in the last news cycle we've heard from Mourning Joe, CIA mofo Brennan, and tired but decent Joe Lieberman about how unsuitable Ratcliffe is for Director of National Intelligence.
1. This is President Trump's privilege to choose. Presudent Trump got stuck with the children in cages problem but the media never even whispered about this until they could stick it on Trump.
2.
Doddering old farts like Coates are ready to kick the bucket anyway. Aside from being mired in decades old thinking, they were appointed when 9/11 had a grip on people that has leveled off somewhat.
3. Maybe Trump saw The Mueller hearings and decided to get the Geritol generation out the door before they flapped and fell to the floor.
But the most important thing critics and media aren't mentioning is one teensy weensy factor. And its probably the most important fact.
Senate clearing process works because it invites suggestions that there is "someone better" Trump might pick.
Um.. who?
I haven't heard one single suggestion that would make all this fantasy administration team picking as high minds as it sounds.
Somehow showing loyalty to Trump during the Mueller hearings is supposed to be a negative. Why?
But the media and every single critic of Ratcliffe's nomination forgets to state the elephant in the room:
98% of all those eminently more qualified wouldn't take the job.
They wouldn't work for Trump
Not one of the ppl flapping their gums about Ratcliff have one suggestion to make. Because there is none.
Anybody who should take the job won't. Anybody who wants it, will manipulate the process and likely will criticise the Presidents choice to set themself up.
And anybody who might be best choice in the fantasy football
dreamland has another job.
Or most likely is unwilling to put themselves or their family into the meat grinder and face the unreasonable and excessive abuse the press is waiting to serve up.
Trump saw Ratcliffe cut through the cr ap during the Old Yeller Hearings. So why not put him where he can do the most good.?
*And why must we call them "hearings" when the poor old dear couldn't hear most of the time?*
Both swamp creatures and the press continue to behave as if this was any other President and they pretend that this "Best candidate" they all speak of would come forward to serve , even if anybody knew who this Cinderella was.
So President Trump picked someone who not only showed him loyalty, but showed that in the glare of global press attentIon wouldn't back down.
Exactly the right guy for the job.
tommsteyer wrote:
in the last news cycle we've heard from Mourning Joe, CIA mofo Brennan, and tired but decent Joe Lieberman about how unsuitable Ratcliffe is for Director of National Intelligence.
1. This is President Trump's privilege to choose. Presudent Trump got stuck with the children in cages problem but the media never even whispered about this until they could stick it on Trump.
2.
Doddering old farts like Coates are ready to kick the bucket anyway. Aside from being mired in decades old thinking, they were appointed when 9/11 had a grip on people that has leveled off somewhat.
3. Maybe Trump saw The Mueller hearings and decided to get the Geritol generation out the door before they flapped and fell to the floor.
But the most important thing critics and media aren't mentioning is one teensy weensy factor. And its probably the most important fact.
Senate clearing process works because it invites suggestions that there is "someone better" Trump might pick.
Um.. who?
I haven't heard one single suggestion that would make all this fantasy administration team picking as high minds as it sounds.
Somehow showing loyalty to Trump during the Mueller hearings is supposed to be a negative. Why?
But the media and every single critic of Ratcliffe's nomination forgets to state the elephant in the room:
98% of all those eminently more qualified wouldn't take the job.
They wouldn't work for Trump
Not one of the ppl flapping their gums about Ratcliff have one suggestion to make. Because there is none.
Anybody who should take the job won't. Anybody who wants it, will manipulate the process and likely will criticise the Presidents choice to set themself up.
And anybody who might be best choice in the fantasy football
dreamland has another job.
Or most likely is unwilling to put themselves or their family into the meat grinder and face the unreasonable and excessive abuse the press is waiting to serve up.
Trump saw Ratcliffe cut through the cr ap during the Old Yeller Hearings. So why not put him where he can do the most good.?
*And why must we call them "hearings" when the poor old dear couldn't hear most of the time?*
Both swamp creatures and the press continue to behave as if this was any other President and they pretend that this "Best candidate" they all speak of would come forward to serve , even if anybody knew who this Cinderella was.
So President Trump picked someone who not only showed him loyalty, but showed that in the glare of global press attentIon wouldn't back down.
Exactly the right guy for the job.
in the last news cycle we've heard from Mourning J... (
show quote)
He should promote someone already in the agency. This should never be a political appointment! This just points out honest decent people don't want to be stained by this corrupt administration!
tommsteyer wrote:
in the last news cycle we've heard from Mourning Joe, CIA mofo Brennan, and tired but decent Joe Lieberman about how unsuitable Ratcliffe is for Director of National Intelligence.
1. This is President Trump's privilege to choose. Presudent Trump got stuck with the children in cages problem but the media never even whispered about this until they could stick it on Trump.
2.
Doddering old farts like Coates are ready to kick the bucket anyway. Aside from being mired in decades old thinking, they were appointed when 9/11 had a grip on people that has leveled off somewhat.
3. Maybe Trump saw The Mueller hearings and decided to get the Geritol generation out the door before they flapped and fell to the floor.
But the most important thing critics and media aren't mentioning is one teensy weensy factor. And its probably the most important fact.
Senate clearing process works because it invites suggestions that there is "someone better" Trump might pick.
Um.. who?
I haven't heard one single suggestion that would make all this fantasy administration team picking as high minds as it sounds.
Somehow showing loyalty to Trump during the Mueller hearings is supposed to be a negative. Why?
But the media and every single critic of Ratcliffe's nomination forgets to state the elephant in the room:
98% of all those eminently more qualified wouldn't take the job.
They wouldn't work for Trump
Not one of the ppl flapping their gums about Ratcliff have one suggestion to make. Because there is none.
Anybody who should take the job won't. Anybody who wants it, will manipulate the process and likely will criticise the Presidents choice to set themself up.
And anybody who might be best choice in the fantasy football
dreamland has another job.
Or most likely is unwilling to put themselves or their family into the meat grinder and face the unreasonable and excessive abuse the press is waiting to serve up.
Trump saw Ratcliffe cut through the cr ap during the Old Yeller Hearings. So why not put him where he can do the most good.?
*And why must we call them "hearings" when the poor old dear couldn't hear most of the time?*
Both swamp creatures and the press continue to behave as if this was any other President and they pretend that this "Best candidate" they all speak of would come forward to serve , even if anybody knew who this Cinderella was.
So President Trump picked someone who not only showed him loyalty, but showed that in the glare of global press attentIon wouldn't back down.
Exactly the right guy for the job.
in the last news cycle we've heard from Mourning J... (
show quote)
If I were the president and in Trump’s position, I’d pick someone who showed loyalty
also. Ratcliffe sounds fine to me and if he doesn’t workout, he can always be replaced. Give the man a chance to show what he can do.
Carol Kelly wrote:
If I were the president and in Trump’s position, I’d pick someone who showed loyalty
also. Ratcliffe sounds fine to me and if he doesn’t workout, he can always be replaced. Give the man a chance to show what he can do.
He's an honest good ol' Texas boy that everyone likes...his district includes the N.E Red River=Sandy Loam Soil n' Oak Tree Greenbelt=Horse Country and Black Gumbo=Cotton Farm Dirt as well as a piece of East Texas Piney Woods. Folks don't put up with a lot of crap round there
Lonewolf wrote:
He should promote someone already in the agency. This should never be a political appointment! This just points out honest decent people don't want to be stained by this corrupt administration!
You are a joke. A bad joke but a joke just the same. I hope one day you realize just what you have supported. Places like California, New York, Detroit, Chicago, and other s**t holes long under democrat control come to mine. Unless you can come up with one that has shown to prosper I would rethink my position supporting this treasonous party and then bend down and thank Trump for making America great again. We are at the top of the food chain no thanks to the bowing obama.
tommsteyer wrote:
in the last news cycle we've heard from Mourning Joe, CIA mofo Brennan, and tired but decent Joe Lieberman about how unsuitable Ratcliffe is for Director of National Intelligence.
1. This is President Trump's privilege to choose. Presudent Trump got stuck with the children in cages problem but the media never even whispered about this until they could stick it on Trump.
2.
Doddering old farts like Coates are ready to kick the bucket anyway. Aside from being mired in decades old thinking, they were appointed when 9/11 had a grip on people that has leveled off somewhat.
3. Maybe Trump saw The Mueller hearings and decided to get the Geritol generation out the door before they flapped and fell to the floor.
But the most important thing critics and media aren't mentioning is one teensy weensy factor. And its probably the most important fact.
Senate clearing process works because it invites suggestions that there is "someone better" Trump might pick.
Um.. who?
I haven't heard one single suggestion that would make all this fantasy administration team picking as high minds as it sounds.
Somehow showing loyalty to Trump during the Mueller hearings is supposed to be a negative. Why?
But the media and every single critic of Ratcliffe's nomination forgets to state the elephant in the room:
98% of all those eminently more qualified wouldn't take the job.
They wouldn't work for Trump
Not one of the ppl flapping their gums about Ratcliff have one suggestion to make. Because there is none.
Anybody who should take the job won't. Anybody who wants it, will manipulate the process and likely will criticise the Presidents choice to set themself up.
And anybody who might be best choice in the fantasy football
dreamland has another job.
Or most likely is unwilling to put themselves or their family into the meat grinder and face the unreasonable and excessive abuse the press is waiting to serve up.
Trump saw Ratcliffe cut through the cr ap during the Old Yeller Hearings. So why not put him where he can do the most good.?
*And why must we call them "hearings" when the poor old dear couldn't hear most of the time?*
Both swamp creatures and the press continue to behave as if this was any other President and they pretend that this "Best candidate" they all speak of would come forward to serve , even if anybody knew who this Cinderella was.
So President Trump picked someone who not only showed him loyalty, but showed that in the glare of global press attentIon wouldn't back down.
Exactly the right guy for the job.
in the last news cycle we've heard from Mourning J... (
show quote)
Trump knows he's on shaky ground when he starts hiring nobodies whose sole qualification is a rabid sense of protection for Trump.
Crayons wrote:
He's an honest good ol' Texas boy that everyone likes...his district includes the N.E Red River=Sandy Loam Soil n' Oak Tree Greenbelt=Horse Country and Black Gumbo=Cotton Farm Dirt as well as a piece of East Texas Piney Woods. Folks don't put up with a lot of crap round there
A place after my own heart. Thanks!
badbob85037 wrote:
You are a joke. A bad joke but a joke just the same. I hope one day you realize just what you have supported. Places like California, New York, Detroit, Chicago, and other s**t holes long under democrat control come to mine. Unless you can come up with one that has shown to prosper I would rethink my position supporting this treasonous party and then bend down and thank Trump for making America great again. We are at the top of the food chain no thanks to the bowing obama.
Oh get a life. Parts of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have always been dirt poor and always will be.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.