Why ask the question when the POTUS doesn't use meritocracy himself.
Q: Can anyone square "meritocracy" and appointing/approving Hegseth, Gabbard, Noem, Bondi, RFK, etc.?
A: Uh......no.
But hey, let's play pretend.
With our country.
The Senate considers the appointments and decides if they were worthy or not worthy of their appointments. The Senate considered them worthy and confirmed them. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
Q: Can anyone square "meritocracy" and appointing/approving Hegseth, Gabbard, Noem, Bondi, RFK, etc.?
A: Uh......no.
But hey, let's play pretend.
With our country.
The Senate considers the appointments and decides if they were worthy or not worthy of their appointments. The Senate considered them worthy and confirmed them. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
Yes, you're absolutely correct, WHO nominated them and WHO was nominated is irrelevant. The (shi***) nominees just appear. It's ALL about the Senate.
Of course, you're oh-so-clever Senate emphasis was already covered by the inclusion of the word "approved" in my post.
The Senate considers the appointments and decides if they were worthy or not worthy of their appointments. The Senate considered them worthy and confirmed them. Is it really that hard for you to understand?
Yes, you're absolutely correct, WHO nominated them and WHO was nominated is irrelevant. The (shi***) nominees just appear. It's ALL about the Senate.
Of course, you're oh-so-clever Senate emphasis was already covered by the inclusion of the word "approved" in my post.
This is (yet another) great reminder about the (sometimes huge) limitations of good ole' "DEMOCRACY."
Imagine that there was at least the inclusion of some omniscient, objective "judgement" when selecting elected officials, including Senators?
And it would ask the simple question, "So, you REALLY thought that Major Pete should be SECDEF?" And ditto ALL of the other freakin' absurd Trump 2.0 nominations.
"Candidacy denied."
Easy.
And would that apply to plenty of Democrats over the years? Of course.
But right now, just for starters, it would apply to between 50 and 53 of the current R Senators.
Yes, you're absolutely correct, WHO nominated them and WHO was nominated is irrelevant. The (shi***) nominees just appear. It's ALL about the Senate.
Of course, you're oh-so-clever Senate emphasis was already covered by the inclusion of the word "approved" in my post.
This is (yet another) great reminder about the (sometimes huge) limitations of good ole' "DEMOCRACY."
Imagine that there was at least the inclusion of some omniscient, objective "judgement" when selecting elected officials, including Senators?
And it would ask the simple question, "So, you REALLY thought that Major Pete should be SECDEF?" And ditto ALL of the other freakin' absurd Trump 2.0 nominations.
"Candidacy denied."
Easy.
And would that apply to plenty of Democrats over the years? Of course.
But right now, just for starters, it would apply to between 50 and 53 of the current R Senators.
reminder that the original constitution, which many political christians consider divinely inspired, had senators chosen by state legislatures, not elected by the people.
Perhaps the original way, having senators be filtered by experts and not subject to the ballot box, was superior to what we have now. Now the senate and house are pretty much the same thing...the senate was supposed to be more wise and look for the long run instead of the 'must get reelected' bit of today's senate.