Just in case you missed it...

[_Markk]

Er... like I just said ....

viewtopic.php?p=1214459#p1214459[/quote]

See underlined in response to your bold...what did she say "HOW" she was going to do it...by letting a nine year old child make the final choice. And she doubled down on it later at another stop...which is what I commented on in my op. Follow the links.

Pandering or not it is stupid, and actually Doc makes a great point in that trying to own and defend it is equally stupid.

[_Markk]

READ Warren's words. THINK about what she said. I know that's asking too much of you but, until you do read her statements, you're not in any position to take a position on this.

LOL...I have kids, I taught nine years old two times a week for over fifteen years at church. been involved in things like scouting. I have ministered in JV hall, and coached umpteen kids in sports, I have countless nieces and nephews being from a more than large Mormon family, and I was a nine year old. I am more than qualified to take a position on this subject...and you are showing why you are a follower and why these politicians (on both sides) get into office and get away with what they get away with.

She said the KID is going to interview the potential candidate, on the president of the United States behalf ( a representative of), and only, after the interview, if the KID feels that the nominee is committed to make a safe and welcoming environment for everyone, will the nominee be chosen. LOL it would be classic if the kid came back and said all the persons pre-vetted were not qualified.

Personally I am sure you are not "able" to take a position on this, in that as a follower... your decision was made for you and because of your bias, you blindly agree. That's my opinion. It okay to say someone you support as a candidate is a idiot, I have to most everyday, in that in all reality they are all idiots, liars, and pandering morons much of the time.

One thing I like about Trump, right or wrong, is that if you watch his rallies, he will say something he knows is BS, and then he starts laughing at his own BS...he knows running a race is a game, how to push buttons, and he is just having fun with it.

[Guest]

]
I'm still waiting for Markk to explain why allowing a 9-year-old child make the final pick from a pool of equally qualified and vetted candidates is any worse than any other method. I'm not expecting that he'll address that because once he adopts a position, he seeks only to go all in on it regardless of competent arguments or facts that otherwise show his position to be faulty.

LOL, just when I thought it could not go more south...well,


For one thing all the candidates will come from different back grounds and will have different methods, choose different paths to get to the presidents end goal, etc. That is part of the process, the candidates will not all be robots. They will all have different egos, some may be aggressive, some more passive, some whiners, some real go getters, some might just rub you the wrong way, even if qualified....etc. As commander in chief only they know what true direction they want, and need to have a feel of who they believe will work for your goals and not wander off and most importantly work well together, someone you can trust. .

As commander and chief, or any boss, you want people that you can connect with, even if someone else might be equally or more qualified. This is critical in choosing any under boss. You have to have a personal connection and big time trust in who you pick. It is not like they are personally vetting all these folks, they have people doing this for them in most cases, unless they have a personal friend they all ready know in mind they have worked with in the past, then you vet and narrow it down to your choice. In other words your already chosen advisors gather names and candidates that you as president are responsable to chose from.

The president is busy running the business of president, it is not like they are doing all the research and pre vetting for all the positions they need filled. They have umpteen people to choose and hire, and they get a group of candidates,their bios, their past accomplishments... and they vet. It is their Job and their RESPONSIBILITY to choose the person for the job, not anyone else's, and certainly not a child's job.

If the the person fails, and was the chosen one of the child...lets say the person made a huge mistake and their was a huge fail...say they made a poor policy that caused the death of kids at a school, for any reason from a shooting or giving a contract to a bad food vendor...? Could the the president blame the child? What would the press and the people say?


As commander and chief they have the responsibility of who is chosen, the buck stops with them, and they need to choose the best candidate that will work with their cabinet and themselves. These are thier closest advisors and their right arms, they better try to get it right, it is hard enough for them to pick the right one, let alone a nine year old kid.

Doc said it best...this is INSANITY...

Canpakes, do you really understand what you are saying and do you really want to try to defend this? The more I think about having the child do her job, becasue that is what she was asking, that she was elected for, the more I think she is a lunatic.

But hey...please show me "competent arguments or facts that otherwise show his my position to be faulty.

[_Markk]

That's not what is being proposed, and you are being thick-headed after it's been explained to you. Maybe instead you should question why you're reading the Daily Caller when it misleads you and makes you beclown yourself like this.

First I just googled the video, I didn't read anything on that link and I have no idea what the Daily Caller is. I based my assertion on the video, which is also linked the very same on Cspan.

And it was what was proposed, she stated the kid would have the final say. Read my last post to canpakes.

[_canpakes]

Canpakes, do you really understand what you are saying and do you really want to try to defend this? The more I think about having the child do her job, becasue that is what she was asking, that she was elected for, the more I think she is a lunatic.

Markk, what I have consistently stated in this thread is that you are misrepresenting what Warren said, by insinuating that a 9-year-old child's opinion is the only criteria to be deployed in the candidate selection process. You're doing the same in this response here, when you say that Warren is having a child "do her (Warren's) job". You know that you are misrepresenting this from two obvious reasons:

1. The child would presumably give the thumbs up to a candidate from a vetted selection, which indicates that Warren has done "her job" in providing a selection of qualified candidates to review.

2. The child isn't selecting the candidate; the child has veto power only. As Warren is describing the process, the child could give a thumbs up to all members of a vetted pool of candidates. This is not the same as 'choosing' the final candidate.

To recap - and answer your question - I completely understand what I'm saying. You, apparently, do not, and are willing as well to try to twist Warren's' statement because you aren't able to back down from your misrepresentation. ; )



(By the way, if you're going to go all in on trying to distract from your initial misrepresentation, then maybe you should save your lecture on candidate selection for the current Administration, considering the problem that it has had since the beginning with that responsibility, as illustrated from this article from a few years back: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... n-history/ )

[_Markk]

Markk, what I have consistently stated in this thread is that you are misrepresenting what Warren said, by insinuating that a 9-year-old child's opinion is the only criteria to be deployed in the candidate selection process. You're doing the same in this response here, when you say that Warren is having a child "do her (Warren's) job". You know that you are misrepresenting this from two obvious reasons:

1. The child would presumably give the thumbs up to a candidate from a vetted selection, which indicates that Warren has done "her job" in providing a selection of qualified candidates to review.

2. The child isn't selecting the candidate; the child has veto power only. As Warren is describing the process, the child could give a thumbs up to all members of a vetted pool of candidates. This is not the same as 'choosing' the final candidate.



To recap - and answer your question - I completely understand what I'm saying. You, apparently, do not, and are willing as well to try to twist Warren's' statement because you aren't able to back down from your misrepresentation. ; )



(By the way, if you're going to go all in on trying to distract from your initial misrepresentation, then maybe you should save your lecture on candidate selection for the current Administration, considering the problem that it has had since the beginning with that responsibility, as illustrated from this article from a few years back: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... n-history/ )

LOL. You wrote "The child isn’t selecting the candidate; they only have veto power?" LOL classic. Warren said they wouldn’t be approved unless the child said okay...I am genuinely laughing as a write this, it just does not getting any more bizarre.

Where did I say it was the only criteria, If any thing I said the final criteria said it was the final criteria...


This is what I wrote in. My OP...” Having a nine year old choose the secretary of education...this might just be the reason that the left wants witnesses, to tie up Warren and Bernie from campaigning. “
Warren said the child in the end will choose the SoE.

You asked me a question on why I disagree with this...please answer my reason why it is a relay stupid way to choose a cabinet member, instead of trying to wiggle around sticking your foot in your mouth.

As yes Trump goes through cabinet members like I go through sand paper in my shop, when they no longer are affective to my purpose, I get a new piece. So what does that have to do with what Warren said, other than your trying wiggle away from the corner you are backed into.

What would the media say if the child’s final choice was a complete fail...? You are also implying that Warren won’t choose the best candidate for the job, that will work for her the best, that somehow her final choices are all equal.

You have never been in managment have you? There are also other considerations, like what can the candidate do for warren, like raise money or get her votes...what state are they from? What are they’re connections?

Classic nonsense. The child is doing her job, they are interviewing and choosing the SoE...whether pre vetted or not. It is the President’ job to pick high level national cabinet members, not a citizens, and certainly not a child’s.

[_Jersey Girl]

Markk what is my field?

[_EAllusion]

As yes Trump goes through cabinet members like I go through sand paper in my shop, when they no longer are affective to my purpose, I get a new piece.

Is your purpose bottomless corruption? How does sandpaper help you with that?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... as illustrated from this article from a few years back:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... n-history/ )

That is the most adorable thing posting a link for Markk where there's a 100% certainty it won't get clicked on, much less read.

Too cute.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Markk what is my field?

And? What in the world does your deep understanding of child psychology have to do with allowing a 9-year-old child have final say on a cabinet selection. It's precisely because you know a child could never approximate understanding the executive responsibilities nor experiences for a SoE that they should be within a mile of veto power. My god Jersey Girl, get over the feels and get in the reals. I'm starting to question your grasp on what entails a national-level, executive-level cabinet position and how that world and the world of a 9-year-old couldn't be further apart other than the child is acted upon by the system. And what the “F” does that child bring to the table that makes him so much more capable than another child who might be more capable with regard to understanding the awesome responsibility of approving or denying a cabinet pick? Is the selection criteria for a child who's being given this massive responsibility simply done through a political apparatus where the parent is savvy enough to get their kid in front of a potential nominee? You are way off the reservation with this one.

- Doc