Social Question

stanleybmanly's avatar

What do you think of Trump’s latest shakeup of the national intelligence services.

Asked by stanleybmanly (21514points) 1 month ago from iPhone

Our stable genius fired the Director for National Intelligence apparently because he’s pissed at the news that the Russians are once more working hard to re-elect him. The fool has appointed a know nothing toady with no intelligence experience as temporary director.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

25 Answers

elbanditoroso's avatar

He hires loyalist incompetents. It is a power thing for him.

If he had people of skill and intelligence, they would disagree. And his frail ego can’t handle that. This sort of practice – hiring incompetent people – has been his modus operandi since the day he was elected.

Face it, our lunatic president is a weakling, and shows it every day.

ragingloli's avatar

You know, when Grenell became ambassador to Germany, he was so shit, that people in high offices were calling for him to be kicked out of the country and to be declared a persona non grata.
Drumpf appoints people on one criterium, and one criterium only: loyalty to the Führer.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I think @ragingloli said it best, The Don Father commands absolute loyalty screw the country, loyalty to the Don Father is all that matters.
And as long as there is lots of crappy jobs for the peasants all is well.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Is this a question, or a call to arms?

stanleybmanly's avatar

What do YOU think?

Patty_Melt's avatar

I will tell you what I think, but it won’t help you in the slightest. You have your mind made up.

Firstly, there is a great deal we have no business splattering in the news. Security is not security if it is open to the scrutiny of the public.
During my Navy days I had occasion to meet with some intelligence personnel of the Navy. There are X number of a particular rank, and all but one were at that location that day. It is highly irregular for more than two at a time to be in the same location, as an attack would be critical.
The location was not top secret, but it is low profile. The rank, and number of those service members is secret, and their being compromised by meeting in one spot was not to be discussed.
I share this only to support my point that secrets must be kept to protect identity and safety of numerous people.

I have no respect for any news outlet for making public information which pertains to security.

About the firing, not our business. It was in the works before the rantings about Russian blah blah 2020.
Nancy screeches about a lot of shit, some of which she isn’t even cleared to know.

What we know about the Intel experience of someone else, from newspapers is not the slightest bit reliable, because divulging the experience of such a person would be stupid, and treasonous.
If you don’t have first hand knowledge, you don’t have jack. Even with when people believe they have first hand knowledge, doesn’t always mean much.
They day I spoke of above, what I knew, their spouses did not know.
So, I have no reason to lend any credence whatsoever to “news breaks” on the subject.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Patty_Melt I understand what you are saying in the context of your history.

My problem is when you say “secrets must be kept to protect identity”.

Several comments:

- for decades the government (writ large)—not just the military—has made a policy of over-classifying things. Even things that shouldn’t be secret are locked in big safes. The whole idea of secrecy has become a way for politicians and leaders to do whatever they want and not have to be accountable to the public. We, the people, are lied to over and over and can’t have access to the information that is ours – because someone declared some scrap of paper top secret.

With that as background, I am far less willing to accept “there need to be secrets” than I would be if I felt there was some honesty and accountability in our executive branch.

2) you wrote “About the firing, not our business” – of course it is our business. These are the people what we (yes, I pay taxes) employ to protect us. If a top protector is canned for no apparent reason, then I’m going to ask why. As a citizen, I have the right to ask and to get a straight answer. I don’t need all the gory details, but I have a right to know whether the person was canned because he was a spy, a wife-beater, a pedophilee, or just someone who pissed of the president.

3) Finally, if the government wants me to accept that they should keep secrets, then don’t do things like naming the Ukraine whistleblower. Play by the same rules. or don’t complain.

I truly wish I could trust the government to be honest with me.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Nice try Ms. Melt. But to assert that this fool is working in the interests of the country regarding his behavior toward the intelligence services requires levels of incredulity beyond belief.

Patty_Melt's avatar

And again I ask, is this a question? These ever occurring political rants which begin as a question continuously cause me to wonder how long the trolling will persist. One after another faux questions pop up where the asker has no question. They have their mind made up. It is nothing more than a trollish rant disguised as a question. Each time you post one, you lose credibility with me. That goes for everyone guilty of this behavior.
That the mods continue allowing it tells me something of the bias existing here.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course it is a question. What do you think? You can call it trolling if you please, but if you believe this idiot’s behavior is beyond question or challenge, you are afflicted with precisely whatever disorder drives our great catastrophe of a President. And I will risk losing whatever credibility I may have in telling you that MY credibility is not the issue. YOU know it !! Every defender of the turd SHOULD know it, and every fuckup, misstep, sleazy lie and vengeful disruption should be waved in your face regardless of whatever volume of sand must be removed to locate your head.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

People stand up and defend this idiot with things he is innocent of every thing, but people close to him keep going down , I thought he was to surround himself with the very best people, I still think his impeachment was a huge coverup by the conservatives.

stanleybmanly's avatar

No Squeek it is no longer a matter of covering it up. There is entirely too much of IT right out in the open. Over and over, day in day out. EVERY fkn day.

Patty_Melt's avatar

I find you tiresome.

stanleybmanly's avatar

As you do the truth.

cheebdragon's avatar

Let’s be honest, even if he had given the guy a promotion or a raise you would bitch about it being suspicious.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let’s hear YOUR objective perspective on the positive aspects of the matter. Why should I cut Trump some slack?

cheebdragon's avatar

“apparently because he’s pissed at the news that the Russians are once more working hard to re-elect him.”
Apparently according to what source?
Just so we are clear, I’m not defending Trump (I didn’t vote for him and I don’t support him, I just don’t have a reason to hate him), I’m simply questioning your knowledge of the situation based solely on your foaming at the mouth, rabid obsession with any & all things related to Trump.

cheebdragon's avatar

There is a difference between speculation and fact , and it seems like his termination was long overdue.

ragingloli's avatar

There is also a difference between speculation and an official briefing of congress by the intelligence service based on their findings.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There is no speculation. It’s as plain as that animal on Stinky’s head. The DNI advised the Congress that the Russians are once again seeking Trump’s election and the fool fired him. To claim that the 2 facts are somehow isolated from one another is preposterous.

cheebdragon's avatar

Has Trump said or made reference to firing him “because he’s pissed at the news that the Russians are once more working hard to re-elect him”???

stanleybmanly's avatar

Has Trump given any reason at all?

cheebdragon's avatar

He didn’t need a reason, it was a temporary position. By law, the current acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, has to give up his temporary role before March 12.
When has Trump ever bothered to hide his displeasure about someone? With as often as you bitch about the guy, you should know better than anyone that he rarely remains silent with his opinions… hey, that’s something you guys have in common !

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes, and there is no shame in dishing back his same medicine. The foaming will continue until the turd is eliminated! He is dangerous beyond measure and must be dogged without respite, ala the fool’s approach to Hillary.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther