The kids won't be at home, they'll be working. I mean, it's like you're not even trying to keep up, Danny.

Have to replace all those deported migrants some how!

Easy. All the fired government employees will be relocated to labor camps where they can work agricultural jobs and put roofs on Edwards’ houses.

Hakeem Jeffries says that the Ethics Committee can do whatever it wants in regards to covering up Matt Gaetz's underage sex scandal.

Dems are always afraid to fight.

Can it be requested through an FOI request?

I hear they are going to name Epstein's ghost to head the department of Children and Family Services.

I heard it was Casey Anthony.

Head of Early Childhood Development.

And yet even some of the parody appointments are more qualified than most of the past four years appointees.

Jon has been named head of the Bureau of Diversity and Inclusion.

I'm definitely the right man for that job.

It's definitely not a cult.

Re. Troy Nehls:

So not just a Christian-Nationalist, but also a twice divorced rapist who has cheated on all his wives.... the perfect modern conservative.

What we know about sexual assault allegations against Trump cabinet pick Pete Hegseth - nj.com

Divorce…People doing people things. Cheating on a spouse is rampant in both parties but I’m guessing by your comment it’s more rampant in the Democrat party? Any idea why the sexual assault charges were dropped?

This isn't about parties it's about picking the right person to lead our military. Trump considered him during his last administration and dropped it because initial vetting didn't look good. They didn't vet him at all this time and it sounds like they may ask him to bow out of his nomination because they expect more to come out.

You can't be so far up the GOP's ass that you think this guy is a good choice? There are plenty of actually qualified people out there that would be good choices. This guy was picked simply because Trump likes Fox and Friends and served in the military.

Let's look at his qualifications:

Academically he does have degrees from Princeton and Harvard. He was an infantry Major and did multiple deployments into combat zones. The bronze stars look nice but it was a standard end of tour award for senior NCOs and officers that were deployed to combat zones during those times. Not knocking there but they shouldn't be used as a qualification for anything.

He worked at Bear Stearns for a couple years leading up to its collapse in '08. Zero foreign policy experience. Never been the head of a large or even mid sized company. He did lead a tiny non-profit I guess.

Now we get into the tattoos that got him flagged by the military as a security threat. The multiple divorces and affairs. The sexual assault allegations.

Most of his career, outside of the military, has been working for partisan think tanks and working on one of the most partisan television programs.

Let's look at someone like Mike Waltz:

26 years active duty. Former special forces, green beret, etc. 4 Bronze Stars, 2 with valor, which means they weren't just end of tour awards. Worked in the Pentagon as a defense policy director for secretaries of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates. Worked in the White House as the president's counterterrorism advisor. Was a founder of Metis Solutions, an analytical company that was sold for $92 million. He's served in the House since 2018.

That's just pulling the qualifications of the one other name I saw brought up as a potential Trump Secretary of Defense.

We are discussing different reasons to question him. Nothing that you have stated is addressing the concerns Ghost Recon brought up. I was addressing his specific concerns.

Fairly standard practice here.

Liberal one: He slept around, he’s not qualified, ugh…

Liberal two: yeah!

Conservative: They’ve all slept around, Walz has a baby with his house cleaner for example, and Kamala’s rise to prominence was sleeping with the married Mayor of SF. I’ve not seen liberal one complain about that, not once.

Liberal two: That’s not what this is about…it’s about on the job qualifications and Fox News…

Come on. I don't know how true the accusations are, but Ghost clearly included rapist and that's what he's primarily objecting to.

Liberal one: He's a rapist, he’s not qualified, ugh…

Liberal two: yeah!

Conservative: They’ve all slept around, Walz has a baby with his house cleaner for example, and Kamala’s rise to prominence was sleeping with the married Mayor of SF. I’ve not seen liberal one complain about that, not once.

Liberal two: Come on.

Qualifications and questionable behavior would both be considered reasons to question him, I'd think.



Not true.


He wasn't mayor at the time and he had been separated for a decade.


Having an affair is against UCMJ. For civilians like Kamala and others it would be questionable behavior but obviously not disqualifying. For Hegseth, the affairs aren't necessarily disqualifying but is part of a history of ignoring UCMJ and other rules. If he were running for office that would be entirely different than overseeing our military.

He was California speaker at the time and gave a government job to his girlfriend.

That's how honest government works right?

And later she was chosen to be VP based on her genitals.

Yeah where the hell does the bit about the house cleaner come from?

I think the house cleaner was Doug Emhoff, not Tim Walz.

So was JD Vance and plenty of other men throughout the country are chosen for positions based on their genitals on a daily basis. Why do people only have a problem with it when it's women?


EDIT: My overall point on this is it seems women get nitpicked on things like this while no one goes digging into men's relationships to see how they got their first break or anything like that. I got my first IT job largely because I'm a veteran. Does that invalidate everything I've done since? You could argue I'm not our nation's VP, but how many VPs have he had because they're a male? Men don't see that same level of scrutiny.

So Dutch is just taking falsehoods for granted and dropping them in like fact, then bothsidesing that liberals aren’t bothered by falsehood. Cool cool.

I'm always fascinated by how Christian Nationalists insist on embracing leaders who would be biblically disqualified from leading their local church.

(If you're not a Christian Nationalist, then I have less of an issue with it -- other than the obvious caveat that if you can't trust a guy to remain faithful to the most intimate relationship in his live, why should you trust him to be faithful to anything else?)

Quite simply because Joe Biden explicitly said he was choosing a VP candidate based on her genital. If some corporation said they were only hiring a candidate because they had a penis they would be sued into oblivion.

Do you think a VP candidate should be chosen for their genitals or not?

Joe Biden and the Democrats don't believe so. He was cheered for doing so.

Comes back to the binary/lesser of two evils stuff. For those who believe in that, which at this point appears to be about 95% of Americans, the only relevant factor is the comparison to other major party candidate.

Why do you care? Like, why is this such an affront? Yes, there are men qualified for VP. There are also women qualified for VP, yet somehow we never seem to chose one (candidates yes, actual VP before this no). But we can’t actually select one, because NO FAIR!

Because I believe people should be chosen for a job regardless of genitals or race.

Democrats don't believe that.

And…is this typically a problem? If so, who does this typically benefit? Are we able to do things to correct it or no? Can we, just as long as we don’t talk about it?

(Also, shocked that this view might possibly hurt your dating chances.)

So thinking that judging men and women for political should be based on merit and not genitals is hurting my dating chances? Eh, probably not.

But it is probably hurting the Democrats chances of taking office.

Not really true. Most dems actually would like to see equality. The problem is the only way to correct 250+ years of inequality is to selectively overcorrect.

If you and I decide to run a race and we're equal speed and, lets say I get a 10 step head start, I'm going to be 10 steps ahead of you throughout the race. At no point can you catch me no matter how long we race without someone stepping in and doing something to equalize things.

I mean, if your current disposition is working for you, I could well be wrong.

Biden and Cheney were different, but almost every VP in the past 60 years has been an identity pick.

Vance - young men
Harris - black women
Pence - white evangelicals

There's very little for the VP to do, so it's normal to pick a candidate who helps shore up a particular demographic. This absolutely happens with male candidates.

You don't have to say you're hiring a man because he has a penis because it's expected. Make JD Vance a woman and give him equal qualifications do you think Trump picks him? No chance. He was selected because he's a male and no one blinks an eye because acceptance has been ingrained in our society for centuries.

Let me know how the election worked out for you.

Actually if JD Vance was a woman I think Trump would still pick "him". Unless you have evidence to the contrary then this is a useless tangent to the discussion.

Trump has selected more white males for positions in both of his administrations than any other president this century. It's nice that you think a woman would have an equal chance.

I’m only worried about who won because of concerns about my country (and well being of my wife and kids) not because of party loyalty. If this turns out badly for me, well, I won’t be the only one with issues. Problems will be pretty apparent. (That is to say, if it didn’t “work out” for me it’s because on the whole we’re fucked.)

If I’m wrong, tell me so in four years.

Additionally, the GOP doesn't either. Women and minorities are held to a higher standard. Kamala's qualifications were questioned when she was running against a mixed success real estate mogul and reality television star with zero political experience before becoming President. As mentioned above, he also selected the most white males for his administrations than any President since Clinton.

What evidence do you have the GOP doesn't choose people based on genitals or race?

Trump just nominated a pedophile for Attorney General. Sort of get the feeling neither party views this as a meritocracy.

Then maybe your party shouldn't of pinned their hopes on a DEI hire.

Trying to argue the GOP is selecting people without regard to genitals and race is one hell of a hill to die on. Probably one of the stranger agreements I've seen on here, to be honest.

I knew you leaned right, but thought you were pretty sensible until stuff like this.

So burn it down because you’re mad at about a black woman. You seem rational.

Considering that Democrats died trying to take the Hill will Kamala, it doesn't seem so bad.

Probably better than dying trying to take the capital.