Scarborough: Giuliani would be 'disastrous' pick for State

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
" MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Saturday evening slammed Rudy Giuliani, one of the top contenders to be Donald Trump's pick for secretary of State.

Scarborough, a former GOP congressman from Florida, said Giuliani would be "a disastrous pick" for the position, adding he is "neither qualified nor capable of effectively holding the position."

The "Morning Joe" host did indicate he believes the former New York City mayor could serve as Homeland Security secretary, but said "the search should continue" for secretary of State. "

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308654-scarborough-giuliani-would-be-disastrous-pick-for-secretary-of
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I hate to point out that my former crush, Joe Scarborough, has been dead wrong about Trump for the last year and a half. So I hope he will forgive me when I don't put a lot of faith in his opinions.
 
One of the few pieces boy has every posted that I agree with..

I tend to agree. I like Giuliani, and he did a lot for NYC, but it was more in a capacity as authoritarian director than diplomat. Thinking along the lines of the Times Square cleanup.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Here's the thing about SecState, and pretty much everything else we think we "know":

Just because that's the way it's "always" been doesn't mean it's the right way. We have all these crazy and pointless foreign entanglements, which makes other countries - some of which are led by arbitrary little dictators who shouldn't even be there - have us by the nads. I don't like that. I'd rather have a foreign affairs minister who brings a set to the table, along with a big hammer with which to (figuratively) bludgeon these aholes who don't want to play ball. Whoever is the exact opposite of John Kerry, I want that person.

Trump needs a George Shultz or a Henry Kissinger. I can see Giuliani in that role.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I tend to agree. I like Giuliani, and he did a lot for NYC, but it was more in a capacity as authoritarian director than diplomat. Thinking along the lines of the Times Square cleanup.

I think Giuliani does - and should - have a position in the Trump administration. Just not SecState. DHS maybe.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I don't give one hoot what Scarborough thinks. MSNBC has corrupted what few brain cells he has left.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member

The same guy who implemented unconstitutional stop and frisk policies should run the DHS?

There's also the argument that he aided Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) and committed a federal offense by providing material assistance to a group listed as a terrorist organization. The same group he openly called to get delisted. If one (himself included) argues Clinton should have gone to jail for he shenanigans, there's a case Giuliani should be there with her. One could cut him some slack for various aspects of the argument (one of which is the State Dept.'s wishy-washy means of adding organizations to their terrorist list) which I won't get into unless anyone cares to know, but Giuliani wasn't willing to cut Clinton any slack. She violated the letter of the law, so she should have gone to prison. If that's the litmus test, so should Giuliani.

I'm a non-interventionist, and Trump played one at certain points of his campaign. If he truly cared about not intervening in foreign issues, wouldn't you say Giuliani is sort of the status-quo of interventionist foreign policy? Remember, Giuliani thought taking Iraq's oil was cool.
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That's my question to the Giuliani naysayers. What is it about him people hate so much? He's a doer, a fixer. And he's got a strong voice and takes no crap. Why do people hate him so much?

Because this:

The same guy who implemented unconstitutional stop and frisk policies should run the DHS?

There is no question that Giuliani's methods were effective. But there are some who don't care about that. He violated what some consider "rights" in this country, and forget the good that came out of it. Breaking eggs is not the best way to make omelets, in their view.

People bitch and moan because they think NSA is listening to them talk to their mom or girlfriend, and they think cops are going to bust down their door any minute to plant heroin, shoot their dog, and throw them in prison. The media - yes, them again - portray society's dirt bag criminals as stand up folks, just tryin' to make a livin', to plant to idea that you, PsyOps, are the exact same person as some career criminal. That if it can happen to said career criminal, it can happen to you too.

That's why you should fear the government, fear the police, fear the military, etc etc: because they are just itching for a reason to kill you or throw you in prison. Which most people realize is ridiculous, but the believers believe.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
As in 'accomplished the desired effect" - and not for example, had an additional or ancillary effect that was not desired.

It got the job done.

What was the job? What did stop and frisk aim to do?

It wasn't reducing crime, because that was falling before S&F, and it continued to fall after S&F was pretty must dismantled. Not something I'd consider effective.

It wasn't getting guns off the street because they recovered guns something like 0.02% of the time. In ~5 million stops. Not something I'd consider effective.

Which is why I asked what one would consider effective, not the textbook definition because I don't believe it met that. But maybe that's just my opinion.

I'd be fine with that. The suggestion of another kissinger is absurd. We don't need an evil sob like that again.

But an unabashed neocon is good?

He was the main cheerleader for the war in Iraq and supported our role in it as early as last year. While claiming there were WMDs in Iraq, he was trying to make sure the UN couldn't inspect the US's biological weapons.

Remember Trump's debate performance in February when he said,
"We should have never been in Iraq. We destabilized the Middle East...They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none...."Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake"

Bolton also claimed, a year before Iraq, that Cuba was building biological weapons.
"The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort...provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/world/washington-accuses-cuba-of-germ-warfare-research.html

He want's to bomb Iran. Because that's a good idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=2

He also suggested Israel use nukes on Iran.

Obama followed his own advise on Gadhafi. That we should induce regime change. When Obama did intervene in Libya, ISIS grew to power. Bolton then blasted Obama for intervening in Libya.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ton-kill-libyan-dictator-moammar-gaddafi.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/john-bolton-the-too-little-too-late-presidency-1424219513
 
Last edited:
Top