Just in case you missed it...

[_Chap]

I had to leave for several hours of travelling before Markk adressed me directly a while back, but on logging back in, I see that any reply I could have made would simply repeat points that others have made.

Having said that, I don't think that Warren's statements on the topic of this thread would have got past any decent political advisor, if she had run it all past them before speaking on the topic. They basically come from a good place, but open up too many obvious avenues of attack.

Ya think

Yup. I think. Thanks for noticing.

[_Markk]

Where did I say it was the only criteria, If any thing I said the final criteria said it was the final criteria...

You asked me a question on why I disagree with this...please answer my reason why it is a relay stupid way to choose a cabinet member, instead of trying to wiggle around sticking your foot in your mouth.

Markk, I'm beginning to think that you're suffering from whatever comprehension malady that subs suffers from, considering that I haven't bothered to defend or pick apart Warren's process. I've only highlighted the fact that you've misrepresented her statement. Now, you apparently cannot tell the difference between having veto power and 'picking candidates', either. : )

I actually think that both Doc and Jersey Girl have made some excellent counterpoints in the discussion, and I agree with Doc's straightforward observation that a 9-year-old, regardless of sexual identity, is not a direct client of the head of the agency, which raises questions about how applicable this test could be. But I also agree with Jersey Girl that the candidate would do well to be able to relate to the most vulnerable citizens - children - that they ultimately serve, and this can be viewed to some extent by what Warren proposes. Valid points all around, by participants who aren't willing to merely lob a partisan hit post into the forum while knowingly misrepresenting Warren's intent.

But, we can discuss your distraction, if you'd like. Given a pool of equally well-qualified and balanced candidates, can you explain why Warren's process is less preferable than, say, selecting on the basis of who contributed most greatly to the Presidential campaign, or who has publicly stated that they want to dismantle the department that they're being vetted to lead, or any other method used by the current Administration?

Or tell us how you'd choose between equally well-qualified candidates? A quarter toss? Hand-to-hand combat? Beer pong skill?

LOL it really does not get better than this... " Or tell us how you'd choose between equally well-qualified candidates? A quarter toss? Hand-to-hand combat? Beer pong skill, ask a nine year old ?

I actually commented the process in picking a cabinet member, I guess you did not not read that part. As I wrote, I would pick one I feel I could work with the best, and share my policy goals...and not just pick a "qualified person" who might rub me the wrong way of differ on too many key principles. It is political position also...not just one for education. I would try to make sure they are are the same politically also. There is a reason that there is a vetting process that is presented to the president before the president chooses the final choice.

Doc is arguing the very same thing I am, and he gets it, he is just stuck between a rock and a hard place because he could never be objective, or humble enough to agree with me on anything given our recent bickering. So he is dumbing down his argument with Jersey Girl, when I guarantee you he wants to call her a idiot or similar like he does other folks that dare disagree with him.

Anyways, if you can't read and understand what she said and what she promised, nor read what I wrote on why what she said is just stupid...then good luck, and you have defended what she said, in that you are in complete denial of what she said...that a child will have the final say of who will fill the position of SoE.

[_canpakes]

As I wrote, I would pick one I feel I could work with the best, and share my policy goals...and not just pick a "qualified person" who might rub me the wrong way of differ on too many key principles.

That's great that you don't want to be 'rubbed the wrong way'. Then that's your criteria for picking the final candidate from among a number of similarly-qualified folks. Warren is presumably not as bothered by differing personalities and looks to be seeking someone that might be empathetic to the clientele that will be served. I don't see that your method is any more productive than hers.

It is political position also...not just one for education. I would try to make sure they are are the same politically also. There is a reason that there is a vetting process that is presented to the president before the president chooses the final choice.

Noted, but that makes no difference to this conversation.

Doc is arguing the very same thing I am, and he gets it, he is just stuck between a rock and a hard place because he could never be objective, or humble enough to agree with me on anything given our recent bickering. So he is dumbing down his argument with Jersey Girl, when I guarantee you he wants to call her a idiot or similar like he does other folks that dare disagree with him.

Doc will speak for himself, but you might want to buy a mirror. : D My own intent is to merely argue the point with you for fun, given how strongly this action by Warren would supposedly decide her fate in your eyes, against all of the other incredibly stupid actions and appointee decisions made by the fellow that you claim to favor.

I mean, you still can't tell me why Warren's methodology is worse than deciding based on who contributed the most to her Presidential campaign, which is the methodology that seems to have played a heavy role in Trump's pick of DeVos.

Anyways, if you can't read and understand what she said and what she promised, nor read what I wrote on why what she said is just stupid...then good luck, and you have defended what she said, in that you are in complete denial of what she said...that a child will have the final say of who will fill the position of SoE.

Having 'veto power' isn't the same as 'picking the candidate'. You can disagree with that, but most folks will see the difference.

[_Markk]

It makes every difference...the position is a political position, and Warren, if you watched the video no one here seems to want to watch...states that the SoE has the responsibility to direct where the monies are spent, standards set, and what is advanced...canpakes, politics is the major roll of any high cabinet official. They have to cut through the political crap, grease wheels, and most importantly work with congress to get money at budget time...it is what the job demands and if you don’t understand this, how do you expect a 9 year old to?

As a manager, it is tough working with people that you don’t see eye to eye with and yes, rub you the wrong way. That is just the way it is, it is called team work. That is why companies spend millions if not billions on team working efforts. Ask any HR manager how important team work is, or coach, business owner...etc.

Personalities have nothing to do with qualifications..heck Jimmy Johnson was maybe the most qualified coach in the NFL, and even won a few super bowls and was still let go, or left, because he rubbed his boss the wrong way, and his boss rubbed him the same way. I can give you example after example of this, especially current ones in the current administration.

Here fate will be decided by The Democrat’s, and the media, not me, I am a independent in CA, and have no horse in the blue race.

LOL...if you don’t understand the “whys” of what I have been writing about “why” a child is not prepared and mature enough for vetting and basically confirming a high level national position...then I really don’t know what to say, other than wow.

Maybe like doc wrote (paraphrasing) they should just have a child vet and decide every cabinet position.

You did get one thing right, I am having fun with this, so I hope you are to.

[_Markk]

Having 'veto power' isn't the same as 'picking the candidate'. You can disagree with that, but most folks will see the difference.

Well, who is going to pick the final candidate according to Warren? Would choose or decide work better for you...but I’ll use “veto“ for arguments sake...”Warren is giving veto power to a nine year old in choosing one of her cabinet members” ...LOL there, again and again, it just does not get better than this.

I am sure the final candidates will really appreciate this, getting knocked out by a nine year old after working their tails of to get to the position of even being considered.

Classic, there a part of me that hopes warren gets in so I can see the press conference of the nine year old being asked why they picked one candidate and not the other.

[_canpakes]

Having 'veto power' isn't the same as 'picking the candidate'. You can disagree with that, but most folks will see the difference.

Well, who is going to pick the final candidate according to Warren? Would choose or decide work better for you...but I’ll use “veto“ for arguments sake...”Warren is giving veto power to a nine year old in choosing one of her cabinet members” ...

It's a bit like being a father to a pre-teen daughter, on a shopping spree. She'll make her choices for what clothes she'll want to buy, but you'll probably exercise your veto power on an item or two. But that's not the same as having picked her clothing for her.

It's not a terribly complex distinction, so I have faith that you'll figure it out. ; )

I am sure the final candidates will really appreciate this, getting knocked out by a nine year old after working their tails of to get to the position of even being considered.

Cabinet candidates don't work their tail off in pursuit of Cabinet positions. They're likely chosen for the qualifications and experience that they've already exhibited, don't you think?

Classic, there a part of me that hopes warren gets in so I can see the press conference of the nine year old being asked why they picked one candidate and not the other.

Should that day ever come, the nine-year-old would just need to answer with, "I pick the best people!", and that'll be reason enough for the Trump crowd. It's worked so far, right?

[_Markk]

canpake wrote..It's a bit like being a father to a pre-teen daughter, on a shopping spree. She'll make her choices for what clothes she'll want to buy, but you'll probably exercise your veto power on an item or two. But that's not the same as having picked her clothing for her.

It's not a terribly complex distinction, so I have faith that you'll figure it out. ; )

LOL...and I have to apologize in that I said "it just does not get any better than this", well, it does.... Now you are saying that the pre teen represents "Warren" and the father is the child?...Huge chuckle... in your scenario canpakes, it is the father vetoing the poor choice of the child, you just do not even seem have a clue of what the issue is. The issue is, in Warrens policy or promise, it is a child making a choice that the President (adult) is elected to make.

cancakes wrote...Cabinet candidates don't work their tail off in pursuit of Cabinet positions. They're likely chosen for the qualifications and experience that they've already exhibited, don't you think?

LOL...I would hope they worked hard to get to that position, of even being interviewed, and then when offered maybe the highlight position of their career, a huge paycheck, lifetime benefits, and massive networking opportunities...they get nixed by a child based on the child's feelings. LOL, unless you are saying the child is going to also interview how the candidate will executes things like lobbying congress for money and new laws.

cancakes wrote...Should that day ever come, the nine-year-old would just need to answer with, "I pick the best people!", and that'll be reason enough for the Trump crowd. It's worked so far, right?

Or you can deal with what Warren wrote, instead of diverting. It is okay to just say what she is promising is lunacy, and unacceptable...having to accept everything a lying politician says is a larger lunacy, and just not sustainable in objectivity.

Doc understands this, as did Bill Maher. This is a perfect example of what I mean by clones, and they are on all sides of the aisle, and both red, blue and purple, they just dive in and defend these people, no matter what they say, and just don't think it through, as you are demonstrating here, comparing it to a father, fathering and giving guidance to their child.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc understands this, as did Bill Maher. This is a perfect example of what I mean by clones

Just... How? I don't think I've ever witnessed someone who literally demonstrates an inability to think linearly more than Markk. Even highlighting his gaffe above, I don't believe for a second he has the mental capacity to understand what he just did, and even if, by some miracle, his dim monkey brain experiences the sunrise of rational thought, he'll quickly segue into some other random thought as if it's the most amazing thing ever.

damned amazing.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

canpake wrote..It's a bit like being a father to a pre-teen daughter, on a shopping spree. She'll make her choices for what clothes she'll want to buy, but you'll probably exercise your veto power on an item or two. But that's not the same as having picked her clothing for her.

It's not a terribly complex distinction, so I have faith that you'll figure it out. ; )

LOL...and I have to apologize in that I said "it just does not get any better than this", well, it does.... Now you are saying that the pre teen represents "Warren" and the father is the child?...Huge chuckle... in your scenario canpakes, it is the father vetoing the poor choice of the child, you just do not even seem have a clue of what the issue is. The issue is, in Warrens policy or promise, it is a child making a choice that the President (adult) is elected to make.

Hey, I’m just highlighting the difference between having veto power, and choosing from a selection. You know that what I’m saying is correct, so you’re back to throwing up another distraction. ; )

[_Markk]

This is among things your wrote...bold mine

cancakes wrote...
If I have 6 excellent candidates pre-vetted that would all be great picks for the office, and a trans child makes a final determination between them by choosing which of the six takes the position, why is that loony, or bad?

And I explained why it was loony and bad, simple put, it is her job and certainly not a child's. This is a important pick and they need to find someone they can work with, aside from any qualifications. You are wisely back peddling, my advise is there are somethings that are fruitless to defend, having a child choose the secretary of education for the united states in one of them.

If you don't like the way I explained the lunacy, Doc did so very well

Doc wrote....And? What in the world does your deep understanding of child psychology have to do with allowing a 9-year-old child have final say on a cabinet selection. It's precisely because you know a child could never approximate understanding the executive responsibilities nor experiences for a SoE that they should be within a mile of veto power. My god Jersey Girl, get over the feels and get in the reals. I'm starting to question your grasp on what entails a national-level, executive-level cabinet position and how that world and the world of a 9-year-old couldn't be further apart other than the child is acted upon by the system. And what the ____ does that child bring to the table that makes him so much more capable than another child who might be more capable with regard to understanding the awesome responsibility of approving or denying a cabinet pick? Is the selection criteria for a child who's being given this massive responsibility simply done through a political apparatus where the parent is savvy enough to get their kid in front of a potential nominee? You are way off the reservation with this one.