• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

MilEME09 said:
I mean internal shake ups seem to be occurring, not to mention this rumor Trump tried to open the football over Iran and was told no
Click to expand...
What is the foundation of the rumour?

Does it have approximately the same epistemic status as musing that the next change in US military force protection is going to lead to scurvy?

What is the point of worrying about the movies in some peoples' heads, or bringing them here?
 
Brad Sallows said:
What is the foundation of the rumour?

Does it have approximately the same epistemic status as musing that the next change in US military force protection is going to lead to scurvy?

What is the point of worrying about the movies in some peoples' heads, or bringing them here?
Click to expand...
Claims are not substantiated, and I take it with a grain of salt however it woukd be par for the course.

www.newsweek.com

Did Trump try to use nuclear codes? No evidence to back viral claim

Larry Johnson - a retired CIA analyst - claimed Trump tried to access nuclear codes but was stopped by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
daftandbarmy said:
The amazing thing is that she apparently thought no one would discover this and splash it all over the internet...

Click to expand...

A little more info.

nypost.com

DHS bigwig put on leave after ex-boyfriend accuses glitzy terror official of $40K sugar baby scheme

A Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism official was placed on administrative leave Wednesday amid an internal probe of her having bilked a “sugar daddy” ex-boyfriend out of …
nypost.com nypost.com
 
The latest rules of engagement from the top... geez - the Navy always gets the best deal ;)

Trump orders U.S. military to 'shoot and kill' Iranian small boats choking Strait of Hormuz​

Israel says it's ready to resume war with Iran, awaiting 'green light' from U.S.​


U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he has ordered the U.S. military to "shoot and kill" small Iranian boats that deploy mines to choke traffic through the Strait of Hormuz as Israel says it's ready to resume attacks on Iran.

Trump's post on social media came shortly after the U.S. seized another tanker associated with the smuggling of Iranian oil, ratcheting up a standoff with Tehran over the strait through which 20 per cent of all crude oil and natural gas traded passes.

"I have ordered the United States Navy to shoot and kill any boat, small boats though they may be ... that is putting mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz," Trump posted.

 
daftandbarmy said:
The amazing thing is that she apparently thought no one would discover this and splash it all over the internet...

Click to expand...


Well, here's how I view this: She is single, so was the divorced guy. The dating site is legal and when entered willingly and freely by two parties that understand the type of relationship sought at that site, the relationship itself is perfectly legal. So what is the big deal, and why would it prevent her from continuing in her job (whether she is otherwise qualified for it being a separate question).

I am sorry. I am not overly prude when it comes to people having relationships. Not even for politician.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Well, here's how I view this: She is single, so was the divorced guy. The dating site is legal and when entered willingly and freely by two parties that understand the type of relationship sought at that site, the relationship itself is perfectly legal. So what is the big deal, and why would it prevent her from continuing in her job (whether she is otherwise qualified for it being a separate question).

I am sorry. I am not overly prude when it comes to people having relationships. Not even for politician.
Click to expand...
She is female, not a good demographic in the Trump regime.
 
QV said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...
Notice that the first three cabinet members that were forced out of office were female (Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and Lori Chavez-DeRemer). Navy Secretary Phelan is the first man forced to resign.

Then you have Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth who fired several female commanders for no valid reason. Plus his views that women should not be in combat units and his religious views that women should not have any position of authority or even the right to vote.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
Notice that the first three cabinet members that were forced out of office were female (Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and Lori Chavez-DeRemer). Navy Secretary Phelan is the first man forced to resign.
Click to expand...
So the argument now is supposed to be that it's because they were women, not the reasons enumerated in the press?
Retired AF Guy said:
Then you have Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth who fired several female commanders for no valid reason.
Click to expand...
We don't know that. There is a complicating factor. Women tend to support (more than men) the kinds of identity politics that Hegseth is manifestly - by his own statements - determined to root out. The fundamental cause would still be gender, but not in the way you seem to be thinking. (If he just wanted women out, surely he'd fire them all.) [Add: and you could look for evidence that some of the men fired were on the wrong side of Hegseth over identity politics, which would further suggest that is the true cause.]
Retired AF Guy said:
and his religious views that women should not have any position of authority or even the right to vote.
Click to expand...
That's not an accurate framing of what happened. He endorsed someone - for whatever reasons - who does hold that position. To understand the difference, recollect that Obama attending Jeremiah Wright's church is not the same thing as being congruent with Jeremiah Wright on all things.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Well, here's how I view this: She is single, so was the divorced guy. The dating site is legal and when entered willingly and freely by two parties that understand the type of relationship sought at that site, the relationship itself is perfectly legal. So what is the big deal, and why would it prevent her from continuing in her job (whether she is otherwise qualified for it being a separate question).

I am sorry. I am not overly prude when it comes to people having relationships. Not even for politician.
Click to expand...

Lots of things are "perfectly legal" but still questionable. There are some (many?) who would consider "sugar babying" morally ambiguous; some suggesting it is more similar to prostitution than "dating". Even if the "compensation" aspects of the relationship were mutually agreed, the claims of the "ex-boyfriend" that Varvaro used drugs and bypassed TSA checks using her credentials should give the DHS grounds to question the integrity of one of its employees (there's a first time for everything).

As to being qualified to fill the position of DAS CT Policy, she previously worked in FEMA and other smaller DHS roles before her political appointment as DAS and with her phd thesis being associated with the subject, she may be as similarly qualified for the job as many other Trump appointees. Though she may not have been as qualified as a previous holder of the office.
www.atlanticcouncil.org

Thomas S. Warrick

Thomas S. Warrick is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security's Adrienne Arsht National Security Resilience Initiative and the Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org
 
No. The "claim" of an EX- boyfriend should be taken as just that: a "claim" (not a fact) and form an "ex", who most likely has an ax to grind. Let him bring outside proof of this fact relying on something else than just his own testimony about that. No court, and court of public opinion, should otherwise condemn on such a flimsy basis.

Secondly, I did not comment one way or the other on her qualification for the job. That's why I specifically said it was a separate question, which I was not raising.

My basic point is that I think she was so attacked because she was the woman in the relationship and that a man would not have been affected by such accusations in a similar way. And I think it stinks either way, but even more so because we still seem to ask, somehow, for women to have a "higher" moral or personal virtue level than the one expected from men.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
No. The "claim" of an EX- boyfriend should be taken as just that: a "claim" (not a fact) and form an "ex", who most likely has an ax to grind. Let him bring outside proof of this fact relying on something else than just his own testimony about that. No court, and court of public opinion, should otherwise condemn on such a flimsy basis.

Secondly, I did not comment one way or the other on her qualification for the job. That's why I specifically said it was a separate question, which I was not raising.

My basic point is that I think she was so attacked because she was the woman in the relationship and that a man would not have been affected by such accusations in a similar way. And I think it stinks either way, but even more so because we still seem to ask, somehow, for women to have a "higher" moral or personal virtue level than the one expected from men.
Click to expand...
Let's be real.

This is America.

They cannot even decide what rights a woman has. This should not be surprising to anyone.

Just another in a long list of disappointments.
 
The allegations are specific enough that it should be straightforward enough to determine on review if there’s a potential security clearance issue.

While spurned ex lovers can have very questionable motives, they also sometimes have excellent information regarding criminality or misconduct.

Sniff for smoke, and if so, look for fire. If it’s not there, it’s not there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top