He's a fawning Trump stooge. That's his sole "qualification." Nothing he's ever done remotely qualifies him for a position of such authority and power.
Boilerbaby's perfectly OK with that, though. In Boiler World, a willingness to lick Trump's balls makes you fit for the job.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Oooo...you mean he got elected to Congress and serves on committees? Just like Alexandria O COrtez who you regularly tell us is inexperienced and unqualified for everything? Thats big.
Prior to his election John Ratclif was a lawyer. Oh, and uh, not the reputable kind. He was the lawyer that had an ad on the side of a bus asking if you've been injued in an accident.....Ever watch "Better Call Saul" on AMC?
and then he spent 3 years in the department of justice where he claims he prosecuted and convicted terrorrists....but cant name one name. And no court records show he ever worked on any terrorist case.
So in summary, John Ratcliffe is a perfect fit in the Trump Administration. He has no qualifications but he does put our president before his country....and has no qualms about lying into a microphone to the American People. AMbulance chasers are good at that.
Here are the committees that AOC has sat on. You might notice there is no cyber security experience, no intelligence experience, etc. Ratcliffe and AOC are not similarly qualified.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Here are the committees that AOC has sat on. You might notice there is no cyber security experience, no intelligence experience, etc. Ratcliffe and AOC are not similarly qualified.
- House Committee on Financial Services
Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets subcommittees- House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Environment subcommittees
AOC is not being considered for one of the most powerful and responsible positions in the country. Pointless comparison. She's also not being considered for starting center on the L.A. Lakers. So motherfucking what?
Ratcliffe, though, is exactly as qualified for the the position as AOC--or as a retarded toddler.
I didn't bring up the AOC and Ratcliffe comparison..............that was PJ. He claimed that they had equal qualifications for the job at hand. If you look at Johnny's backgroun, it's very diverse and there is substantial intelligence and cyber security experience.
Both Ratcliffe and AOC are equally unqualified for the post of intel chief. For that matter, so is my cat. But Trump didn't nominate AOC or my cat.
PJ's point was that Republiholes bleat about AOC serving on committees because she's "unqualified," but have no trouble with demonstrably unqualified Trump stooges being appointed to vital high-level posts for no better reason than they are loyal Trump dogs.
You should cut the bullshit. Ratcliffe is being nominated because he's a loyal Trump stooge. No other reason.
By the way, there's a practical reason why Trump has nominated somebody--if he didn't, the acting intel chief would have had to step down by mid-March. This way, he can stick around as the hearings drag on.
What does the track record qualify this man to be?
Serving on committees in no way qualifies a person to assume a critical, high-level, great-responsibility government post. He would, for example, be in charge of election security.
Hey, I just realized, that's why Trump wants him! An incompetent in charge of trying to stop Russia from interfering in the 2020 election--what could be better?
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Serving on committees in no way qualifies a person to assume a critical, high-level, great-responsibility government post. He would, for example, be in charge of election security.
Hey, I just realized, that's why Trump wants him! An incompetent in charge of trying to stop Russia from interfering in the 2020 election--what could be better?
What does the man who's qualifications are shown above prepare him to do in government?
Legally Ratcliff meets the requirements for his appointed position. And the same can be said for Hunter Biden at Burisma.
In neither case can one say with a straight face that person was the best candidate for the job. But one of those will be the subject of a HUGE scandal contrived by the GOP in the coming months. Can you guess which one?
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Legally Ratcliff meets the requirements for his appointed position. And the same can be said for Hunter Biden at Burisma.
In neither case can one say with a straight face that person was the best candidate for the job. But one of those will be the subject of a HUGE scandal contrived by the GOP in the coming months. Can you guess which one?
Above are Hillary's qualifications when Obama named her Secretary of State. Liberals didn't make a peep about her lack of experience.
