Is Admiral McRaven Running for President?

[blues]

The better predictor of success and effectiveness is how someone leverages their IQ with their EQ. I suspect that the failings of our recent presidents stem more from issues with EQ rather than IQ - including Bush2.0

Bush 2.0 really changed a lot of my opinion of him when I saw his paintings of servicemen killed in action. Told me something about the man.

(Oh, and I sent you a PM the other day...in case you didn't see it.)

[Redhat]

They did NOTHING because the giants of the Intel community didn’t think Trump would win. Key....DINDU Nuffin. Why? Why nothing? Now cry on CNN. Hey, I’m a Ted Cruz guy, so I hate all of them.....and the Russians. I do find humor in that Hilary/Obama got involved in election meddling against both Putin and Netanyahu and now everybody is upset about election meddling. Putin played to win and played BOTH sides brilliantly. And, right under Brennan’s nose.

Well hasn't it been rumored Brennan voted for a communist party candidate back in the day? How that guy got into the CIA is a mystery to me.

[blues]

Well hasn't it been rumored Brennan voted for a communist party candidate back in the day? How that guy got into the CIA is a mystery to me.

I don't know that rumor is sufficient to warrant his not being eligible, unless they want it to be. (Like anything else.) And it wasn't illegal, for whatever that may matter. (But it would disqualify him if he swore fealty, etc)

He must've been in the process of turning his life around.

I'm sure there are tons of folks in intelligence and law enforcement who have been involved in protests, done drugs etc etc etc. Should they have been excluded from their jobs? Maybe. Maybe not.

[TheNewbie]

He got there because:

1. Americans were fed up with both parties being run by economic elites who cared little for the average person.
2. The Democrats fixed the election for Hillary - a corrupt elite. Her competition was a Socialist but who honestly seems to care about people. You can disagree and run around with hair on fire about socialism. If he was the candidate, he probably would have beat Trump.
3. The Republican field was rich, elites and some of the usual conservative social cause type (gays, abortion). They had little interest in the average not wealthy folks in terms of doing anything for them.
4. Trump seemed to offer, now that Hillary was candidate, someone who would care about the average folks. That got him enough votes to overcome his repellent qualities to many people.
5. Hillary's repellent qualities and the primary fix caused her constituency to stay home or go third party. I've read that the Stein vote, if pure Democratic, would have taken out Trump.
6. Hillary was bedazzled by a bunch of analytic statistical nerds who saw no need to campaign in fly over states. She ignored standard politicians who saw that the coronation wasn't going to be easy to accomplish.
7. She lost the critical ones by only 77K votes, having decisively winning the popular vote. An electoral college quirk and NOT really being a mandate, landside in human terms for Trump.
8. Russians meddled but their influence wasn't a determinant, the blather of both candidates was enough for the voters. Yes, true believers went for fake conspiracy sites but they were in the bag for their chosen sleaze bag anyway.

True believers are immune to evidence that their chosen political savior is a sleaze bag and embarrass themselves with praise of the leader. Honest folks say - Yes, the person is a sleaze bag but he or she will support some policy I like. The latter is morally suspect but understandable. The former is pathological.

I don’t think he’s a sleeze bag , but Trump’s style is not my style. Yet he fights the left, which is the most serious threat to America. Perfectly no, but better than most. I’m not even sure he fully understands how bad the left is , though I think he’s learning. What’s surprised me most is that Trump has displayed more wisdom than most in Washington and most of his critics (both political and lay-person).

Bush 2.0 was is a nice guy, though I believe him to be naive. I know someone who personally worked with him, and he said Bush was a nice guy. He had a high opinion of him. Being nice and kind is not enough when it comes to doing macro good.

So I’ll take a sleezebag who stops evil vs a nice guy any day.

[Redhat]

I don't know that rumor is sufficient to warrant his not being eligible, unless they want it to be. (Like anything else.) And it wasn't illegal, for whatever that may matter. (But it would disqualify him if he swore fealty, etc)

He must've been in the process of turning his life around.

I'm sure there are tons of folks in intelligence and law enforcement who have been involved in protests, done drugs etc etc etc. Should they have been excluded from their jobs? Maybe. Maybe not.

Blues, I'm talking about his early career...you're old enough to remember how things were during the Cold War.

[blues]

Blues, I'm talking about his early career...you're old enough to remember how things were during the Cold War.

I honestly know little to nothing about his career...early or otherwise...truth be told.

But I do hear that Tulsi is apparently a Russian operative.

[Borderland]

Bush 2.0 really changed a lot of my opinion of him when I saw his paintings of servicemen killed in action. Told me something about the man.

(Oh, and I sent you a PM the other day...in case you didn't see it.)

I liked W.

I didn't like Cheney or Rumsfeld tho. I think they pushed W into the 2nd Iraq war. JMO.

Bottom line it was W's decision.

[revchuck38]

I'm sure there are tons of folks in intelligence and law enforcement who have been involved in protests, done drugs etc etc etc. Should they have been excluded from their jobs? Maybe. Maybe not.

I can't speak to law enforcement, but one of my jobs in the Army was to conduct Personnel Security Investigations for granting TS clearances, and I was OIC of an office that did this during the Cold War. As long as the person was upfront about it, being involved in legal protests was a non-issue since it was a First Amendment right. When I started, illegal drugs, alcohol abuse, and homosexuality were disqualifiers because of the possibility of the bad guys blackmailing the person. Later, early recreational drug use was accepted as "dumb shit you do when growing up" as long as it was in the past and you fessed up to it; when society became accepting of homosexuality it was no longer an issue since it wasn't a wedge the bad guys could drive between you and loyalty to the USA. Lying about anything on your application or during interviews was the best way to not get a clearance. Drug and/or alcohol abuse are still non-starters because alkies and druggies are liable to do anything to get their buzz, including betraying their country; even if they won't, it still leaves them vulnerable to blackmail. If you're in the military and hold a TS clearance, you quickly become used to peeing in a bottle at unannounced times, just to make sure you're still clean.

[blues]

I can't speak to law enforcement, but one of my jobs in the Army was to conduct Personnel Security Investigations for granting TS clearances, and I was OIC of an office that did this during the Cold War. As long as the person was upfront about it, being involved in legal protests was a non-issue since it was a First Amendment right. When I started, illegal drugs, alcohol abuse, and homosexuality were disqualifiers because of the possibility of the bad guys blackmailing the person. Later, early recreational drug use was accepted as "dumb shit you do when growing up" as long as it was in the past and you fessed up to it; when society became accepting of homosexuality it was no longer an issue since it wasn't a wedge the bad guys could drive between you and loyalty to the USA. Lying about anything on your application or during interviews was the best way to not get a clearance. Drug and/or alcohol abuse are still non-starters because alkies and druggies are liable to do anything to get their buzz, including betraying their country; even if they won't, it still leaves them vulnerable to blackmail. If you're in the military and hold a TS clearance, you quickly become used to peeing in a bottle at unannounced times, just to make sure you're still clean.

Not all that different from us with TS clearance. I didn't get called for the lab tests often, just a few times. The paperwork was more of a hassle overall. Remembering everywhere I had lived etc.

Yep...lying is the big gotcha. And rightfully so.

[randyho]

Well, it’s time to resurrect this thread. It looks like this guy may be running after all...or, perhaps laying the groundwork for one of his former colleagues.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ent/ar-AAIWos8

Not sure how this is not justification for unfortunate effects on bro's retirement. Seriously, I don't know. Enlightenment is welcome.

U.S. Code § 888.Art. 88: "Contempt toward officials: Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

U.S. Code § 802.Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter: "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."