If you a mid to senior level manager in a $1B+ organization, read this and respond....

[320 Years of History]

I was just perusing the Trump website to see what he's posted there and whether he's offered something new, coherent, comprehensive, and or professional looking.

What did I find? Well, click along as follows, and you'll see....

Start at the main Policies page. Tell me if what that looks like is "up to snuff" for what you'd allow to go out of your office to a potential customer. That page has the consistency/uniformity and professional appearance I'd expect from a mediocre eighth grader just getting familiar with how to use PowerPoint or some other presentation software program. It's not at all what I'd expect of someone who's paid to design and build webpages for the man who would be President of the United States.

Click "view attachment" below to see what I mean.

Moving on....

1. Read More under "National Defense."
2. Click on here where you see: "Read Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Upgrade America’s Military, here."
3. Read the so-called "proposals." What you'll find is that the Heritage Foundation, not any set of military commanders, or a panel of military professionals, has defined what the U.S. military needs
   • Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions....
     
     "....To execute current missions"? WTF?...The current generals are executing, even as I type this, current.missions, you f*cing imbecile!
   • "Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies."
     
     Of course, because obviously the Heritage Foundation knows more about what the Marine Corps needs than does the Marine Corps, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Inspector General of the Marine Corp who's evaluated all manners of programs in the Corps, or any of several other individuals or groups. WTF?

Having now drilled into the lowest level of the National Defense section, let's take a look at another one.

1. Click "Read More" under "Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS."
   
2. So far so good, right? It looks like the same thing you saw before in terms of professionalism and layout.
3. Click on each of the "here" links you see on the page. Does he use the same format -- layout and organizational approach -- that he used for the National Defense? Hell no! ROTFL!
   • Clicking the first "here" link, takes one to a recycled speech from April 2016.
   • Clicking the second "here" link and it takes you to what may be a recycled speech or not, or just something made to sort of look like one. I don't know what it is other than that it's a document; it doesn't even have a date on it and it has no author indicated. I don't know it's a PDF that contains more statements lifted from other writers and speakers than it does original thought from the man who would be President.

• As go none of the final destinations in this section, none follows the format of the "National Defense" section.

I'm not going to keep digging through his site. Suffice to say, that it's not very professionally assembled...at least not by the standards of any Fortune 500 company for which I've ever consulted. Hell, it's not even up to the standards of a high school web design student.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I was just perusing the Trump website to see what he's posted there and whether he's offered something new, coherent, comprehensive, and or professional looking.

What did I find? Well, click along as follows, and you'll see....

Start at the main Policies page. Tell me if what that looks like is "up to snuff" for what you'd allow to go out of your office to a potential customer. That page has the consistency/uniformity and professional appearance I'd expect from a mediocre eighth grader just getting familiar with how to use PowerPoint or some other presentation software program. It's not at all what I'd expect of someone who's paid to design and build webpages for the man who would be President of the United States.

Click "view attachment" below to see what I mean.

View attachment 92421

Moving on....

1. Read More under "National Defense."
2. Click on here where you see: "Read Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Upgrade America’s Military, here."
3. Read the so-called "proposals." What you'll find is that the Heritage Foundation, not any set of military commanders, or a panel of military professionals, has defined what the U.S. military needs
   • Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions....
     
     "....To execute current missions"? WTF?...The current generals are executing, even as I type this, current.missions, you f*cing imbecile!
   • "Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies."
     
     Of course, because obviously the Heritage Foundation knows more about what the Marine Corps needs than does the Marine Corps, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Inspector General of the Marine Corp who's evaluated all manners of programs in the Corps, or any of several other individuals or groups. WTF?

Having now drilled into the lowest level of the National Defense section, let's take a look at another one.

1. Click "Read More" under "Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS."
   
2. So far so good, right? It looks like the same thing you saw before in terms of professionalism and layout.
3. Click on each of the "here" links you see on the page. Does he use the same format -- layout and organizational approach -- that he used for the National Defense? Hell no! ROTFL!
   • Clicking the first "here" link, takes one to a recycled speech from April 2016.
   • Clicking the second "here" link and it takes you to what may be a recycled speech or not, or just something made to sort of look like one. I don't know what it is other than that it's a document; it doesn't even have a date on it and it has no author indicated. I don't know it's a PDF that contains more statements lifted from other writers and speakers than it does original thought from the man who would be President.

• As go none of the final destinations in this section, none follows the format of the "National Defense" section.

I'm not going to keep digging through his site. Suffice to say, that it's not very professionally assembled...at least not by the standards of any Fortune 500 company for which I've ever consulted. Hell, it's not even up to the standards of a high school web design student.

From the noted section:

Increase the size of the U.S. Army to 540,000 active duty soldiers, which the Army Chief of Staff says he needs to execute current missions.

I have no reason to believe the CoS is a member of Heritage.

Considering the state of the planet, doubling our military would not be overdoing it.

Do you know any from military command NOT specifically appointed by Obama to oppose a buildup who takes issue with Trump's suggestions?

 

[MisterBeale]

I was just perusing the Trump website to see what he's posted there and whether he's offered something new, coherent, comprehensive, and or professional looking.

What did I find? Well, click along as follows, and you'll see....

Start at the main Policies page. Tell me if what that looks like is "up to snuff" for what you'd allow to go out of your office to a potential customer. That page has the consistency/uniformity and professional appearance I'd expect from a mediocre eighth grader just getting familiar with how to use PowerPoint or some other presentation software program. It's not at all what I'd expect of someone who's paid to design and build webpages for the man who would be President of the United States.

Click "view attachment" below to see what I mean.

View attachment 92421

Moving on....

1. Read More under "National Defense."
2. Click on here where you see: "Read Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Upgrade America’s Military, here."
3. Read the so-called "proposals." What you'll find is that the Heritage Foundation, not any set of military commanders, or a panel of military professionals, has defined what the U.S. military needs
   • Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions....
     
     "....To execute current missions"? WTF?...The current generals are executing, even as I type this, current.missions, you f*cing imbecile!
   • "Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies."
     
     Of course, because obviously the Heritage Foundation knows more about what the Marine Corps needs than does the Marine Corps, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Inspector General of the Marine Corp who's evaluated all manners of programs in the Corps, or any of several other individuals or groups. WTF?

Having now drilled into the lowest level of the National Defense section, let's take a look at another one.

1. Click "Read More" under "Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS."
   
2. So far so good, right? It looks like the same thing you saw before in terms of professionalism and layout.
3. Click on each of the "here" links you see on the page. Does he use the same format -- layout and organizational approach -- that he used for the National Defense? Hell no! ROTFL!
   • Clicking the first "here" link, takes one to a recycled speech from April 2016.
   • Clicking the second "here" link and it takes you to what may be a recycled speech or not, or just something made to sort of look like one. I don't know what it is other than that it's a document; it doesn't even have a date on it and it has no author indicated. I don't know it's a PDF that contains more statements lifted from other writers and speakers than it does original thought from the man who would be President.

• As go none of the final destinations in this section, none follows the format of the "National Defense" section.

I'm not going to keep digging through his site. Suffice to say, that it's not very professionally assembled...at least not by the standards of any Fortune 500 company for which I've ever consulted. Hell, it's not even up to the standards of a high school web design student.

Wow, he just shot himself in the foot.

He's done.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I was just perusing the Trump website to see what he's posted there and whether he's offered something new, coherent, comprehensive, and or professional looking.

What did I find? Well, click along as follows, and you'll see....

Start at the main Policies page. Tell me if what that looks like is "up to snuff" for what you'd allow to go out of your office to a potential customer. That page has the consistency/uniformity and professional appearance I'd expect from a mediocre eighth grader just getting familiar with how to use PowerPoint or some other presentation software program. It's not at all what I'd expect of someone who's paid to design and build webpages for the man who would be President of the United States.

Click "view attachment" below to see what I mean.

View attachment 92421

Moving on....

1. Read More under "National Defense."
2. Click on here where you see: "Read Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Upgrade America’s Military, here."
3. Read the so-called "proposals." What you'll find is that the Heritage Foundation, not any set of military commanders, or a panel of military professionals, has defined what the U.S. military needs
   • Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions....
     
     "....To execute current missions"? WTF?...The current generals are executing, even as I type this, current.missions, you f*cing imbecile!
   • "Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies."
     
     Of course, because obviously the Heritage Foundation knows more about what the Marine Corps needs than does the Marine Corps, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Inspector General of the Marine Corp who's evaluated all manners of programs in the Corps, or any of several other individuals or groups. WTF?

Having now drilled into the lowest level of the National Defense section, let's take a look at another one.

1. Click "Read More" under "Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS."
   
2. So far so good, right? It looks like the same thing you saw before in terms of professionalism and layout.
3. Click on each of the "here" links you see on the page. Does he use the same format -- layout and organizational approach -- that he used for the National Defense? Hell no! ROTFL!
   • Clicking the first "here" link, takes one to a recycled speech from April 2016.
   • Clicking the second "here" link and it takes you to what may be a recycled speech or not, or just something made to sort of look like one. I don't know what it is other than that it's a document; it doesn't even have a date on it and it has no author indicated. I don't know it's a PDF that contains more statements lifted from other writers and speakers than it does original thought from the man who would be President.

• As go none of the final destinations in this section, none follows the format of the "National Defense" section.

I'm not going to keep digging through his site. Suffice to say, that it's not very professionally assembled...at least not by the standards of any Fortune 500 company for which I've ever consulted. Hell, it's not even up to the standards of a high school web design student.

Was hildabeast's email system up to your standards?

 

[320 Years of History]

I was just perusing the Trump website to see what he's posted there and whether he's offered something new, coherent, comprehensive, and or professional looking.

What did I find? Well, click along as follows, and you'll see....

Start at the main Policies page. Tell me if what that looks like is "up to snuff" for what you'd allow to go out of your office to a potential customer. That page has the consistency/uniformity and professional appearance I'd expect from a mediocre eighth grader just getting familiar with how to use PowerPoint or some other presentation software program. It's not at all what I'd expect of someone who's paid to design and build webpages for the man who would be President of the United States.

Click "view attachment" below to see what I mean.

View attachment 92421

Moving on....

1. Read More under "National Defense."
2. Click on here where you see: "Read Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Upgrade America’s Military, here."
3. Read the so-called "proposals." What you'll find is that the Heritage Foundation, not any set of military commanders, or a panel of military professionals, has defined what the U.S. military needs
   • Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions....
     
     "....To execute current missions"? WTF?...The current generals are executing, even as I type this, current.missions, you f*cing imbecile!
   • "Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies."
     
     Of course, because obviously the Heritage Foundation knows more about what the Marine Corps needs than does the Marine Corps, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Inspector General of the Marine Corp who's evaluated all manners of programs in the Corps, or any of several other individuals or groups. WTF?

Having now drilled into the lowest level of the National Defense section, let's take a look at another one.

1. Click "Read More" under "Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS."
   
2. So far so good, right? It looks like the same thing you saw before in terms of professionalism and layout.
3. Click on each of the "here" links you see on the page. Does he use the same format -- layout and organizational approach -- that he used for the National Defense? Hell no! ROTFL!
   • Clicking the first "here" link, takes one to a recycled speech from April 2016.
   • Clicking the second "here" link and it takes you to what may be a recycled speech or not, or just something made to sort of look like one. I don't know what it is other than that it's a document; it doesn't even have a date on it and it has no author indicated. I don't know it's a PDF that contains more statements lifted from other writers and speakers than it does original thought from the man who would be President.

• As go none of the final destinations in this section, none follows the format of the "National Defense" section.

I'm not going to keep digging through his site. Suffice to say, that it's not very professionally assembled...at least not by the standards of any Fortune 500 company for which I've ever consulted. Hell, it's not even up to the standards of a high school web design student.

From the noted section:

Increase the size of the U.S. Army to 540,000 active duty soldiers, which the Army Chief of Staff says he needs to execute current missions.

I have no reason to believe the CoS is a member of Heritage.

Considering the state of the planet, doubling our military would not be overdoing it.

Do you know any from military command NOT specifically appointed by Obama to oppose a buildup who takes issue with Trump's suggestions?

Red:
I did say that "several" of his proposals derive from the Heritage Foundation. It's true that not all of them do. I don't see a good reason for any of them being based upon what the Heritage Foundation, or any other non-U.S. Military organization or cadre of military experts think. I might be okay with the Heritage Foundation's recommendation, but he doesn't reference a single document so that the reader can tell whether the recommendation comes from the political rhetoric/partisan arm of Heritage or from a bunch of ex generals and admirals writing for the specialized unit within their "think tank" section.

Note:
Yes, I know the HF is broadly referred to as a "think tank," but I also know they have distinct institutes which, despite the conservative bent they religiously infuse in their conclusions and observation selection whenever they can and they think they won't be called out for pandering intellectually, produces rigorously developed ideas and policy positions, and then there's the non-institute section of the HF that publishes little other than well written partisan editorials ("commentaries" is what the HF call them) that may or may not be well thought out...it's kind of "hit or miss," and, yes, they have many of both hits and misses. What content of theirs Trump selected (I doubt he read it) I have no idea because he doesn't reference the document.

Blue:
I'm not aware that Trump's said anything about doubling anything about the military. I'm aware of the item you quoted above re: the U.S. Army, but I'm also aware that the Army currently contains somewhere around ~485K to ~490K active soldiers. (See also: http://us-military-branches.insidegov.com/)

I also know that the U.S. Army is currently conducting it's current missions. Unless they are losing battles, or clearly not accomplishing things they have been tasked with accomplishing, it's hard to believe that an additional 50K active units are needed. Trump doesn't bother to explain what drives the noted need for an additional 50K units nor does he provide a reference for where the Army Chief of Staff made that remark, so it's hard to take the claim all that seriously. Indeed, it's certain that the Army CoS actually made that remark, despite the attribution.

Green:
I'm not aware of any military officer who thinks that more units available is worse than fewer. That I know any commander would sooner have more units if s/he were to have their way is precisely why I'd like to see some sort of verifiable justification and attribution for the request/recommendation. I'm not saying the Army CoS is right or wrong; I'm saying I'd like to understand to some extent and in moderately specific results-oriented terms what drives the recommendation, assuming he made it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I was just perusing the Trump website to see what he's posted there and whether he's offered something new, coherent, comprehensive, and or professional looking.

What did I find? Well, click along as follows, and you'll see....

Start at the main Policies page. Tell me if what that looks like is "up to snuff" for what you'd allow to go out of your office to a potential customer. That page has the consistency/uniformity and professional appearance I'd expect from a mediocre eighth grader just getting familiar with how to use PowerPoint or some other presentation software program. It's not at all what I'd expect of someone who's paid to design and build webpages for the man who would be President of the United States.

Click "view attachment" below to see what I mean.

View attachment 92421

Moving on....

1. Read More under "National Defense."
2. Click on here where you see: "Read Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Upgrade America’s Military, here."
3. Read the so-called "proposals." What you'll find is that the Heritage Foundation, not any set of military commanders, or a panel of military professionals, has defined what the U.S. military needs
   • Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions....
     
     "....To execute current missions"? WTF?...The current generals are executing, even as I type this, current.missions, you f*cing imbecile!
   • "Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies."
     
     Of course, because obviously the Heritage Foundation knows more about what the Marine Corps needs than does the Marine Corps, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Inspector General of the Marine Corp who's evaluated all manners of programs in the Corps, or any of several other individuals or groups. WTF?

Having now drilled into the lowest level of the National Defense section, let's take a look at another one.

1. Click "Read More" under "Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS."
   
2. So far so good, right? It looks like the same thing you saw before in terms of professionalism and layout.
3. Click on each of the "here" links you see on the page. Does he use the same format -- layout and organizational approach -- that he used for the National Defense? Hell no! ROTFL!
   • Clicking the first "here" link, takes one to a recycled speech from April 2016.
   • Clicking the second "here" link and it takes you to what may be a recycled speech or not, or just something made to sort of look like one. I don't know what it is other than that it's a document; it doesn't even have a date on it and it has no author indicated. I don't know it's a PDF that contains more statements lifted from other writers and speakers than it does original thought from the man who would be President.

• As go none of the final destinations in this section, none follows the format of the "National Defense" section.

I'm not going to keep digging through his site. Suffice to say, that it's not very professionally assembled...at least not by the standards of any Fortune 500 company for which I've ever consulted. Hell, it's not even up to the standards of a high school web design student.

Was hildabeast's email system up to your standards?

I haven't seen her email system. I presume she used MS Outlook or Lotus Notes email or some other standard email client and server. If so, as goes professionalism of the layout, visual organization/design and related traits, yes, it is/was.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I was just perusing the Trump website to see what he's posted there and whether he's offered something new, coherent, comprehensive, and or professional looking.

What did I find? Well, click along as follows, and you'll see....

Start at the main Policies page. Tell me if what that looks like is "up to snuff" for what you'd allow to go out of your office to a potential customer. That page has the consistency/uniformity and professional appearance I'd expect from a mediocre eighth grader just getting familiar with how to use PowerPoint or some other presentation software program. It's not at all what I'd expect of someone who's paid to design and build webpages for the man who would be President of the United States.

Click "view attachment" below to see what I mean.

View attachment 92421

Moving on....

1. Read More under "National Defense."
2. Click on here where you see: "Read Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Upgrade America’s Military, here."
3. Read the so-called "proposals." What you'll find is that the Heritage Foundation, not any set of military commanders, or a panel of military professionals, has defined what the U.S. military needs
   • Mr. Trump will build an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft, which the Heritage Foundation has shown to be needed to execute current missions....
     
     "....To execute current missions"? WTF?...The current generals are executing, even as I type this, current.missions, you f*cing imbecile!
   • "Mr. Trump will build a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions, which the Heritage Foundation notes is the minimum needed to deal with major contingencies."
     
     Of course, because obviously the Heritage Foundation knows more about what the Marine Corps needs than does the Marine Corps, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Inspector General of the Marine Corp who's evaluated all manners of programs in the Corps, or any of several other individuals or groups. WTF?

Having now drilled into the lowest level of the National Defense section, let's take a look at another one.

1. Click "Read More" under "Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS."
   
2. So far so good, right? It looks like the same thing you saw before in terms of professionalism and layout.
3. Click on each of the "here" links you see on the page. Does he use the same format -- layout and organizational approach -- that he used for the National Defense? Hell no! ROTFL!
   • Clicking the first "here" link, takes one to a recycled speech from April 2016.
   • Clicking the second "here" link and it takes you to what may be a recycled speech or not, or just something made to sort of look like one. I don't know what it is other than that it's a document; it doesn't even have a date on it and it has no author indicated. I don't know it's a PDF that contains more statements lifted from other writers and speakers than it does original thought from the man who would be President.

• As go none of the final destinations in this section, none follows the format of the "National Defense" section.

I'm not going to keep digging through his site. Suffice to say, that it's not very professionally assembled...at least not by the standards of any Fortune 500 company for which I've ever consulted. Hell, it's not even up to the standards of a high school web design student.

From the noted section:

Increase the size of the U.S. Army to 540,000 active duty soldiers, which the Army Chief of Staff says he needs to execute current missions.

I have no reason to believe the CoS is a member of Heritage.

Considering the state of the planet, doubling our military would not be overdoing it.

Do you know any from military command NOT specifically appointed by Obama to oppose a buildup who takes issue with Trump's suggestions?

Red:
I did say that "several" of his proposals derive from the Heritage Foundation. It's true that not all of them do. I don't see a good reason for any of them being based upon what the Heritage Foundation, or any other non-U.S. Military organization or cadre of military experts think. I might be okay with the Heritage Foundation's recommendation, but he doesn't reference a single document so that the reader can tell whether the recommendation comes from the political rhetoric/partisan arm of Heritage or from a bunch of ex generals and admirals writing for the specialized unit within their "think tank" section.

Intelligent strategies are not limited to military thinking alone, and anyone can see the dwindling numbers of virtually all military assets.

Note:
Yes, I know the HF is broadly referred to as a "think tank," but I also know they have distinct institutes which, despite the conservative bent they religiously infuse in their conclusions and observation selection whenever they can and they think they won't be called out for pandering intellectually, produces rigorously developed ideas and policy positions, and then there's the non-institute section of the HF that publishes little other than well written partisan editorials ("commentaries" is what the HF call them) that may or may not be well thought out...it's kind of "hit or miss," and, yes, they have many of both hits and misses. What content of theirs Trump selected (I doubt he read it) I have no idea because he doesn't reference the document.

And concerning ideas about military readiness proffered by say ... The Center for American Progress?

Blue:
I'm not aware that Trump's said anything about doubling anything about the military.

He didn't. I did.

I also know that the U.S. Army is currently conducting it's current missions. Unless they are losing battles, or clearly not accomplishing things they have been tasked with accomplishing, it's hard to believe that an additional 50K active units are needed. Trump doesn't bother to explain what drives the noted need for an additional 50K units nor does he provide a reference for where the Army Chief of Staff made that remark, so it's hard to take the claim all that seriously. Indeed, it's certain that the Army CoS actually made that remark, despite the attribution.

Green:
I'm not aware of any military officer who thinks that more units available is worse than fewer. That I know any commander would sooner have more units if s/he were to have their way is precisely why I'd like to see some sort of verifiable justification and attribution for the request/recommendation. I'm not saying the Army CoS is right or wrong; I'm saying I'd like to understand to some extent and in moderately specific results-oriented terms what drives the recommendation, assuming he made it.

Again, objectively, the state of the planet.

Admittedly subjectively, I don't favor proportional responses.