The DUI appointee at the Pentagon is consistent with RFK jr at HHS, Noem at Homeland Security, and virtually all of the rest. No consideration of competence, only some weird ideological alignment and likely subservience. The really horrifying circumstance is that the Senate has consented. How has partisanship come to such a level that experienced representatives with safe positions could sink so low?
How has partisanship come to such a level that experienced representatives with safe positions could sink so low?
With the party primaries, I’m not sure anyone is safe from challenges. Except maybe in Alaska, where they’ve gotten rid of party primaries, and now Murkowski is openly challenging Trump.
If you want to undermine institutions of democracy and national security Donald is doing it right. Only problem is his incompetence and lack of vision for anything but his psychopathic emotional needs. I figure he’s building a foundation for a real fascist to build on. When real hard times come and a clear majority of the country is willing to toss the Constitution out the window. We’re only half way there.
Hegseth? Excellent men’s hair products model. And he can do pushups. When Donald’s press secretary said Pete is doing great and all of the Pentagon is against him she perfectly expressed Donald’s gas lighting nonsense. If he has actually stopped drinking he must be climbing the walls.
Trump selects people on what he sees ( TV, Magazines, in person events ) not on academic study or research ( requires reading ) or actual qualifications for the job beyond very surface level connection.
You have to be physically attractive, constantly compliment him and a YES man. The other route is to be a billionaire.
He recently picked Dr. OZ for some high ranking medical position, a day time TV personality who is a con artist.
WP linked an article late last thread- that deserves reposting
On China and Industrial/Economic Policy-
I am a fan of long term planning. Its one of the big things I find very faulty with the US approach.
Yeah, China has been lucky to have relatively good leadership for the last 40 years. Mao demonstrated the perils of autocracy, with his catastrophic Great Leap Forward and Return to the Land programs, but lately they’ve done much better.
There’s a strong contrast with India: India’s per capita income was twice as high in 1980, they were about equal in 1991, and now China’s economy is 5x as large as India’s.
Similarly, China is moving away from FF as quickly as they can, while India is moving much more slowly – it’s just terrible in the face of India’s good, cheap clean solar resource and relatively scarce (high imports of coal and oil), expensive and polluting FF resources.
There is probably a lot more to it than being lucky.
I’m no expert but “China is largely meritocratic. The system isn’t perfect (what system is?) but it generally does produce capable, intelligent leaders with a …”
I doubt someone like Trump would have gotten past the village level of leadership in China, and then lasted for only a short time before being returned to the used car lot sales position.
This is an aspiration, not a guarantee. China is lucky that they’ve sustained a strong meritocratic element lately, but the Chinese Communist Party has a membership that is .1% of the population, and it is a top-down hierarchy which is at least as vulnerable to a conversion to pure autocracy as any democracy (e.g., Russia which is technically a democracy, but is actually totalitarian). Don’t forget Mao…
They’ve been lucky. Under Xi things are deteriorating a bit – let us hope their luck continues.
“Putting an alcoholic Fox News bingo caller in charge of the Pentagon seemed like a great idea on paper, but:”
any thoughts comrades?
The DUI appointee at the Pentagon is consistent with RFK jr at HHS, Noem at Homeland Security, and virtually all of the rest. No consideration of competence, only some weird ideological alignment and likely subservience. The really horrifying circumstance is that the Senate has consented. How has partisanship come to such a level that experienced representatives with safe positions could sink so low?
How has partisanship come to such a level that experienced representatives with safe positions could sink so low?
With the party primaries, I’m not sure anyone is safe from challenges. Except maybe in Alaska, where they’ve gotten rid of party primaries, and now Murkowski is openly challenging Trump.
Were you thinking of anyone in particular?
If you want to undermine institutions of democracy and national security Donald is doing it right. Only problem is his incompetence and lack of vision for anything but his psychopathic emotional needs. I figure he’s building a foundation for a real fascist to build on. When real hard times come and a clear majority of the country is willing to toss the Constitution out the window. We’re only half way there.
Hegseth? Excellent men’s hair products model. And he can do pushups. When Donald’s press secretary said Pete is doing great and all of the Pentagon is against him she perfectly expressed Donald’s gas lighting nonsense. If he has actually stopped drinking he must be climbing the walls.
Seriously it’s effing tragic.
Trump selects people on what he sees ( TV, Magazines, in person events ) not on academic study or research ( requires reading ) or actual qualifications for the job beyond very surface level connection.
You have to be physically attractive, constantly compliment him and a YES man. The other route is to be a billionaire.
He recently picked Dr. OZ for some high ranking medical position, a day time TV personality who is a con artist.
WP linked an article late last thread- that deserves reposting
On China and Industrial/Economic Policy-
I am a fan of long term planning. Its one of the big things I find very faulty with the US approach.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/04/beyond-tariffs-what-the-us-can-learn-from-chinas-industrial.html
Yeah, China has been lucky to have relatively good leadership for the last 40 years. Mao demonstrated the perils of autocracy, with his catastrophic Great Leap Forward and Return to the Land programs, but lately they’ve done much better.
There’s a strong contrast with India: India’s per capita income was twice as high in 1980, they were about equal in 1991, and now China’s economy is 5x as large as India’s.
Similarly, China is moving away from FF as quickly as they can, while India is moving much more slowly – it’s just terrible in the face of India’s good, cheap clean solar resource and relatively scarce (high imports of coal and oil), expensive and polluting FF resources.
There is probably a lot more to it than being lucky.
I’m no expert but “China is largely meritocratic. The system isn’t perfect (what system is?) but it generally does produce capable, intelligent leaders with a …”
I doubt someone like Trump would have gotten past the village level of leadership in China, and then lasted for only a short time before being returned to the used car lot sales position.
China is largely meritocratic
This is an aspiration, not a guarantee. China is lucky that they’ve sustained a strong meritocratic element lately, but the Chinese Communist Party has a membership that is .1% of the population, and it is a top-down hierarchy which is at least as vulnerable to a conversion to pure autocracy as any democracy (e.g., Russia which is technically a democracy, but is actually totalitarian). Don’t forget Mao…
They’ve been lucky. Under Xi things are deteriorating a bit – let us hope their luck continues.