Trump's Warrior Board

[Aldebaran]

For sake of argument, let's say your hunch is true.
How would a screening board know the personal biases of a United States Military officer?

Same way employers do. Just look at a person's social media postings.

 

[wing2000]

Same way employers do. Just look at a person's social media postings.

Good luck with that.

 

[Aldebaran]

Good luck with that.

I suppose you're about to tell me that an employer isn't able to see the Facebook profile of a potential employee.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I suppose you're about to tell me that an employer isn't able to see the Facebook profile of a potential employee.

As long as the potential employee keeps their profile set to private they can't.

 

[Aldebaran]

As long as the potential employee keeps their profile set to private they can't.

do you think that is the only way to find out information about the employee? Have you ever heard of an interview? Contacting references? Contacting previous employers?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

do you think that is the only way to find out information about the employee? Have you ever heard of an interview? Contacting references? Contacting previous employers?

A good employee won't say much about their personal opinions in an interview, especially if they think that their potential employer might not agree with them. No one should ever ask someone to be a reference if they're not able to give a glowing review. And previous employers, if they're professional, won't say anything about your personal beliefs and opinions unless they affect your ability to do the job. Most employers will only say whether or not you're eligible to be re-hired.

 

[Aldebaran]

A good employee won't say much about their personal opinions in an interview, especially if they think that their potential employer might not agree with them. No one should ever ask someone to be a reference if they're not able to give a glowing review. And previous employers, if they're professional, won't say anything about your personal beliefs and opinions unless they affect your ability to do the job. Most employers will only say whether or not you're eligible to be re-hired.

Not all "good employees" keep their personal opinions secret, especially if they believe their opinions might line up with the employer's.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Not all "good employees" keep their personal opinions secret, especially if they believe their opinions might line up with the employer's.

True. But that seems unlikely if we're talking about military officers going up against a review board aimed at determining their loyalty to the President. There might be a few indiscreet idiots out there, but I strongly suspect that most officers (high-ranking ones, at least - the ones likely to see this board) would keep their personal opinions of Trump (or any other President) to themselves.

 

[Vambram]

Although I am not certain if military servicemembers are allowed to keep their social media accounts set for privacy from their chain of command, I do know that I have sat through many briefings while in the National Guard which teach the rules for my fellow soldiers and I for the Do's and Don'ts allowed for us on Social Media.

 

[stevevw]

Same way employers do. Just look at a person's social media postings.

Yes and thats a modern phenomena where we can now go into peoples private lives and derive all sorts of information and insights.

I wonder if this has led to the over emphasis on the personal into the public sphere. It seems to be the basis for identity politics as well.

I remember a time when people use to say "leave your personal stuff at the door" when in work or politics. People were more emotionally intelligent and could seperate themselves from personal stuff. There were strong principles within society and organisations which were the basis that everyone respected. Like not holding personal stuff against people when it was irrelevant.

Now thats all gone out the window.

 

[stevevw]

do you think that is the only way to find out information about the employee? Have you ever heard of an interview? Contacting references? Contacting previous employers?

I think they can derive a lot from the friends. I am not sure but even if the profile is locked that doesn't lock out any friends pages which may link reveal stuff. I also guess it would depend on what type of job. If its miliary or government or to do with security then there are ways they can find out stuff.

I think for some higher levels of security they will even come to your home and interview the family and contact friends and relatives to gleen as much background info as possible.

 

[stevevw]

Tulse Gabbard was being accused of being a Russian asset. This was the latest smeer to undermine Trumps team. Yet Gabbard has been a high ranking officer and member of government with top secret clearence for years.

They did not stop to think if Gabbard would have already been put through the security checks to be able to occupy her positions in the first place.

I am beginning to think now that one of the best vetting processes to determine whether Trump has employed the right people for the job is by who the Left hate and attack the most. If they hate them then thats good as it means they are on the right track in who is needed to clean up the Lefts mess.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Tulse Gabbard was being accused of being a Russian asset. This was the latest smeer to undermine Trumps team. Yet Gabbard has been a high ranking officer and member of government with top secret clearence for years.

There have been questions about Tulsi Gabbard since ~2015. This is not a new thing that just "sprang up". To be clear, I don't think that she's feeding them intelligence. She's just a convenient dupe who will happily repeat their talking points. There's nothing about that that would compromise whatever security clearances she might hold (if she does hold any), but it does call into question her suitability for a position focused on national security.

 

[Yarddog]

If officers in the military at the top levels of the armed forces do NOT fully support the constitutional lawful orders of the Commander in Chief, why should they remain at the top levels of command in the military?

As long as both, the military and President, are being lawful they should be obedient. It's when one branch goes beyond what law allows that orders should be ignored.

 

[Yarddog]

Are y'all forgetting just how very effective Trump's foreign policy was in his first term? Do y'all understand that Trump has a much higher amount of support from the rank and file Servicemembers of the US military than did Biden or Harris? I know for a fact that the vast majority of Servicemembers are sick and tired of the woke agenda that was shoved down our throats by "top officers" who were obeying the progressive left wing ideology of Joe Biden and the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Trump's foreign policy was a disaster and that doesn't appear to be any different this time. Trump alienated many of our allies that openly laughed at him. Others talked about how easy Trump was to manipulate.

 

[Vambram]

Trump's foreign policy was a disaster and that doesn't appear to be any different this time. Trump alienated many of our allies that openly laughed at him. Others talked about how easy Trump was to manipulate.

It is very, very clear that Trump's foreign policies were very, very effective and nowhere close to a disaster at all.

 

[Yarddog]

It is very, very clear that Trump's foreign policies were very, very effective and nowhere close to a disaster at all.

It is very, very, clear that Trump's foreign policies were a disaster. Those with eyes, see. Those with ears, listen. It is very clear that Trump's ways are not following Jesus Christ.

 

[stevevw]

There have been questions about Tulsi Gabbard since ~2015. This is not a new thing that just "sprang up". To be clear, I don't think that she's feeding them intelligence. She's just a convenient dupe who will happily repeat their talking points. There's nothing about that that would compromise whatever security clearances she might hold (if she does hold any), but it does call into question her suitability for a position focused on national security.

Well all I know is she is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Military and they have Top secret security level clearance. So she would not have such clearance if there was a problem and therefore she would have no problem with any position regarding national security.

I think the Left just don't learn. They spent the entire election making up false allegations and it backfired on them. Now they are doing the same. So far every pick has been attacked and they are spreading lies again. Its only going to turn people off them and further alienates them as undermining democracy.

 

[stevevw]

As far as I understand there was no new wars under Trump. He was instrumental in the Abraham Accord which brought Arab nations together to accept Isreal like UAE, Saudi, Bahrain, Morocco and others would have joined.

This would have formed a regional treaty with Isreal and would have isolated Iran and its proxies and gone along way to bringing peace. But Biden put an end to that.

 

[Vambram]

It is very, very, clear that Trump's foreign policies were a disaster. Those with eyes, see. Those with ears, listen. It is very clear that Trump's ways are not following Jesus Christ.

What were the so-called foreign policies disasters of Trump’s first term?