Your 2024 Presidential Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something that I thought about, and a point that the article makes, is how ProPublica knew to go sniffing around about his admission status in the first place.

I wonder if someone at West Point heard about his claim to have gotten admitted, did an initial check and found nothing, then started tipping off leftist news sites about this "scandal." It would be worth investigating.
 
Well that's going to get some peoples' attention:

1734023344542.png


To be clear, I don't know any more about this situation than anyone else reading news stories, I don't have any reason to believe there was any malfeasance, and I don't think this is a reflection of how the Academy operates. But it **is** bad, and needs to be investigated.
 
At some point, there will be a realization that not everything Trump says or does is golden. After all, Trump isn't really this huge conservative that some think he is. Some who voted for him may not of been the biggest fans, but absolutely wouldn't vote for Harris-Walz. Even for people that bought into the hype, there will be some things that make them stop and say "wait a second..."

What will these "things" be? I'm not sure, but Musk obviously has his ear, and while some of what he says/does may be OK, others should give pause.


One issue I see, and that people often forget or don't realize, is that Musk has long sucked the teet of the federal government; ex. Tesla wouldn't have survived without all the federal subsidies. Musk stated that 99% of the cars in the future will be electric. He clearly has a vested interest in making this happen. There are also government mandates requiring manufacturers to adhere to various clean energy initiatives. At the same time, however, consumers have largely rejected pure EVs (7% of new sales in Q3, lowest sales level since 2017); resale value has plummeted. Hybrids, on the other hand, continue to increase market share (~10%). What would happen to Musk's business and the pure EV market without subsidies? It would die. It also directly influences the pricing and products consumers are offered; average price of a new car is $40K+. Will those incentives be removed with DOGE? Anyone want to place bets?

Similarly, Elon and Vivek talk a lot about the need to be in the office 5 days a week. For a couple of brilliant and innovative guys, this is really archaic thinking. I'm all for cutting bloat and there are absolutely are some jobs that must be done in person, but, similarly, there are a whole bunch that don't. Modern, successful organizations, particularly large ones, must function and collaborate with partners/teams situated not only around the country, but around the world. If there was any silver lining in Covid, it's that the best functioning organizations have proven they're able to do this effectively while still increasing productivity and continuity. At the same time, from an employee standpoint, remote work generally allows for increased work/life balance -- which should be part of Make America Great Again. It also has the secondary, unintended result of being slightly more "environmentally friendly" through lower traffic/idling, reduced emissions, and consumption. While Musk and Vivek can only directly influence federal government, will their actions have indirect influence on private companies? We'll see.

These are a couple areas where I see Trump potentially hitting a headwind, because these directly impact the daily lives of the average American. We'll see what happens. Thoughts?
 
Sorry, one more comment on this issue and then I'm going to let the dust settle a bit before I have anything else to say on this topic.

I viewed the comments about this situation on Mr. Hegseth's post about this on X, which of course was a mistake since the comments section in any social media is where reasonable discourse goes to die.

I appreciate the desire to find out how this happened, but the attacks on West Point's PAO, whom I knew slightly when I was on active duty and worked with on several occasions, is wrong for several reasons. I didn't know her well and probably wouldn't recognize her, nor her me, on the street. But AFAIK she did a tough job well and I never had any reason to believe that she was some kind of hardcore leftist or TDS lunatic or any of the other things people are assuming about her right now. All of that name-calling (and antisemitism) thrown her way are improper and unhelpful.

Also, guys, SHE'S THE PAO. I sincerely doubt that she was fact-checking peoples' admissions records herself. She probably received a press inquiry, which is her job, she approached Admissions, someone in admissions told her (for whatever reason) they didn't have a record of him even applying, told her that, and she responded to the press with that info, WHICH IS HER JOB (and repeat). If all she did was her job, IMO she's blameless in all of this.

As far as the privacy act thing goes, I don't know what the rules are but I'm OK with the public knowing who was accepted to, or even applied for, public institutions. No grades, no disciplinary reports, nothing like that, but whether or not they got in, and/or attended? Yeah I think that's appropriate.

Still, this was a big screwup; an unnecessary own-goal. If West Point is going to share info like this, it needs to be 100% right. And it needs to be 100% right all the time.
 
Blizzard said:
At some point, there will be a realization that not everything Trump says or does is golden. After all, Trump isn't really this huge conservative that some think he is. Some who voted for him may not of been the biggest fans, but absolutely wouldn't vote for Harris-Walz. Even for people that bought into the hype, there will be some things that make them stop and say "wait a second..."

What will these "things" be? I'm not sure, but Musk obviously has his ear, and while some of what he says/does may be OK, others should give pause.


One issue I see, and that people often forget or don't realize, is that Musk has long sucked the teet of the federal government; ex. Tesla wouldn't have survived without all the federal subsidies. Musk stated that 99% of the cars in the future will be electric. He clearly has a vested interest in making this happen. There are also government mandates requiring manufacturers to adhere to various clean energy initiatives. At the same time, however, consumers have largely rejected pure EVs (7% of new sales in Q3, lowest sales level since 2017); resale value has plummeted. Hybrids, on the other hand, continue to increase market share (~10%). What would happen to Musk's business and the pure EV market without subsidies? It would die. It also directly influences the pricing and products consumers are offered; average price of a new car is $40K+. Will those incentives be removed with DOGE? Anyone want to place bets?

Similarly, Elon and Vivek talk a lot about the need to be in the office 5 days a week. For a couple of brilliant and innovative guys, this is really archaic thinking. I'm all for cutting bloat and there are absolutely are some jobs that must be done in person, but, similarly, there are a whole bunch that don't. Modern, successful organizations, particularly large ones, must function and collaborate with partners/teams situated not only around the country, but around the world. If there was any silver lining in Covid, it's that the best functioning organizations have proven they're able to do this effectively while still increasing productivity and continuity. At the same time, from an employee standpoint, remote work generally allows for increased work/life balance -- which should be part of Make America Great Again. It also has the secondary, unintended result of being slightly more "environmentally friendly" through lower traffic/idling, reduced emissions, and consumption. While Musk and Vivek can only directly influence federal government, will their actions have indirect influence on private companies? We'll see.

These are a couple areas where I see Trump potentially hitting a headwind, because these directly impact the daily lives of the average American. We'll see what happens. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I'm OK with self-interest as a legitimate motivator. You can make America great again and at the same time you get some legit and legal benefit out of it in some way? I'm OK with that.

The government subsidies behaviors and practices that it wants to encourage. The US has a very vested and bipartisan interest in alternative energy. It's expensive to get that type of industry going and keep it growing, therefore subsidies. We subsidize a lot of weird things, including IIRC paying farmers to **not** grow food.

Being in the office is important. I've done in-office and remote work, just like I've done in-class and distance learning. In each case, the former is far superior to the latter. I found my own productivity is much higher in the office compare to the home, and I think if we're honest that's probably the case for most people. Also, working remotely you're fare less vested in the organization and in your co-workers, so there is less attachment to the company and your colleagues. And you miss the little opportunities that come up to do projects or to handle problems or take advantage of opportunities that arise during the day.

There are, of course, any number of exceptions to the above and I'm sure people can give plenty of personal vignettes to support an alternate point of view. But I'm comfortable in saying that widespread "work from home" by .gov employees is far less efficient and effective than doing the job in the office.
 
Marauder06 said:
I'm OK with self-interest as a legitimate motivator. You can make America great again and at the same time you get some legit and legal benefit out of it in some way? I'm OK with that.

The government subsidies behaviors and practices that it wants to encourage. The US has a very vested and bipartisan interest in alternative energy. It's expensive to get that type of industry going and keep it growing, therefore subsidies. We subsidize a lot of weird things, including IIRC paying farmers to **not** grow food.

Being in the office is important. I've done in-office and remote work, just like I've done in-class and distance learning. In each case, the former is far superior to the latter. I found my own productivity is much higher in the office compare to the home, and I think if we're honest that's probably the case for most people. Also, working remotely you're fare less vested in the organization and in your co-workers, so there is less attachment to the company and your colleagues. And you miss the little opportunities that come up to do projects or to handle problems or take advantage of opportunities that arise during the day.

There are, of course, any number of exceptions to the above and I'm sure people can give plenty of personal vignettes to support an alternate point of view. But I'm comfortable in saying that widespread "work from home" by .gov employees is far less efficient and effective than doing the job in the office.
Click to expand...
I concur that self-interest always has and always will play a factor in Washington. That self interest may ultimately be good for the country or it can result in another taxpayer funded boondoggle. The line is fine and it only takes a slight breeze to fall on one side or the other.

As for remote work, do you think there’s a distinct difference in mindset between the average .gov worker and one from the private sector (non-union)?
 
Marauder06 said:
Sorry, one more comment on this issue and then I'm going to let the dust settle a bit before I have anything else to say on this topic.

I viewed the comments about this situation on Mr. Hegseth's post about this on X, which of course was a mistake since the comments section in any social media is where reasonable discourse goes to die.

I appreciate the desire to find out how this happened, but the attacks on West Point's PAO, whom I knew slightly when I was on active duty and worked with on several occasions, is wrong for several reasons. I didn't know her well and probably wouldn't recognize her, nor her me, on the street. But AFAIK she did a tough job well and I never had any reason to believe that she was some kind of hardcore leftist or TDS lunatic or any of the other things people are assuming about her right now. All of that name-calling (and antisemitism) thrown her way are improper and unhelpful.

Also, guys, SHE'S THE PAO. I sincerely doubt that she was fact-checking peoples' admissions records herself. She probably received a press inquiry, which is her job, she approached Admissions, someone in admissions told her (for whatever reason) they didn't have a record of him even applying, told her that, and she responded to the press with that info, WHICH IS HER JOB (and repeat). If all she did was her job, IMO she's blameless in all of this.

As far as the privacy act thing goes, I don't know what the rules are but I'm OK with the public knowing who was accepted to, or even applied for, public institutions. No grades, no disciplinary reports, nothing like that, but whether or not they got in, and/or attended? Yeah I think that's appropriate.

Still, this was a big screwup; an unnecessary own-goal. If West Point is going to share info like this, it needs to be 100% right. And it needs to be 100% right all the time.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I've only read the hubbub in the posts here, so I don't know exactly what was said or released.

While the PAO may've indeed simply released the info provided, she still sees to be some culpability there.

She had to understand the inquiry was about a high profile person -- the nominee for SECDEF. As a result, she must know the scrutiny such a revelation would receive, especially being in conflict with the nominees statement. As a result, the PAO has the responsibility of making a credible challenge back to the source of their info to say, "Are you 100% sure this is accurate?" before releasing any statement. Not saying that didn't happen, but from what I read above, it appears it didn't. Like you said, they have a duty to get it right 100% of the time.
 
Blizzard said:
Disclaimer: I've only read the hubbub in the posts here, so I don't know exactly what was said or released.

While the PAO may've indeed simply released the info provided, she still sees to be some culpability there.

She had to understand the inquiry was about a high profile person -- the nominee for SECDEF. As a result, she must know the scrutiny such a revelation would receive, especially being in conflict with the nominees statement. As a result, the PAO has the responsibility of making a credible challenge back to the source of their info to say, "Are you 100% sure this is accurate?" before releasing any statement. Not saying that didn't happen, but from what I read above, it appears it didn't. Like you said, they have a duty to get it right 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
I agree, but at this point we have no way of knowing whether or not that happened.
 
Blizzard said:
I concur that self-interest always has and always will play a factor in Washington. That self interest may ultimately be good for the country or it can result in another taxpayer funded boondoggle. The line is fine and it only takes a slight breeze to fall on one side or the other.

As for remote work, do you think there’s a distinct difference in mindset between the average .gov worker and one from the private sector (non-union)?
Click to expand...
Not really, human nature is human nature.

There are outliers, of course. The hardest-working person in my office is 100% remote. But would we as an organization still be better off if he was here with us every day? Yes.
 
PAOs and PIOs have a responsibility to ensure the information they release to the media is correct to the best of their ability. But that’s all they can do. If they are assured from the appropriate source that the information is correct, then the originating source is responsible for any errors.
 
Blizzard said:
I concur that self-interest always has and always will play a factor in Washington. That self interest may ultimately be good for the country or it can result in another taxpayer funded boondoggle. The line is fine and it only takes a slight breeze to fall on one side or the other.

As for remote work, do you think there’s a distinct difference in mindset between the average .gov worker and one from the private sector (non-union)?
Click to expand...
Different government but same attitudes. Wife works remotely for Canuckistani government. Her coworkers are lazy pieces of shit. I've worked in office in the same government as a civilian and in uniform. My coworkers were lazy pieces of shit. Public Service attracts the same types of pieces of shit.
 
Marauder06 said:
Not really, human nature is human nature.

There are outliers, of course. The hardest-working person in my office is 100% remote. But would we as an organization still be better off if he was here with us every day? Yes.
Click to expand...
I think the culture between .gov and private is very different and that breeds very different outcomes.

Sure, there are rockstars and slugs on both sides of the equation. However, private sector (again, non-union type jobs) is much more merit based. As a result, ROI is a greater focus. Innovation and performance are much higher across the board -- .gov is where innovation goes to die.

As a business, in order to make money -- that's the objective of all businesses -- I want to acquire and retain the best talent available for a given function.

Ex. I may a have team building widgets in NC. But, to build it, I need a designer and I know a great one is available in KS, but is unwilling to move to NC for reasons. I should still try to acquire that person. Now add, the NC widget is only one piece of a Mega-widget that's assembled in AZ. And the Mega-widget uses widgets from not only NC, but MI, OH, CA, and off-shore like India and elsewhere. In this scenario, which is not at all unique, every piece is part of a bigger puzzle. Ultimately, they all need to work together, does it matter where these teams are located when everything is decentralized? Not for high performing teams. This is especially true in service driven organizations like finance, insurance, banking, etc. That's the modern world.

Now, if we were still operating in a more centralized world, my view would be different and I'd agree the synergies to be gained with in person collaboration are significant. But, I'd also need to accept that I may not have the best talent and overall growth is probably limited.

The biggest evidence to support my position is multiple studies indicate productivity was stable or increased with remote work. As a result, the myths of cocktails by the pool doesn't quite hold up. Ex.
Surprising Working From Home Productivity Statistics (2024).

If a remote resource isn't performing, the issue is no different than one that's in the office.
 
Last edited:
Blizzard said:
I think the culture between .gov and private is very different and that breeds very different outcomes.

Sure, there are rockstars and slugs on both sides of the equation. However, private sector (again, non-union type jobs) is much more merit based. As a result, ROI is a greater focus. Innovation and performance are much higher across the board -- .gov is where innovation goes to die.

As a business, in order to make money -- that's the objective of all businesses -- I want to acquire and retain the best talent available for a given function.

Ex. I may a have team building widgets in NC. But, to build it, I need a designer and I know a great one is available in KS, but is unwilling to move to NC for reasons. I should still try to acquire that person. Now add, the NC widget is only one piece of a Mega-widget that's assembled in AZ. And the Mega-widget uses widgets from not only NC, but MI, OH, CA, and off-shore like India and elsewhere. In this scenario, which is not at all unique, every piece is part of a bigger puzzle. Ultimately, they all need to work together, does it matter where these teams are located when everything is decentralized? Not for high performing teams. This is especially true in service driven organizations like finance, insurance, banking, etc. That's the modern world.

Now, if we were still operating in a more centralized world, my view would be different and I'd agree the synergies to be gained with in person collaboration are significant. But, I'd also need to accept that I may not have the best talent and overall growth is probably limited.

The biggest evidence to support my position is multiple studies indicate productivity was stable or increased with remote work. As a result, the myths of cocktails by the pool doesn't quite hold up. Ex.
Surprising Working From Home Productivity Statistics (2024).

If a remote resource isn't performing, the issue is no different than one that's in the office.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything but I know for a fact that poolside cocktails aren't a myth. I know of three personally who worked from beside a pool half the time during summer, and another who would show up to virtual meetings with the beach behind him. Since that was during the lockdowns and people hadn't been able to travel/do outdoor things as much from where they lived, he joked that he was spreading positivity and promised he would only show up to meetings porchside for the visual boost. :sneaky:

Nonetheless, his productivity didn't wane in the least and the other three have promoted just fine since then. I think there is an increasingly dated idea about professionalism that has some folks believing that means being in office, and I would say the argument for team morale can go both ways for in-person and remote work, depending on how much in-person interaction people prefer/tolerate. I'd argue for letting folks do what will keep them making the best aforementioned ROI and go from there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AWP
Your Weekend Safety Brief
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mad boomer
Mad boomer
Marauder06
Combined/Joint SOF Panel at West Point--Your Thoughts?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Gunz
G
Ooh-Rah
Enlistment to SOF - The ShadowSpear Way
Replies
1
Views
3K
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
Failure404
Moral Autonomy and the Ethics of War
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
TYW27
TYW27
Haldex
MOS Choice - Setting up to Prepare
Replies
17
Views
10K
Arrowhead_FS85
A
Back
Top