candidates that shouldn't be half-bad picks reg. both competence (and experience and the like) and also being non-corrupt.
As a side-note, I would imagine that the reason that non-corrupt people like General Flynn did not cause "problems" (I believe they are against intentional sabotage as such), apart from raising alarms (which regrettably mostly marked them as targets given how thorough the deep state, leftist, etc. etc. etc. infiltration and subversion was and is) was that they did not as such realize how utterly horrifyingly corrupt and wretched the deep state, leftists, etc. etc. etc. were and are. I do believe that high-ranking non-corrupt people are not that many in number.
I do believe that the situation and conditions for Trump and other non-corrupt leaders are in many ways fundamentally different than for deep state leaders.
Reg. how easy it is to identify candidates that are both loyal and competent (and will also have a good chance of being accepted reg. the different processes and other aspects):
I am uncertain how easy or difficult this is; very many people, including on /r/the_donald (and also on some of the chans as I recall) were deeply fooled reg. Mad Bitch Mattis. And it may be the case that Donald Trump was also fooled by him. I mean, Mad Bitch Mattis was fired by Barack Obama as well, and that was an indication that maybe he wasn't corrupt. But he turned out to be deeply corrupt (among other aspects).
I also wonder whether Trump's approaches to hiring may have had a bad effect here. I get the impression that some of the approaches Trump use is to give people a chance, and then fire them if they turn out bad. And if so, that is arguably a bad approach, especially when so incredibly ludicrously much is at stake. Though, I don't know nearly enough about Donald Trump to ascertain this, and as far as I know, Trump's Supreme Court picks have all been good (though he and his trusted people may have put much, much more effort and/or consciously chosen other approaches given that you cannot simply fire Supreme Court justices (unless you are the deep state and directly assassinate them like Justice Scalia..............)).
It might also have been strategy to some degree, to expose these people among other aspects, and that is not necessarily the best approach if so given the very large/extreme potential and practical drawbacks. But these things are not as such easy.
And then there are people such as one of Trump's lawyers. My impression is that he was a good lawyer for many years, but then turned on Trump (and I recall even broke the law reg. that).
I imagine that General Flynn (and many other non-corrupt people) did not realize how things were at all. One of the effects of Donald Trump's presidency (and things before and during it) was extreme revelation of the deep state and many other aspects. At the same time, the corrupt, leftists, deep state, the people behind them, etc. etc. etc., or at least their core, were the ones scheming and planning and were very much aware of their own schemes and plans and goals (and a few/some of the non-core may be corrupt opportunists). And of the non-core, the "useful idiots", NPCs, golems, etc. etc. etc., follow their orders and programming (unless they are released from it, at this point they can end up filled with rage at the absolutely insanely extreme evil of the deep state, leftists, etc. etc. etc. - one of the stories about "golems" is that golems are powerful, obedient, unwitting slaves, but that their "creator" should be careful not to have the golem turn on them - in practice it seems that the people behind this seek to be prepared and then make their move if they see that their targets are awakening... with different moves depending on the situation). One possibly unrelated image is this: bankers and communists cooperating - and then consider the fully intentional, planned and organized genocides that the communists in China committed against ethnic Chinese with tens of millions murdered. You can also consider Gh-islai---ne Ma-xwe--ll's father and whom honored him at his funeral. There are still major revelations about the world that many even here do not know, but these revelations are incredibly, horribly bitter.
That reminds me of an image with two tweets shared recently, by the same tweet author, one from 2016 and the other from 2020. The first decried Trump as completely horrible. The second was something among the line of "I will walk on burning coals to vote for Trump".