View Full Version : Military Component of Trump Coup Attempt
Admiral McRaven in NYT: Remove Trump from Office ‘The Sooner, the Better’
"McRaven’s op-ed gives a military imprimatur to what President Donald Trump has already likened to a “coup,” as Democrats attempt to impeach him with barely a year to go before the next presidential election."
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/17/admiral-mcraven-in-nyt-remove-trump-from-office-the-sooner-the-better/
But by all means let us be "nice".
Bet he’s up for a sweet gig if the Dem beats Trump next year.
Bet he’s up for a sweet gig if the Dem beats Trump next year.
Business_Casual
10-18-19, 18:45
He could ride in a three element helo package from Anacostia to the Pentagon and back every day.
Is there not something in the Uniform Code that makes it "against the law" for him to say this?
Secret testimonies, hidden "evidence", kangaroo court, having impeachment hearings without an impeachment vote and now a high ranking ex-military officer saying a sitting president must be removed. Yes, sounds like an attempted coup to me.
Obviously a is looking to get some kinda political favors.
Yeah, I really don't care what some retired Obama-boot licker has to say. He's probably pissed about the no Navy Tranny EO from the President.
These are the General/Flag grade officers with the mentality to ban privately owned firearms in military quarters.
Andy
Diamondback
10-18-19, 19:31
"B-b-but Admiral McRaven was a SEAL!" Yeah, well Duke Cunningham was a fighter ace, one of the last, before he sold out and became a crooked Congressman. What you do in service does not buy a free pass for what you do after.
I don't trust McRaven and dont agree with any of his points in the article. These counties take advantage of our good will and we dont have to be there for them indefinitely.
Don't forget Mattis as well. This is not normal or healthy for the Republic.
This probably belongs in the civil war thread, it's that bad.
Don't forget Mattis as well. This is not normal or healthy for the Republic.
This probably belongs in the civil war thread, it's that bad.
Maybe that should tell you how bad the president is when you have all sides hating him.
Dr. Bullseye
10-18-19, 22:25
I don't care if he is an Admiral or not. I don't care if he is a frickin Field Marshal. If he is a part of the coup, and he is, he is a TRAITOR. Traitors should be arrested, tried, and HUNG on the White House steps. And there are a lot of traitors to hang.
Maybe that should tell you how bad the president is when you have all sides hating him.
I'm no fan of Trump but a lack of wars make warhawks irrelevant.
I think we want that modern day Patton or Pershing. But no.
FWIW I think Smedley Butler would agree with Trump on withdrawal.
War really is a racket. It gives politicians too much relevance, it uses young men as literal chess pawns, and moreover it accrues a lot of debt and owed favors.
I think this reflects more on Mattis and McRaven than Trump.
HardToHandle
10-18-19, 23:00
I don't care if he is an Admiral or not. I don't care if he is a frickin Field Marshal. If he is a part of the coup, and he is, he is a TRAITOR. Traitors should be arrested, tried, and HUNG on the White House steps. And there are a lot of traitors to hang.
George Washington was just a colonial Colonel, then he rebelled and made general. Just say’n.
I don't care if he is an Admiral or not. I don't care if he is a frickin Field Marshal. If he is a part of the coup, and he is, he is a TRAITOR. Traitors should be arrested, tried, and HUNG on the White House steps. And there are a lot of traitors to hang.
I am with you on this brother, They keep springing up like virus to affect the whole body, Impeaching the elected president after he was investigated with no collision or election malpractice. This is treason.
Maybe that should tell you how bad the president is when you have all sides hating him.
So you are OK with an orchestrated coup attempt? Half the country think the previous President was horrible, now the other half think this one is horrible, but this is by G@d AMERICA, you vote them out or you wait until they term limit out. Nothing Trump has done warrants three years of constant attacks from the deep state, the CIA, the FBI, the media. They are not attacking Trump, they are telling 60,000,000 voters "your vote doesn't count because we don't like your guy and we are going to stage a coup to get him out of there". If they succeed this will not end well, and all the never Trumpers are crazy to cheer this on. I am a citizen, not a subject, it sticks in my craw that some are now apparently above the law and think that they have the right to dictate to us how things are going to be.
So you are OK with an orchestrated coup attempt? Half the country think the previous President was horrible, now the other half think this one is horrible, but this is by G@d AMERICA, you vote them out or you wait until they term limit out. Nothing Trump has done warrants three years of constant attacks from the deep state, the CIA, the FBI, the media. They are not attacking Trump, they are telling 60,000,000 voters "your vote doesn't count because we don't like your guy and we are going to stage a coup to get him out of there". If they succeed this will not end well, and all the never Trumpers are crazy to cheer this on. I am a citizen, not a subject, it sticks in my craw that some are now apparently above the law and think that they have the right to dictate to us how things are going to be.
Just because Trump claims there is an Orchestrated Coup attempt doesn't mean there is one.
What I am not ok with is pretty much everything Trump has done. He is an unstable nut job.
Just because Trump claims there is an Orchestrated Coup attempt doesn't mean there is one.
What I am not ok with is pretty much everything Trump has done. He is an unstable nut job.
That is your opinion, my opinion is the unstable nut jobs are the ones pushing these attacks, guess we will just have to disagree.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/five-states-just-hit-all-time-low-unemployment-rates.html
Alabama, California, Illinois, New Jersey and South Carolina all set new all-time low unemployment rates in September.
The declines come amid a national jobless rate that fell to 3.5%, the lowest since 1969.
While I don’t agree with what McRaven said, calling it treason is pretty ignorant. First of all, he is retired. That may not be the same as completely unaffiliated with service, but he doesn’t lead service members anymore so anything he says is just his opinion. Mattis is no different, though I don’t believe what he said (at least the quote I’ve seen) is anywhere near on the same level as McRaven. POTUS talked shit to Mattis and Chaos hit him back.
Also, and even more importantly, no one in the military swears an oath to the president. We swear an oath to the Constitution and vow to follow lawful orders. If a president ever stepped way out of line and was heading straight for dictatorship, I’d hope that our senior leaders would step up and challenge him/her, in support of our Constitution.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
10-19-19, 00:48
I love that the Trump-lovers have elevated roasting the President to treason.
Like... I would trust McRaven or Mattis with my life and the lives of my loved ones.
I wouldn't trust Trump with a moldy ham sandwich; First he'd eat it, then he'd deny having eaten it, then he'd say that it was a horrible sandwich and why would anyone eat it in the first place because it was obviously moldy and he'd never eat a moldy sandwich, then say that it was my fault for leaving it there without expressly telling him not to eat it, proclaim next that I was happy that he'd eaten it, agree to buy me a new sandwich (and never do so), and then he'd finally settle on it being part of a conspiracy to oust him from the White House - and besides, Obama/Biden/Clinton/Warren would have eaten that moldy sandwich, too. At least until it comes up again, when he'd make up some other shit about it.
But, hey, at least there hasn't been a dull moment since he was elected.
Maybe that should tell you how bad the president is when you have all sides hating him.
Mattis and McRaven are both retired military flag officers. There is only one side there, the endless war side.
Both know better than to undermine a President. It undermines the trust of the people that the military will stay out of politics and remain under civilian control. This is so much bigger than one President and sets a terrible example of insubordination all the way down the chain.
Mattis and McRaven are also part of the swamp. War is a huge money making industrial complex. Huge contracts with ridiculously inflated costs. The kurds are no different than the south Vietnamese or the montagnards. Political promises don't mean shit.
Mattis and McRaven are also part of the swamp. War is a huge money making industrial complex. Huge contracts with ridiculously inflated costs. The kurds are no different than the south Vietnamese or the montagnards. Political promises don't mean shit.
Well, one of President Trump’s campaign promises was to get us out the endless quagmire wars.
I have a question for the Trump basher's on the forum.
Do you consider socialism/communism a bad thing or not?
These things really makes me feel uneasy. Just how far are they willing to go and how much are “We The People” willing to do in order to stop them?
I don't care if he is an Admiral or not. I don't care if he is a frickin Field Marshal. If he is a part of the coup, and he is, he is a TRAITOR. Traitors should be arrested, tried, and HUNG on the White House steps. And there are a lot of traitors to hang.
Lexington Steel is HUNG. Traitors hey HANGED. Just sayin’
I love that the Trump-lovers have elevated roasting the President to treason.
Like... I would trust McRaven or Mattis with my life and the lives of my loved ones.
I wouldn't trust Trump with a moldy ham sandwich; First he'd eat it, then he'd deny having eaten it, then he'd say that it was a horrible sandwich and why would anyone eat it in the first place because it was obviously moldy and he'd never eat a moldy sandwich, then say that it was my fault for leaving it there without expressly telling him not to eat it, proclaim next that I was happy that he'd eaten it, agree to buy me a new sandwich (and never do so), and then he'd finally settle on it being part of a conspiracy to oust him from the White House - and besides, Obama/Biden/Clinton/Warren would have eaten that moldy sandwich, too. At least until it comes up again, when he'd make up some other shit about it.
But, hey, at least there hasn't been a dull moment since he was elected.
So you think this guy.....
https://arcadiacmsprodblob.blob.core.windows.net/cmsstorage/arcadia/media/100most/smedley_1b.png
Would wanna keep the Forever War BS going?
I don’t. And unlike Mattis or McRaven he literally could have led an armed overthrow of the US.
Both Mattis and McRaven are retired guys no longer in the seat and so far are just talking mess.
Again, not at ALL on the Trump train, but whatever good these men may have done is being smeared by their partisanship.
The president says that he has the support of "the military, the police, and bikers" to perpetuate him in office.
I have a question for the Trump basher's on the forum.
Do you consider socialism/communism a bad thing or not?
Rich americans get all the socialism they want. Farmers, bankers, manufacturers, sports team owners, tech companies, defense contractors. Bailouts, contracts, subsidies, tax cuts, price supports. They just don't want the rest of us to have any socialism.
Marx for them, Adam Smith for us.
Using this country's immense intelligence apparatus and the nation's "premier" Federal law enforcement agency to spy on a political opponent is unheard of. It should also be 110% unacceptable to EVERYONE on here, whether you like Trump or not. "Soft coup" is probably a more accurate term than an actual coup, but those of you denying that this crap took place are being delusional (again, whether you actually like Trump or not).
I despised Obama. Like really really hated that mother****r. Same with Clinton (yes, I'm old enough to remember all that quite well). But I have to be honest: if there had been evidence of the internal spying taking place against them that we see/saw with Trump I'd reluctantly have to agree that it was completely un-American and shouldn't fly. That kind of BS makes us a First-World banana republic. How some of you can sit there and stick your heads in the sand and/or be blinded by sheer hatred of Trump and therefore deny it happened is beyond me.
You still don't have to like Trump, I don't give a damn. I *mostly* like him and will certainly vote for him next year, especially given the far-Lefty socialists running on the other side. That said, c'mon people......your denial doesn't mean it didn't happen. Before you spout off about how it was all made up and it's not what it appeared to be, you know deep inside that what took place was shady as hell and should NEVER occur here.
Having said all that, I'm all for getting dirty and f*****g over the next Dem POTUS at every turn, telling the 51% of the country that their vote doesn't count because I don't like it, lying like a rug, making shit up to get warrants, imprisoning their subordinates to milk dirt on them. Turnabout is fair play so I say get as un-American as possible the next time a Dem POS sits in the Oval Office. They have it coming. I support that COMPLETELY. However, I'll at least have a modicum of integrity and quietly admit it is shady and dirty, even un-American, but payback is a bitch.
Like... I would trust McRaven or Mattis with my life and the lives of my loved ones.
I actually have entrusted my life to Bill, many times, and would do so again in a heartbeat. I worked with him extensively for a couple years. Dude was an intelligent and inspiring officer.
This degree of bashing him because he does not agree with your NYC Democrat orange guy after retirement reminds me of why I dislike gun people. A bunch of relative nobodies talking shit on an overachieving and decorated leader of men.
Does anybody recall under who’s leadership UBL got shot in the face?
This is not about Trump. It's about the proper and normal deference and respect the military must show to elected officials.
It is respecting the rank, not the person.
Retired flag officers don't get to go back to Joe civilian.
I actually have entrusted my life to Bill, many times, and would do so again in a heartbeat. I worked with him extensively for a couple years. Dude was an intelligent and inspiring officer.
This degree of bashing him because he does not agree with your NYC Democrat orange guy after retirement reminds me of why I dislike gun people. A bunch of relative nobodies talking shit on an overachieving and decorated leader of men.
Does anybody recall under who’s leadership UBL got shot in the face?
Quite frankly what makes me dislike McRaven is his comments about civilians owning AR15s. That should disturb you too. I can separate his military prowess from his politics, but I certainly don't have to agree with his politics.
I actually have entrusted my life to Bill, many times, and would do so again in a heartbeat. I worked with him extensively for a couple years. Dude was an intelligent and inspiring officer.
This degree of bashing him because he does not agree with your NYC Democrat orange guy after retirement reminds me of why I dislike gun people. A bunch of relative nobodies talking shit on an overachieving and decorated leader of men.
Does anybody recall under who’s leadership UBL got shot in the face?
I hate to go here but no body no crime.
Gimme pics of a bullet riddled body and I’ll give credit where credit is due. I will kiss Obama’s ass as well as everyone under him. I have no doubt UBL is dead. I just want to see. We say Uday, Qusay, and Saddam. Why not UBL? I’d even pay money like on an adult site to see him 416’d from here to hell.
Again, I am not a Trump fan. But see no liveable alternative. It’s like asking me if I want San Francisco grade AIDS now or later when I don’t want it at all.
I have no doubt that McRaven and Mattis are good at their jobs and their little quibbles are, IMO only, poor form.
Trump is very uncouth for the position he holds, but hold it he does. He was elected. That cannot be taken away from him.
McRaven and Mattis were military leaders in wartime and have achieved successes where others may have not. This cannot be taken away from them.
But the actions of both sides are like parents openly arguing and cursing one another in the middle of Wal Mart. It’s hard to really take a side because both are kind of showing their asses.
This is my only contention
Stoking polarizing issues to what end?
As for McRaven, anybody that supports Brennen is corrupt. McRaven probably has lucrative interests tied to U.S. overseas involvement.
I can separate his military prowess from his politics, but I certainly don't have to agree with his politics.
Agreed.
MountainRaven
10-19-19, 09:21
I have a question for the Trump basher's on the forum.
Do you consider socialism/communism a bad thing or not?
I guarantee you that I have a lower opinion of socialism/communism than the current inhabitant of the White House has.
Turnabout is fair play so I say get as un-American as possible the next time a Dem POS sits in the Oval Office. They have it coming. I support that COMPLETELY. However, I'll at least have a modicum of integrity and quietly admit it is shady and dirty, even un-American, but payback is a bitch.
So it's cool to perpetuate partisan drama-llamaing, so long as it's not your guy in the White House. So you're going to make it as bad as you can when a Democrat makes it into the White House.
So are you ready to deal with it when those Democrats decide to make it even worse for the next Republican?
This is not about Trump. It's about the proper and normal deference and respect the military must show to elected officials.
It is respecting the rank, not the person.
Retired flag officers don't get to go back to Joe civilian.
I'm sure that Eisenhower, Grant, Johnson, and the eight other retired flag officers to become president after Washington didn't have a single strong public political view that might have been remotely critical of the civilian politicians who were their contemporaries, including the ones they ran against in elections and beat.
Oh, wait.
This is not about retired flag officers having strong public political opinions. It's about the President and his cult of personality finding treasonous and heretical enemies in every shadow.
So it's cool to perpetuate partisan drama-llamaing, so long as it's not your guy in the White House. So you're going to make it as bad as you can when a Democrat makes it into the White House.
So are you ready to deal with it when those Democrats decide to make it even worse for the next Republican?
Yep. Then we ratchet it up even more the time after that. If it tears this country apart too bad so sad. I can't stand about half this country anyway. Tit for f*****g tat. Forget that Moral High Road shit. It gets us nowhere.
THEY started all this, now we're supposed to sit back next time and say "Oh, well, let bygones be bygones. We're better than that"? I don't freaking think so. I've had it with the Left and their sympathizers. Wanna play games? Let's rock bitches! :mad:
Whole I don’t agree with what McRaven said, calling it treason is pretty ignorant. First of all, he is retired. That may not be the same as completely unaffiliated with service, but he doesn’t lead service members anymore so anything he says is just his opinion. MATTIS is no different, though I don’t believe what he said (at least the quote I’ve seen) is anywhere near on the same level as McRaven. POTUS talked shit to Mattis and Chaos hit him back.
I agree its different as they are retired, even if bad form.
And while "lawful orders" and such are a big deal, a General working to actively undermine a sitting president making lawful if disagreeable orders within the executive's power would be a problem.
Warhawks gonna warhawk. If you have/are a hammer, issues often look like nails.
The syria situation was lose/lose. One answer may be worse short term, but its not like the other answer was better long term.
Do we really want (yet another) permanent presence in a country that will never embrace democracy?
So yes, part of me says let Syria, Turkey, Russia, and Iran sort it out. With nato/EU pressure moderating Turkey.
I guarantee you that I have a lower opinion of socialism/communism than the current inhabitant of the White House has.
Then pray tell which socialism/communism supporting Dem candidate do you support for the next POTUS.
Using this country's immense intelligence apparatus and the nation's "premier" Federal law enforcement agency to spy on a political opponent is unheard of. It should also be 110% unacceptable to EVERYONE on here, whether you like Obama/Clinton or not.
I fixed it for you. I agree, DJT exercised very poor judgement.
But came no where near what the dems/swamp did regarding DJT prior to the election.
So please excuse me if I dont get worked up over the selective outrage.
The difference is having the "deep state" + well know past leaders + the media + (now) the house adds up to an insurmountable force.
I'm starting to wonder if it can be stopped.
I'm looking past DJT, he may take himself out. There are active plans/attempts to also take Pence out of play and put (presumably) Nancy in the whitehouse.
Its happening in front of our eyes. Don't think "they" can't wag the dog enough to get senators to vote differently? Or the public?
BTW, The new talking point is "unhinged" I've seen it in a dozen headlines last few days.
Averageman
10-19-19, 11:09
I have little concern or respect for anyone's Military Leadership above the Platoon Sergeant level.
You're really not leading unless you're right beside your Men and taking fire.
It's hard to get excited about a guy who doesn't remember where he came from and starts undermining the President in writing and for the entire world to see.
Sorry, he's a loser and he pinned that medal on his own chest.
ramairthree
10-19-19, 11:34
An inside look at some of our senior GO/FOs and the level of statist, control freak natures would freak a lot of regular people out.
As for the admiral, like many politicians, they may be selective on what wrong doing they want to right.
If someone wants to fry a non SEAL for shooting a woman stabbing a MWD, but go to great lengths in support of covering up SEALs that get shitfaced and beat up a chaplain, get shitfaced and beat up their only med support 18D on a remote FOB, or frag their intended rescue,
But do a major public flip flop after the fact -
I can only surmise they are willing to overlook some pretty bad stuff regarding the politicians they like, and be over damning on those they don’t.
This is not about retired flag officers having strong public political opinions. It's about the President and his cult of personality...
Pure projection. Your emotional dislike of the current President allows you to ignore the breaking of any norm.
I made clear I believe it is a respect for the rank/position/office that is important AND NOT WHO CURRENTLY HOLDS IT.
dwhitehorne
10-19-19, 13:13
I always thought retirees where still subject to the UCMJ. I can imagine the out cry if this type of article was written about the previous president. David.
Dr. Bullseye
10-19-19, 13:44
If I were Trump, I would spend days firing people. The FBI, CIA, NSA, everyone in the State Dept. except Mike Pompeo, and all the military officers disloyal to him would be fired----in total. And then I would start on all the other branches of the Executive Dept. and fire their butts too. Disloyal people are worse than no people at all.
Coal Dragger
10-19-19, 14:29
I cannot speak for McRavin, but Mattis is perfectly entitled to make the rather mild criticisms that he has.
This notion he is a warmonger is quite funny if you’ve ever watched an interview. For example he was very much against the idea of the Iraq war, but as he pointed out orders are orders.
I cannot think of many individuals at that echelon of power who are as well read, particularly on the history of the region as Jim Mattis. Chances are that whether you like him or not, he probably does have some well founded insight on the area and an understanding of what has worked and not worked in the past.
Lord Cheeto has more or less served his purpose, that being keeping Felonia Von Pantsuit from gaining power. He’s done well with rolling back executive branch agency regulations in many areas, which has helped the economy. He’s appointed some good judges. His foreign policy is largely a complete and total shit show, to include areas where US military forces are or have been actively operating. I’m not going to accuse someone of treason because they point out the obvious deficiencies of Lord Cheeto in this area, and many others.
I cannot speak for McRavin, but Mattis is perfectly entitled to make the rather mild criticisms that he has.
This notion he is a warmonger is quite funny if you’ve ever watched an interview. For example he was very much against the idea of the Iraq war, but as he pointed out orders are orders.
I cannot think of many individuals at that echelon of power who are as well read, particularly on the history of the region as Jim Mattis. Chances are that whether you like him or not, he probably does have some well founded insight on the area and an understanding of what has worked and not worked in the past.
Lord Cheeto has more or less served his purpose, that being keeping Felonia Von Pantsuit from gaining power. He’s done well with rolling back executive branch agency regulations in many areas, which has helped the economy. He’s appointed some good judges. His foreign policy is largely a complete and total shit show, to include areas where US military forces are or have been actively operating. I’m not going to accuse someone of treason because they point out the obvious deficiencies of Lord Cheeto in this area, and many others.There is a long history of generals disagreeing with presidents. And there are ways to do so if serving and ways not to do so.
Mattis says orders are orders even if he doesn't agree with them. Yet was more vocal with DJT.
The difference I think is they know the press completely has their back. Which is funny because they normally wouldn't.
I agree the Mattis comments are not near the issue as Mcraven's are. And also that Trump said some stupid things, and even then Mattis held back a bit.
Is it any surprise that generals who as a group tend towards more and longer engagements are in opposition to Trump who has clearly stated repeatedly that he thinks it's a waste of money and lives for a permanent presence that will not change things?
I think the president hurts himself the way he talks. But at the same time that's the way he's always talked, like a new york cabbie. And in many areas is getting stuff done that I believe is important.
McRaven was a well-known liberal when he was in uniform, supported both clintons and Obama. A lot of people in the community did not like him.
Coal Dragger
10-19-19, 15:57
There is a long history of generals disagreeing with presidents. And there are ways to do so if serving and ways not to do so.
Mattis says orders are orders even if he doesn't agree with them. Yet was more vocal with DJT.
The difference I think is they know the press completely has their back. Which is funny because they normally wouldn't.
I agree the Mattis comments are not near the issue as Mcraven's are. And also that Trump said some stupid things, and even then Mattis held back a bit.
Is it any surprise that generals who as a group tend towards more and longer engagements are in opposition to Trump who has clearly stated repeatedly that he thinks it's a waste of money and lives for a permanent presence that will not change things?
I think the president hurts himself the way he talks. But at the same time that's the way he's always talked, like a new york cabbie. And in many areas is getting stuff done that I believe is important.
Well point of fact, Mattis was no longer in uniform for Lord Cheeto, so being more vocal about his position vs POTUS is not inappropriate. He was selected to fill a cabinet position not be a yes man.
Well point of fact, Mattis was no longer in uniform for Lord Cheeto, so being more vocal about his position vs POTUS is not inappropriate. He was selected to fill a cabinet position not be a yes man.Valid point and why I think Trump's comments were kind of beneath him.
McRaven was a well-known liberal when he was in uniform, supported both clintons and Obama. A lot of people in the community did not like him.
Lots of people worthy of respect have some liberal tendencies. I would like to see Cannabis decriminalized, personally. The General that replaced McRaven was significantly liberal, and I have a great deal of respect for him, too. Trump was a Democrat at the time McRaven was at the helm of JSOC, and he still doesn't like silencers, doesn’t like them at all.
McRaven managed to get targets approved through Obummer despite Hillary’s protest. W didn’t have the fortitude to approve some of these, despite the “we will make no distinction” rhetoric. UBL was one of these.
Lots of people worthy of respect have some liberal tendencies. I would like to see Cannabis decriminalized, personally. The General that replaced McRaven was significantly liberal, and I have a great deal of respect for him, too. Trump was a Democrat at the time McRaven was at the helm of JSOC, and he still doesn't like silencers, doesn’t like them at all.
McRaven managed to get targets approved through Obummer despite Hillary’s protest. W didn’t have the fortitude to approve some of these, despite the “we will make no distinction” rhetoric. UBL was one of these.
You can be a Democrat and not be a liberal shill. McRaven chose to take sides when he was still in uniform which is no bueno.
McRaven had nothing to do with choosing targets; they were chosen for him. I will give him props for OBL and green-lighting an OTB op, though.
Still, I wouldn't piss on him if was on fire. More than one SEAL officer has his footprints on his back as he climbed the ladder.
Mattis on the other hand, I would follow him to hell.
Rich americans get all the socialism they want. Farmers, bankers, manufacturers, sports team owners, tech companies, defense contractors. Bailouts, contracts, subsidies, tax cuts, price supports. They just don't want the rest of us to have any socialism.
Marx for them, Adam Smith for us.
Right so let’s not get rid of the subsidies and monopolies of the rich but instead spread that socialist crap down into every fiber of our country. Excellent idea!
Why do socialists only think in terms or making things worse for everyone rather than better for everyone?
Well point of fact, Mattis was no longer in uniform for Lord Cheeto, so being more vocal about his position vs POTUS is not inappropriate. He was selected to fill a cabinet position not be a yes man.
And when a former military man steps into the political arena he should be accountable to his political record and statements regardless of his military performance. And just as open to criticism as any other politician.
Politically Mattis has no plan for final victory in the ME or Syria specifically. I think we have a generation of general officers who have been indoctrinated into the idea of world policing and nation building and asking political permission from neighboring countries harboring our enemies. They seem to think minimal engagement, highly restrictive ROE, no go zones and deployed forever is the norm.
The criticism I have of his ilk are they are quick to criticize Trump for pulling out yet had no plan for victory. Because ISIS was NOT the primary reason we were involved in Syria. We supported rebel groups to overthrow Assad. Some of these took that support and ran amok with it creating ISIS. So then we get caught up in suppressing them who are trying to unseat Assad, while we are still trying to unseat Assad too.
Asa military man he must not have pushed back much on that genius plan. As a political man he has come up with zero better foreign policy. At least Trump is saying we have no clear business here so we are backing out but will protect our interest if threatened.
Coal Dragger
10-19-19, 18:03
Blaming officers for a lack of guidance from various POTUS is not really fair. The military doesn’t decide what the mission or mission goals are, nor the strategic definition of what victory or success parameters are.
Without those your criticism is moot.
Oof.
I'm not going to argue. This is Barnes vs Elias BS and the moral of that story was that neither were handling things well.
Blaming officers for a lack of guidance from various POTUS is not really fair. The military doesn’t decide what the mission or mission goals are, nor the strategic definition of what victory or success parameters are.
Without those your criticism is moot.
No, my criticism is primarily with them as politicians. They have no victory plan yet criticize Trump for pulling out. I never heard them when in the military proposing any plan for final victory either. It is a general’s responsibility to say: We will never succeed in suppressing the Taliban as long as we support Pakistan (who created and support the Taliban) and refuse to hunt them down in Pakistan. When they finally did 15 years later OBL was pretty much irrelevant and had obviously been sheltering in Pakistan for years under the protective noses of the army.
But I think the generals gave up. None were willing to fall on their sword over principle (soldiers lives were at stake) versus a cushy retirement.
Then they become politicians and free of being muzzled still have no victory plan. But quick to criticize nonetheless.
I have a lot of respect for Adm McRaven’s service, but here is something to consider. When a commissioned officer retires, they retire their rank, not their commission.
Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to,”retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”
USMJ Art 88: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may.”
So the UCMJ still applies to Adm McRaven and what he says.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-19-19, 19:01
I have a lot of respect for Adm McRaven’s service, but here is something to consider. When a commissioned officer retires, they retire their rank, not their commission.
Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to,”retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”
USMJ Art 88: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may.”
So the UCMJ still applies to Adm McRaven and what he says.
I thought I had heard this before, about someone that went after Obama and had some action taken against him. We talked about it here, but I don't remember the context.
You all realize that if Trump hadn't put out the transcript where we would be? All we would have is the Whistleblower, secret hearings where only damaging info is leaked and amplified and low and behold some associates of Rudy's would be arrested about Ukraine.... Do you really think that is all timed out by coincidence? McRaven and the others are just noise. Frankly, the FBI, outside of corrupted DC leadership, is Trump's only hope, outside of the military going kinetic against the rouge TLA guys.
I find it so interesting that the left screams about how bad and out of the standard practices Trump is- and that their answer is ex-officio and ex-legal maneuvers to try to get rid of him. Who is the threat here?
Belmont31R
10-19-19, 19:22
Obama fired a record number of senior officers. Not surprising this dude floated to the top. Gives him undue 'credence' when general officers are considered. His best quality was being a loyal Obama guy.
Blaming officers for a lack of guidance from various POTUS is not really fair. The military doesn’t decide what the mission or mission goals are, nor the strategic definition of what victory or success parameters are.
Without those your criticism is moot.Not true... They are supposed to be making recommendations. Help define victory/success, pros and cons, etc.
Then refine those with the president and staff. Then go execute if needed. And make more suggestions when stuff changes.
MountainRaven
10-19-19, 21:56
Then pray tell which socialism/communism supporting Dem candidate do you support for the next POTUS.
None of them.
I'm guessing you support the socialism/communism supporting Dem currently inhabiting the White House, though.
Coal Dragger
10-19-19, 22:01
Not true... They are supposed to be making recommendations. Help define victory/success, pros and cons, etc.
Then refine those with the president and staff. Then go execute if needed. And make more suggestions when stuff changes.
You are making an assumption that this wasn’t taking place. You can make all the suggestions you want as a general officer, when POTUS tells you to pound sand and do things his way that’s that.
I actually have entrusted my life to Bill, many times, and would do so again in a heartbeat. I worked with him extensively for a couple years. Dude was an intelligent and inspiring officer.
This degree of bashing him because he does not agree with your NYC Democrat orange guy after retirement reminds me of why I dislike gun people. A bunch of relative nobodies talking shit on an overachieving and decorated leader of men.
Does anybody recall under who’s leadership UBL got shot in the face?
Anyone who supports Brennan, is questionable.
Sprinkle in the fact that he thinks AR's are not to be owned by the Commoners...man Ill take a pass on him.
Is his leadership the reason Dirty Santa got canoed? Had some one else been in charge during that time period not ordered that raid, based on that intelligence? At the end of the day, he took an order from POTUS, not the other way around.
Is Trump uncouth, sure. Did McCraven give a single example of what he was shouting, nope...just feels. Where was his final plans for Syria or Afghanistan...ZIP. Now he wants to know why POTUS pulled out when an Article 5 member of NATO wanted to go after some terrorists. How about a formal deceleration of war, approved by CONGRESS is needed for that or do civilians need to give him lessons in the Constitution that the NAVY or JSOC forgot to do.
I have a question for the Trump basher's on the forum.
Do you consider socialism/communism a bad thing or not?
Rich americans get all the socialism they want. Farmers, bankers, manufacturers, sports team owners, tech companies, defense contractors. Bailouts, contracts, subsidies, tax cuts, price supports. They just don't want the rest of us to have any socialism.
Marx for them, Adam Smith for us.
Right so let’s not get rid of the subsidies and monopolies of the rich but instead spread that socialist crap down into every fiber of our country. Excellent idea!
Why do socialists only think in terms or making things worse for everyone rather than better for everyone?
Interesting where that went.
How do we get rid of the subsidies and monopolies of the rich, in a way that the Republican Party will embrace?
What will the folks that chant 'capitalism, capitalism' and unrestrained free market, unrestrained free market' have to say about it?
Serious questions, I think if you are going to solve the problem you are going to need to undo Citizens United and a couple of other SCOTUS decisions, which IMVHO were made based on political rather than originalist grounds.
Speaking to ag subsidies, they are kind of like many look at unions, needed when they were started, but now their utility is perverted.
Farm subsidies.....help reduce the risk farmers endure from the weather, commodities brokers, and disruptions in demand. But they have evolved to become very complex. As a result, only large producers can take advantage of them.
Out of all the crops that farmers grow, the government only subsidizes five of them. They are corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice.
These grains provide 80% of the world's caloric needs. Grains can also be stored and affordably shipped. The top five states receiving subsidies are Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, and Illinois. In 2017, they received 38.5% of the $7.2 billion distributed.
Between 1995 and 2017, $369.7 billion was paid out.
Producers of meat, fruits, and vegetables can only benefit from crop insurance and disaster relief.
Subsidies act like a regressive tax that helps high-income businesses, not poor rural farmers. Most of the money goes toward large agribusinesses. Between 1995 and 2017, the top 10%of recipients received 77% of the $205.4 billion doled out. The top 1% received 26% of the payments. That averages out to $1.7 million per company. Fifty people on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans received farm subsidies. On the other hand, 62% of U.S. farms did not receive any subsidies.
Read the rest of the article and see the history of farm subsidies an how ethanol is fvcking us all...
https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885
Seriously, that group of quotes, should spark some discussion as to how to turn it around w/o full blown, or even semi blown, socialism.
Excellent post and links 26Inf. Archer-Daniels and Cargill do not federal subsidies. None of the farmers should get it. Let the market decide what needs to be grown in what quantity. State colleges already provide a wealth of local Ag expertise to help farmers choose crops, etc. And seed companies now demand exacting procedures for watering, fertilizing and harvesting of their patented seeds. And of course the only reason we have more expensive ethanol mixed in gasoline is due to corn farmer lobbying and Congressmen like Bob “on the” Dole.
Stop all Ag subsidies. Totally not needed.
Then start unraveling the medical field monopolies and price fixing, add mandatory estimates like car mechanics, and forbid hidden charges and allow imports and of course forced insurance.
There is not one industry that should get subsidies except perhaps complex research but then it should be open source.
The reality is the government is corrupt and corruption breeds socialism and vice versa. Both are here to stay until "the citizens" have reached an untenable position. Socialism and corruption never reverse course on their own. There is no history of that happening.
Good listen:
https://billmoyers.com/episode/what-the-1-dont-want-you-to-know-2/
I think some of you did not read what was said. This is not about a disagreement on policy, or that a retired Admiral and General cannot speak out on policy.
Advocating the "removal" of the elected President is extraordinary coming from the military.
Taking cheep personal shots against the President is below the office and rank he held. "He started it" is not an excuse, there is a difference between being in the military and being in politics.
I think some of you did not read what was said. This is not about a disagreement on policy, or that a retired Admiral and General cannot speak out on policy.
Advocating the "removal" of the elected President is extraordinary coming from the military.
Taking cheep personal shots against the President is below the office and rank he held. "He started it" is not an excuse, there is a difference between being in the military and being in politics.
These are extraordinary times. Today it's not difficult to name off more than and few high officials who, being guilty of treason and murder, get away with it. The clintons come to mind, Brennen, and we could go on and on.
Dr. Bullseye
10-20-19, 12:59
I think some of you did not read what was said. This is not about a disagreement on policy, or that a retired Admiral and General cannot speak out on policy.
Advocating the "removal" of the elected President is extraordinary coming from the military.
Taking cheep personal shots against the President is below the office and rank he held. "He started it" is not an excuse, there is a difference between being in the military and being in politics.
I don't have an ounce of military worship in my body. To me this turd is just a common traitor just like most of what used to be called the Democratic Party. Now it is the Traitor Party (minus Tulsi). This turd cloaked himself in a uniform and thought he could get away with this without being called a traitor. He was wrong.
Taking cheep personal shots against the President is below the office and rank he held. "He started it" is not an excuse, there is a difference between being in the military and being in politics.
I had to do some reading to see what all the hub bub is about.
http://dailytexanonline.com/2017/02/22/mcraven-backs-journalists-stresses-value-of-communication-in-moody-talk
https://www.businessinsider.com/william-mcraven-against-trump-navy-seal-presidency-2019-10
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/10/18/former-socom-commander-mcraven-latest-former-military-leader-to-blast-trump-over-syria/
To me a cheap shot consists of making declaratory statements without context to back them up. This is something President Trump does all the time. In my eyes THAT is inexcusable behavior by a sitting President.
I don't agree with McRaven's belief that President Trump needs to be removed from office at this point, but I have to recognize that McRaven provides context for the statements he makes, which IMO is not taking cheap shots.
Would we be having this conversation about the involvement of General Officers in politics if McRaven had said 'President Trump is the bestest President ever?'
I didn't think so. Like so many things, depends on whether you are buying or selling.
I had to do some reading to see what all the hub bub is about.
http://dailytexanonline.com/2017/02/22/mcraven-backs-journalists-stresses-value-of-communication-in-moody-talk
https://www.businessinsider.com/william-mcraven-against-trump-navy-seal-presidency-2019-10
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/10/18/former-socom-commander-mcraven-latest-former-military-leader-to-blast-trump-over-syria/
To me a cheap shot consists of making declaratory statements without context to back them up. This is something President Trump does all the time. In my eyes THAT is inexcusable behavior by a sitting President.
I don't agree with McRaven's belief that President Trump needs to be removed from office at this point, but I have to recognize that McRaven provides context for the statements he makes, which IMO is not taking cheap shots.
Would we be having this conversation about the involvement of General Officers in politics if McRaven had said 'President Trump is the bestest President ever?'
I didn't think so. Like so many things, depends on whether you are buying or selling.
I absolutely would have the same convo. Officers obey orders and carry out policy. We/they have to be apolitical while in uniform. When you are retired it's fair game.
As for flag rank in general (no pun intended), you don't get there without being a political animal. You learn the Potomac two-step to survive and advance.
Would we be having this conversation about the involvement of General Officers in politics if McRaven had said 'President Trump is the bestest President ever?'
I didn't think so. Like so many things, depends on whether you are buying or selling.
I spent some time at Fort Meade and in the Pentagon. Above the grade of Brigadier General, it's all a political game - people vying for cushy appointments to corporate boards or cabinet level positions after retirement. It's who you know and whose back you've scratched in the past. The closer to D.C. you work, the worse it gets.
I would question McRaven if he lauded Trump as the greatest President ever because it would tell me this retired Admiral was looking for something in return. All of you do know that McRaven and Lurch (John F'n Kerry) are pretty tight buddies? Lurch is a turd in my book, so I wonder what McRaven sees in him other than a stepping stone to some lucrative gig. It's all about power and money.
The cheap shot was Mattis.
"I earned my spurs on the battlefield; Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor" Totally beneath his rank, accomplishments, and stature.
McRaven goes beyond what I believe is a reasonable difference over policy.
"America is... under attack, not from without, but from within."
"Trump is destroying the Republic."
"it is time for a new person in the Oval Office... the sooner, the better."
The cheap shot was Mattis.
"I earned my spurs on the battlefield; Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor" Totally beneath his rank, accomplishments, and stature.
McRaven goes beyond what I believe is a reasonable difference over policy.
"America is... under attack, not from without, but from within."
"Trump is destroying the Republic."
"it is time for a new person in the Oval Office... the sooner, the better."
Both statements, but mainly the latter, are hyperbole. Both the General and the Admiral are from the belief system that America has a responsibility on a Global Scale to defend freedom, depose despots and give everyone else a shot at all the good we enjoy. It's almost like a God Given Directive that America has to lead the way everywhere and make all the wrongs right. I understand the thinking because I was a small part in all of that. The military needs a mission - something to keep us in the forefront of the global game of dominance and spreading democracy. If we're not doing it, the void gets filled by our geopolitical enemies, and America's stature is reduced.
The alternative philosophy is that we have no business spreading our good fortune, freedoms and interfering in the social evolution of other nations. We need to focus internally and take care of our own issues before we endeavor to solve everyone else's problems. Sort of the Rand Paul philosophy. Trump is more of a believer in this point of view.
I take the point of view that we can do a little of both. The world is a nasty, mean and dirty place outside of America. I've seen a lot of it. Unless America remains a top player in the geopolitical world, sitting on the sidelines can put us at risk in the long run by cutting off trade and sea lane routes, and losing markets for our goods, as well as influence. China is filling that void globally already.
I also take the Trump/Paul philosophy that we can't be involved in every civil war and regional tribal ethnic cleansing war. Pick the ones that could affect us the most, and push the allies closer to take a more active roll. One thing we can do more remotely is a better job of paying off despots and dictators. I still think Iraq could have been avoided if we had leaned on Saddam Hussein heavier with better financial incentives based on better human rights and not invading other players in the area. He was one of our international pawns who got out of control. One thing I agree with Colin Powell on - when it comes to invading other countries: "You break it, you own it".
MountainRaven
10-20-19, 15:53
I think some of you did not read what was said. This is not about a disagreement on policy, or that a retired Admiral and General cannot speak out on policy.
Advocating the "removal" of the elected President is extraordinary coming from the military.
Taking cheep personal shots against the President is below the office and rank he held. "He started it" is not an excuse, there is a difference between being in the military and being in politics.
The rules are for thee (Mattis and McRaven) and not for me (Trump).
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-20-19, 16:09
McRaven is trying our for VP, is that so hard to see. Biden is toast, pretty much everyone else needs a foreign/military expert and sane person in the room. That he can attack Trump, is a positive needed to keep Warren out of the fray...
I'm no fan of Trump but a lack of wars make warhawks irrelevant.
I think we want that modern day Patton or Pershing. But no.
FWIW I think Smedley Butler would agree with Trump on withdrawal.
War really is a racket. It gives politicians too much relevance, it uses young men as literal chess pawns, and moreover it accrues a lot of debt and owed favors.
I think this reflects more on Mattis and McRaven than Trump.
War is the health of the state.
The rules are for thee (Mattis and McRaven) and not for me (Trump).
Exactly. Serving comes with responsibilities bigger than yourself.
Politicians have and always will lie, cheat, and make unfair personal attacks for political gain.
I was taught in basic how important public trust in the military was. Stuff like not showing political bias and respect for the elected civilian commander.
MountainRaven
10-20-19, 18:37
Exactly. Serving comes with responsibilities bigger than yourself.
Politicians have and always will lie, cheat, and make unfair personal attacks for political gain.
I was taught in basic how important public trust in the military was. Stuff like not showing political bias and respect for the elected civilian commander.
Now I'm curious as to whether or not you were one of those people who thought that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for adultery, because he was C-in-C of the US military and should therefore be held to the same standards (morally and legally).
Diamondback
10-20-19, 19:07
Lemme just drop one little bomb from the "Remember When" file...
https://i.imgur.com/GanIrPw.png
:)
Re UCMJ maybe not, but I would definitely argue that to be eligible for any office that could push the Big Red Button one should be subject to the same Personnel Reliability Program requirements as the bomber crews and the key-turners in the LCC's who they'd be ordering to let the nukes fly.
I'm all for getting dirty and f*****g over the next Dem POTUS at every turn, telling the 51% of the country that their vote doesn't count because I don't like it, lying like a rug, making shit up to get warrants, imprisoning their subordinates to milk dirt on them. Turnabout is fair play so I say get as un-American as possible the next time a Dem POS sits in the Oval Office. They have it coming. I support that COMPLETELY. However, I'll at least have a modicum of integrity and quietly admit it is shady and dirty, even un-American, but payback is a bitch.
I disagree. We need to be the shining beacon on the hill for people to look to for righteous ideas and liberty. We need to embody the change we wish to see. Most of the left today really think they are doing the “good” thing, through a steady dose of propaganda. But many will see that strictly ONE SIDE is acting out and being terrible people: their own side.
We cannot actually become the demons they believe we are. We have to be kind to them, reach out to them. They will come around eventually. Cognitive dissonance can only last so long.
Defend yourselves if you must, otherwise, set a good example for our culture.
I ended up opposed to the Clinton impeachment, the crime that could be proven just wasn't serious enough to overturn the election.
Only an idiot thinks the UCMJ applies to the President.
I disagree. We need to be the shining beacon on the hill for people to look to for righteous ideas and liberty. We need to embody the change we wish to see. Most of the left today really think they are doing the “good” thing, through a steady dose of propaganda. But many will see that strictly ONE SIDE is acting out and being terrible people: their own side.
We cannot actually become the demons they believe we are. We have to be kind to them, reach out to them. They will come around eventually. Cognitive dissonance can only last so long.
Defend yourselves if you must, otherwise, set a good example for our culture.
You can't be serious. Is there a special rainbow spot you get to park your unicorn in at work? Thinking like that (and it isn't just you, it's too many on "our" side) is why we will perpetually be sucking hind teat with the Libtards.
We will not agree on this I assure you. To each his own.
Now I'm curious as to whether or not you were one of those people who thought that Bill Clinton should have been impeached for adultery, because he was C-in-C of the US military and should therefore be held to the same standards (morally and legally).
Now now, you know he was impeached for perjury, not adultery. He perjured himself as a sitting POTUS in a civil case to save his own ass (we've all seen the tape, don't deny it). He WAS guilty of perjury, but the Senate didn't see fit to convict and probably remove him from office. If he hadn't perjured himself the adultery wouldn't have cut it impeachment-wise (who could blame him if you were married to his wife!).
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-20-19, 21:06
That is only half right.. he not only perjured himself, he got someone else to perjure themselves- in a sexual harassment case...
Belmont31R
10-20-19, 21:12
Now now, you know he was impeached for perjury, not adultery. He perjured himself as a sitting POTUS in a civil case to save his own ass (we've all seen the tape, don't deny it). He WAS guilty of perjury, but the Senate didn't see fit to convict and probably remove him from office. If he hadn't perjured himself the adultery wouldn't have cut it impeachment-wise (who could blame him if you were married to his wife!).
Amazing how successful the left has been at rewriting history, and changing the entire narrative around historic events. I've run into people who will swear up and down that Palin said she could see Russia from her house despite being a SNL skit joke.
Just really sad people tune into the MSM for news anymore. Or watch any type of 'modern' big network TV shows. Its all just far leftist propaganda at this point and you'll be better off studying something useful or go see what your family is doing.
Belmont31R
10-20-19, 21:12
Now now, you know he was impeached for perjury, not adultery. He perjured himself as a sitting POTUS in a civil case to save his own ass (we've all seen the tape, don't deny it). He WAS guilty of perjury, but the Senate didn't see fit to convict and probably remove him from office. If he hadn't perjured himself the adultery wouldn't have cut it impeachment-wise (who could blame him if you were married to his wife!).
Amazing how successful the left has been at rewriting history, and changing the entire narrative around historic events. I've run into people who will swear up and down that Palin said she could see Russia from her house despite being a SNL skit joke.
Just really sad people tune into the MSM for news anymore. Or watch any type of 'modern' big network TV shows. Its all just far leftist propaganda at this point and you'll be better off studying something useful or go see what your family is doing.
Coal Dragger
10-20-19, 21:43
The cheap shot was Mattis.
"I earned my spurs on the battlefield; Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor" Totally beneath his rank, accomplishments, and stature.
McRaven goes beyond what I believe is a reasonable difference over policy.
"America is... under attack, not from without, but from within."
"Trump is destroying the Republic."
"it is time for a new person in the Oval Office... the sooner, the better."
Mattis is right, Trump was a draft dodger. That’s worthy of ridicule.
The cheap shot was Mattis.
"I earned my spurs on the battlefield; Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor" Totally beneath his rank, accomplishments, and stature.
President Trump started it: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-jim-mattis-most-overrated-general-2019-10
What did Mattis say that was untrue? In my view President Trump showed his true colors playing the deferment game, he was, as I call 'em, a draft dodger.
President Trump's life is well-documented. Some of us haven't forgotten.
As I've said before, he got elected because he was 'better than Hilary' but at this point, I'm not sure.
Just to put my mind at ease, how old are you and when did you serve?
Mattis is right, Trump was a draft dodger. That’s worthy of ridicule.
Perhaps. That was 50 years ago. There were some people who served very honorably in the service and later in civilian life became shit bags. I person could do selfish or cowardly things when they are 20 and then end up doing some great things. If they made false claims of their youth then I agree they deserve ridicule. Or if they currently are in a position questioning someone else’s courage, then sure.
Obama was certainly a coward and a weed head at that age. I don’t recall any of the former generals at that time calling that President out for being drug head and avoiding military service. And I agree at the time he was President it was irrelevant compared to what he did or did not do in the recent previous 30 years.
So sure, it is true Trump avoided the draft. But he became a notable businessman and beat the pants off all other Republican candidates and win the general election. And his decision in Syria is turning out to be correct according to vocal critic Lindsey Graham. The retired general officers are being petty to fall back on 50 years ago.
They had great military careers and now show themselves to be petty and outrageously careless in suggesting removing a President from office. From hero to working on being a cheap political hack.
MountainRaven
10-20-19, 23:38
Now now, you know he was impeached for perjury, not adultery. He perjured himself as a sitting POTUS in a civil case to save his own ass (we've all seen the tape, don't deny it). He WAS guilty of perjury, but the Senate didn't see fit to convict and probably remove him from office. If he hadn't perjured himself the adultery wouldn't have cut it impeachment-wise (who could blame him if you were married to his wife!).
I'm aware of what he was impeached for. But I also remember what people wanted to impeach him for.
As I've said before, he got elected because he was 'better than Hilary' but at this point, I'm not sure.
The above is an interesting statement. I would really like to understand what information is making you consider that Hillary would have been better? Maybe I’m naive, but ISIS grew to power under her and Obamas leadership. Syria is screwed due to foreign policy decisions under her and Obama. US Ambo dead along with other people under her leadership. Her economic plans would have devastated businesses in the USA resulting in more lost jobs. I think the awesome 1% service industry growth under Obama would have been seen as historic had she implement her policies. Her support of Climate Change retardation would have fleeced US taxpayers of billions. And most likely under her we would be destroying more Americans lives and wealth with ZERO return on that investment. Heck we’d still be dropping leaflets on ISIS.
So what specific Trump policies are negatively impacting the USA. Is our economy not growing? Is unemployment down or up? Is the USA more or less energy dependent?
I’m 100% open to the concept that I’m myopic or poorly informed about the state of the union so I’m really asking for an update.
Mattis pretty much pulled a Trump and decided that he wasn’t going to take shit from anyone. AFAIC both POTUS and Mattis exhibited petty mean girl syndrome on just not being able to maintain any sense of professionalism. There was absolutely no need for either to do stupid shit like call each other names. This is the part of DJT that drives me nuts. Mattis did a decent job as SecDef. They ran into a difference of opinion and parted ways. Whether fired or quit don’t matter. Part ways and be done like adults.
McRaven on the other hand comes off as some leftist twat when it comes to his expressed political views. The whole AR-15 have no place to leads me to disagree with him politically. Don’t get me wrong, he served honorably AFAIK and from all accounts he was a decent leader. That don’t mean his politics are good for the nation. Different vocations: political leaders vs military leader. IMO. If he announces a candidacy, I will do my due diligence to understand him as best as possible. Till then based on what I’ve seen/heard he seems to be doing what it takes to keep his career moving. Right now that’s spewing stuff the MSM loves.
Averageman
10-20-19, 23:55
As I've said before, he got elected because he was 'better than Hilary' but at this point, I'm not sure.
You don't really believe that do you?
Coal Dragger
10-21-19, 00:05
Perhaps. That was 50 years ago. There were some people who served very honorably in the service and later in civilian life became shit bags. I person could do selfish or cowardly things when they are 20 and then end up doing some great things. If they made false claims of their youth then I agree they deserve ridicule. Or if they currently are in a position questioning someone else’s courage, then sure.
Obama was certainly a coward and a weed head at that age. I don’t recall any of the former generals at that time calling that President out for being drug head and avoiding military service. And I agree at the time he was President it was irrelevant compared to what he did or did not do in the recent previous 30 years.
So sure, it is true Trump avoided the draft. But he became a notable businessman and beat the pants off all other Republican candidates and win the general election. And his decision in Syria is turning out to be correct according to vocal critic Lindsey Graham. The retired general officers are being petty to fall back on 50 years ago.
They had great military careers and now show themselves to be petty and outrageously careless in suggesting removing a President from office. From hero to working on being a cheap political hack.
Trump was and remains a shit bag of a human being in his personal demeanor, behavior, and proclivities. He was, and so far remains the least bad decision given the candidates on offer last election and this one in the general election. That doesn’t make him a good person, brave, or honorable in any way. He’s a sleaze ball and a shit bag in his personal life as far as I can tell. Somehow most of his kids seem infinitely better than their father, so he may be a decent parent, that’s all I’ll give him personally. That said I am grudgingly planning to vote for the orange colored loud mouth braggart next year, because as abrasive, crass, crude, dishonorable, and sleazy as he is he’s still better than a totalitarian leftist/socialist nutball.
I haven’t seen Sec. Mattis calling for Trump’s removal from office, and until something comes up that casts serious doubt on the character and integrity of James Mattis I will continue to consider his opinions quite valid in his areas of experience. I seem to recall that Trump started the insults towards Mattis, not vice versa. If Mattis wants to make some pointed remarks in rebuttal I support that exchange. For whatever myriad of faults Barry had, he wasn’t in the habit of picking public fights with general officers even when he clearly despised them. So it seems that those individuals had no reason to offer rebuttal for insults that never existed.
As for McRaven, he’s no longer in the service either and his opinions are his right to hold and share as he sees fit. I do not subscribe to the ridiculous and frankly unconstitutional view that former officers (or enlisted for that matter) service members are somehow barred from criticizing a commander in chief or other officials after their time in uniform is at an end. Point to even a single case of charges being brought and sticking to a retired officer of any grade for insulting or criticizing the commander in chief. There are none, because it would be slapped down in court as a completely ridiculous infringement on the 1st amendment. Just because it is in the UCMJ does not mean it’s a good law, or one that can practically or constitutionally be enforced.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-21-19, 00:21
The amazing thing is that Trump is running the second Cold War against China, and no one is really noticing. The tax cuts were to add fuel to the economy as he took on China economically, which ads a drag on our economy. Yes the debt and deficits are larger than they should be, but if he can tame and put China in its place, it will the cheapest 'war' we have ever fought. But no one is paying attention. No is noticing that the Chi-coms are heavily favoring the Dems and Biden, so that we can get to the last 50 years of them gaining power. They know that if Trump wins, and they haven't made a deal yet, they are in for really hard times, like economic instability testing the durability of their political system. Hong Kong is just a grain of sand compared to the Chinese nation if things start to go economically sideways.
Secret testimonies, hidden "evidence", kangaroo court, having impeachment hearings without an impeachment vote and now a high ranking ex-military officer saying a sitting president must be removed. Yes, sounds like an attempted coup to me.
Agreed.
Coal Dragger
10-21-19, 00:49
The amazing thing is that Trump is running the second Cold War against China, and no one is really noticing. The tax cuts were to add fuel to the economy as he took on China economically, which ads a drag on our economy. Yes the debt and deficits are larger than they should be, but if he can tame and put China in its place, it will the cheapest 'war' we have ever fought. But no one is paying attention. No is noticing that the Chi-coms are heavily favoring the Dems and Biden, so that we can get to the last 50 years of them gaining power. They know that if Trump wins, and they haven't made a deal yet, they are in for really hard times, like economic instability testing the durability of their political system. Hong Kong is just a grain of sand compared to the Chinese nation if things start to go economically sideways.
This has not gone unnoticed by me, and is one reason I’m still planning to vote for Trump. I find him to be personally repugnant most of the time, but looking past his personal proclivities at his policies and the desired goals I’m on board for most of it.
McRaven goes beyond what I believe is a reasonable difference over policy.
"America is... under attack, not from without, but from within."
"Trump is destroying the Republic."
"it is time for a new person in the Oval Office... the sooner, the better."
I agree with TK here. As per my previous post, the UCMJ still applies the the Adm, but I’m sure he won’t be held to that standard.
Idk trying to jam the guy up on UCMJ seems kinda lame. I say that as a civ and not a member of .mil
That being said he’s opined on plenty of issues in the past that have left a piss poor taste in my mouth. Also, him being the head guy during the UBL raid is completely irrelevant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ChattanoogaPhil
10-21-19, 05:26
Political experts said Trump didn't know what he was doing. No path to an electoral win.
Economic experts said Trump didn't know what he was doing. Stock market would crash and never recover.
Intelligence experts said Trump colluded with Russia. Mueller would reveal Trump as Russian spy.
Trade experts said Trump didn't know what he was doing. Trade war with China would result in skyrocketing prices for the American consumer.
So now military experts are saying Trump doesn't know what he's doing in the middle east. Ho hum... we'll see.
No doubt it's tough on their egos for life-long experts to be proven wrong again and again and again by someone they consider a neophyte. It's no surprise that their solution is to get rid of the guy who keeps proving them wrong.
Treason? It's not treason for a retired admiral to disgrace himself.
Political experts said Trump didn't know what he was doing....
Economic experts said Trump didn't know what he was doing...
Intelligence experts said Trump colluded with Russia...
Trade experts said Trump didn't know what he was doing...
So now military experts are saying Trump doesn't know what he's doing in the middle east...
No doubt it's tough on their egos for life-long experts to be proven wrong again and again and again by someone they consider a neophyte. It's no surprise that their solution is to get rid of the guy who keeps proving them wrong.
They can still all be entirely correct, yet the pragmatic difference is that it's still ultimately better to have a complete neophyte surrounded by (to the largest degree possible) political outsiders than it so have the typical career politician in that spot.
On the military side, you can still respect the office if not the stated opinions of the individual in it, I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp, but for actual leftists, that's too small a stumbling block to be bothered with.
I personally do not care what Donald Trump says about his detractors as he goes about destroying the do nothing, cowardly, back stabbing," were happy with
being the despicable losers we are" Republicans.
I hired DJT to destroy the RINO Republicans and they are leaving in droves.
Legions of politico's go to Washington to make their fortunes regardless of how it tears at our country's seams, they got their's and want more, if your child
needs sacrificing on some foreign shore, that's fine with them as long as the money keeps rolling in.
Disgusting !!!!!
The system is broken and institutionally corrupt to it's very core .
In politics what people should or should not do, the way things should be, what is right etc. not going to happen.
just a scout
10-21-19, 12:47
I personally do not care what Donald Trump says about his detractors as he goes about destroying the do nothing, cowardly, back stabbing," were happy with
being the despicable losers we are" Republicans.
I hired DJT to destroy the RINO Republicans and they are leaving in droves.
Legions of politico's go to Washington to make their fortunes regardless of how it tears at our country's seams, they got their's and want more, if your child
needs sacrificing on some foreign shore, that's fine with them as long as the money keeps rolling in.
Disgusting !!!!!
The system is broken and institutionally corrupt to it's very core .
Mic drop
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Perhaps. That was 50 years ago. There were some people who served very honorably in the service and later in civilian life became shit bags. I person could do selfish or cowardly things when they are 20 and then end up doing some great things. If they made false claims of their youth then I agree they deserve ridicule. Or if they currently are in a position questioning someone else’s courage, then sure.
Obama was certainly a coward and a weed head at that age. I don’t recall any of the former generals at that time calling that President out for being drug head and avoiding military service. And I agree at the time he was President it was irrelevant compared to what he did or did not do in the recent previous 30 years.
In President Trump's case, his use of wealth and privilege to avoid the draft is indicative of the mores and values he has demonstrated throughout his life. Kind of a 'the rules apply to others, not me' kind of guy.
By age 40, my world view had pretty much solidified and have remained consistent. I haven't switched from being pro-choice, to pro-life; I haven't switched from being a Democrat to Republican. By the time I was 18, I had quit groping girls like a drunk college kid (or President Trump) in a strip club.
President Bush was a good example of this, he was a draft dodger, he battled addiction, and yet in his 30's changed his life in a manner that has been consistent for over 30 years. To me that shows some degree of character that President Trump is lacking.
As far as President Trump becoming a 'notable businessman' he is surely notable for using the bankruptcy laws, as he said, 'to his advantage' and not paying business debts.
President Trump is the same spoiled rich kid that he was in the 60;s and 70's.
President Trump started it
1) Trump's supposed comments were not made in public.
2) I learned that doesn't make it right on the playground. In kindergarten.
3) How can people worry about Trump breaking "norms", but cheer the breaking of "norms" to attack him?
Again, this is not about how much I like or dislike a General, or how much I like or dislike the current President. Being in the military means you are expected to respect the rank. How can a Sgt tell a private he must respect the rank even if he thinks the Lt is an ass, if a General is publicly trash talking the President?
I served four years in the mid to late 90's, and then almost two after 9/11.
You don't really believe that do you?
I'll answer you and TAZ both.
I'm not sure. Had Clinton won, I'm pretty sure we would have both houses firmly in our hands, that means the 2nd would be safer than it is now.
As for the rest, I'm not sure.
I freely admit I'm more of a neocon than most. I believe in projecting power for righteous good, which may not necessarily be a neocon trait. From what I've seen Clinton would have been pretty hawkish.
The economic recovery had been well-under way when President Trump took office.
Using unemployment as a metric, under Obame in 2010, it was 9.6%, by the time he left office in 2016, unemployment was 4.9%. That is a drop of 4.7% in six years. The trend has continued under President Trump, dropping from 4.9 percent when he took office, to to 3.6 percent in August 2019.
It's also fun to note that unemployment was 4% when President Clinton left office.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/
As a result, I don't necessarily believe that President Trump's tenure has seen anything but the economic recovery that began in 2009. I believe that both Presidents Bush and Obama did the right things during the recovery, President Obama merely continued what President Bush had started IMO.
The big difference would be the Supreme Court, and, even on that, I'm not sure. If my belief that we would still have both houses is valid, any nominee that had a chance of passing would have to be pretty middle of the road.
As I said, I'm not sure.
1) I served four years in the mid to late 90's, and then almost two after 9/11.
Thanks for that.
platoonDaddy
10-21-19, 17:48
As HS student, I heard Ike talk about the military–industrial complex, dang he was RIGHT-ON
The following is long, but worth the time: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/10/21/washington-doesnt-care-about-the-kurds/
Averageman
10-21-19, 17:55
I'll answer you and TAZ both
I'm not sure. Had Clinton won, I'm pretty sure we would have both houses firmly in our hands, that means the 2nd would be safer than it is now.
As for the rest, I'm not sure.
I freely admit I'm more of a neocon than most. I believe in projecting power for righteous good, which may not necessarily be a neocon trait. From what I've seen Clinton would have been pretty hawkish.
The economic recovery had been well-under way when President Trump took office.
Using unemployment as a metric, under Obame in 2010, it was 9.6%, by the time he left office in 2016, unemployment was 4.9%. That is a drop of 4.7% in six years. The trend has continued under President Trump, dropping from 4.9 percent when he took office, to to 3.6 percent in August 2019.
It's also fun to note that unemployment was 4% when President Clinton left office.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/
As a result, I don't necessarily believe that President Trump's tenure has seen anything but the economic recovery that began in 2009. I believe that both Presidents Bush and Obama did the right things during the recovery, President Obama merely continued what President Bush had started IMO.
The big difference would be the Supreme Court, and, even on that, I'm not sure. If my belief that we would still have both houses is valid, any nominee that had a chance of passing would have to be pretty middle of the road.
As I said, I'm not sure.
I'm pretty sure we would have been deep in WWIII and we would have already nuked someone, likely NK, China or Russia.
You don't get to rise like cream when you're a killer unless you're willing to burn it all down to stay in power.
President Bush was a good example of this, he was a draft dodger, he battled addiction, and yet in his 30's changed his life in a manner that has been consistent for over 30 years. To me that shows some degree of character that President Trump is lacking.
Really, George W a draft dodger for becoming a Air National Guard fighter pilot and flying F-102's.
https://www.456fis.org/PRESIDENT_BUSH_&_THE_F-102.htm
"One of the primary ANG units to receive the F-102 was the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) at Ellington Air National Guard Station, which operated the aircraft from 1960 through 1974. These planes were given responsibility for patrolling the Gulf Coast and intercepting Soviet aircraft based in Cuba that regularly flew off the US shore to test American defenses. The 111th was and still is part of the 147th Fighter Wing in Houston, Texas. It was here that George W. Bush was stationed following his enlistment in May 1968.
The Air National Guard has often been ridiculed as a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. However, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted. Air Force F-102 squadrons had been stationed in Thailand since 1961 and South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the region as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion."
"Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."
Diamondback
10-21-19, 19:14
Let me share something that a college prof who flew F-102s and later F-106s (retired from 318th FIS) told me when I asked him what it meant to be a Guard F-102 pilot as The Last Line of Defense at that time...
"The F-102, in 1972, is an obsolete aircraft with obsolete weapons and no room to retrofit better ones like the Sidewinder or Sparrow. You have two volleys of three Falcon missiles--they launch as volleys in the hope that ONE will hit. You have unguided rockets in tubes in your bay doors, which are virtually useless for their small warheads. Maybe, on a handful of modified birds, you have access to the AIR-2 Genie, the only effective option. Problem is, by the time you launch that tactical nuke into the middle of a massed bomber formation... well, you launch that thing, you go to Zone 5 [afterburner], and you crank it around and head for home, and if you are LUCKY you will live long enough to land the plane and hold your loved ones one last time before radiation poisoning kills you. If not, SAGE [ground control, which can operate an F-102 or F-106 by remote, pilot is really only needed for takeoff and landing] decides that since you're out of missiles you ARE the missile, and kamikazes you into the nearest bomber. Good of the many, after all... On the Sixes, though, we had enough power to outrun the blast--and we could swap the Genie for a Vulcan gun pack that gave us more flexibility in engagements."
I cannot describe the chill that ran through me as he told me that while I was sitting in the middle of a cluster of instrument-panel drawings he'd set out in his office to mimic a cockpit, and still runs through me to this day fifteen years later whenever I remember that particular little "hangar flying" session
Dating myself but 50 or so years ago I went to a CAP encampment in North Texas and we were staying in old wooden barracks, in the middle of them there was a cleared parade ground. In formation one day I noticed there were little one inch square pieces of aluminum scattered all over that parade ground, turns out used to be a barracks there and one day a F-102 augured in killing the pilot. Later on got to go to Ellington and get some simulator time in the F-102 simulator which was set up to be like flying in a thunderstorm which makes sense because it was an all weather interceptor. That was during the time Bush was stationed there, met some deuce pilots but don't remember if he was one or not, just young guys flying a dangerous plane in many times dangerous weather conditions. I do believe W volunteered for Nam but was turned down because he was not high time enough, but just like with Trump facts don't matter to the left when Republicans need attacking so according to them W used his connections to get out of "dangerous" military service. It is sad when veterans buy into this nonsense too because just like the Bradley accident in GA shows even when not in combat fatality's can happen.
1) Trump's supposed comments were not made in public.
2) I learned that doesn't make it right on the playground. In kindergarten.
3) How can people worry about Trump breaking "norms", but cheer the breaking of "norms" to attack him?
Again, this is not about how much I like or dislike a General, or how much I like or dislike the current President. Being in the military means you are expected to respect the rank. How can a Sgt tell a private he must respect the rank even if he thinks the Lt is an ass, if a General is publicly trash talking the President?
I served four years in the mid to late 90's, and then almost two after 9/11.
McRaven is part of the Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Brennen, Comey, Holder, clique. What else would you expect? They violate the law with impunity.
Don Robison
10-21-19, 19:57
McRaven was a shitty SOCOM commander and is nothing more than an elitist, anti-2nd amendment, statist. I have no idea what any ever saw in him.
Really, George W a draft dodger for becoming a Air National Guard fighter pilot and flying F-102's.
In what was laughingly known as the 'Fort Worth FLying Club.' Just calling it like I see it.
In what was laughingly known as the 'Fort Worth FLying Club.' Just calling it like I see it.
And just like I said, facts don't matter to some.
Let me share something that a college prof who flew F-102s and later F-106s (retired from 318th FIS) told me when I asked him what it meant to be a Guard F-102 pilot as The Last Line of Defense at that time...
I cannot describe the chill that ran through me as he told me that while I was sitting in the middle of a cluster of instrument-panel drawings he'd set out in his office to mimic a cockpit, and still runs through me to this day fifteen years later whenever I remember that particular little "hangar flying" session
Hmm, pretty sure fighter pilots know the price of admission, in the VN era that didn't REGULARLY include an all expense paid trip to be on of the 'euthanasia' (youth in asia, get it?)
If you want me to write like Mas Ayoob, I can talk about the chill that went through me when I first set foot upon the land where we would be part of the speed bump that the 10th CAG was part of....
'My hands trembled as I opened the map book, even in my den at home, it was a sobering thought that when the balloon went up, my existence would be measured in the week to fourteen days it took to get there, and then days and hours after our small unit's arrival....'
McRaven is part of the Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Brennen, Comey, Holder, clique. What else would you expect? They violate the law with impunity.
I guess all the Deep State Rats are getting smoked out of their holes......
I don't like it when people qualify draft dodgers. I don't care if Bush joinef the air guard to get out of going to Vietnam, he swore the same oath. His dad might have kept him out of Vietnam, but his dad couldn't pass the flight physical or the flying tests for him to get his wings.
Little different than people who are active military who use the system to stay out of Vietnam during the same time. Or our contemporary colleagues who work the system to stay out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Military Leadership are members of the Elite, as such, that is their primary loyalty.
Averageman
10-22-19, 10:32
I don't like it when people qualify draft dodgers. I don't care if Bush joinef the air guard to get out of going to Vietnam, he swore the same oath. His dad might have kept him out of Vietnam, but his dad couldn't pass the flight physical or the flying tests for him to get his wings.
Little different than people who are active military who use the system to stay out of Vietnam during the same time. Or our contemporary colleagues who work the system to stay out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
I worked with a W-3 who managed to avoid every possible deployment.
He actually often bragged about his ability to get away with it.
McRaven was a shitty SOCOM commander and is nothing more than an elitist, anti-2nd amendment, statist. I have no idea what any ever saw in him.
I don't know about his command but everything else is 100% true... and also applicable to DJT.
Adrenaline_6
10-22-19, 10:44
I don't like it when people qualify draft dodgers. I don't care if Bush joinef the air guard to get out of going to Vietnam, he swore the same oath. His dad might have kept him out of Vietnam, but his dad couldn't pass the flight physical or the flying tests for him to get his wings.
Little different than people who are active military who use the system to stay out of Vietnam during the same time. Or our contemporary colleagues who work the system to stay out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
I don't know about that. My Dad's grades dipped trying to take 18 college credits while working full time and boom...got drafted. He told me he was lined up for a desk job until a Colonel walked in with his son, the desk job went bye-bye and he ended up as a Scout in a Recon platoon, in the Ia Drang Valley after the 7th Cav took heavy casualties (1st Cav if I remember right). Just because you served, help from "Dad" still could have f*cked people over.
I don't know about that. My Dad's grades dipped trying to take 18 college credits while working full time and boom...got drafted. He told me he was lined up for a desk job until a Colonel walked in with his son, the desk job went bye-bye and he ended up as a Scout in a Recon platoon, in the Ia Drang Valley after the 7th Cav took heavy casualties (1st Cav if I remember right). Just because you served, help from "Dad" still could have f*cked people over.
Yeah, I see your point. I will stipulate it's case-by-case. There are some shitty servicemen who do shitty things to get out of work. Bush, though, I would have felt different if he was a maintenance officer for the rec & welfare unit; the fact that he got into flight school, passed flight school did well enough to earn fighters, and was assigned to a pretty good aircraft demonstrates he wasn't flying under the radar (no pun intended).
As for McRaven, he was a shit-bag, and remains a shit-bag. The fact that he openly endorsed the Clintons and Obama when he was wearing a uni was enough for me.
Adrenaline_6
10-22-19, 12:12
As for McRaven, he was a shit-bag, and remains a shit-bag. The fact that he openly endorsed the Clintons and Obama when he was wearing a uni was enough for me.
Agreed. He let politics tarnish his military contribution. Same as McCain.
I'll answer you and TAZ both.
I'm not sure. Had Clinton won, I'm pretty sure we would have both houses firmly in our hands, that means the 2nd would be safer than it is now.
As for the rest, I'm not sure.
I freely admit I'm more of a neocon than most. I believe in projecting power for righteous good, which may not necessarily be a neocon trait. From what I've seen Clinton would have been pretty hawkish.
The economic recovery had been well-under way when President Trump took office.
Using unemployment as a metric, under Obame in 2010, it was 9.6%, by the time he left office in 2016, unemployment was 4.9%. That is a drop of 4.7% in six years. The trend has continued under President Trump, dropping from 4.9 percent when he took office, to to 3.6 percent in August 2019.
It's also fun to note that unemployment was 4% when President Clinton left office.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/
As a result, I don't necessarily believe that President Trump's tenure has seen anything but the economic recovery that began in 2009. I believe that both Presidents Bush and Obama did the right things during the recovery, President Obama merely continued what President Bush had started IMO.
The big difference would be the Supreme Court, and, even on that, I'm not sure. If my belief that we would still have both houses is valid, any nominee that had a chance of passing would have to be pretty middle of the road.
As I said, I'm not sure.
Appreciate the response and clarification. You may have a point about the house, as maybe the leftists wouldn’t have mobilized as effectively while maybe the GOP might have. Given GOP performance of late I don’t think so though. She would have emboldened the leftist segment to do more IMO. The rest of the economic recovery probably needs a thread of its own.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts though.
For the sake of keeping it on topic... mostly. I think DJT shouldn’t throw rocks unless he is willing to take some coming back. Private or public, not that there is much difference when you’re POTUS, dont matter. Maybe it was a canary test to see who leaks what. Express a personal opinion about someone you’d better be ready to have that person express his own about you.
McRaven still comes off like a leftist, unfortunately.
Yeah, I see your point. I will stipulate it's case-by-case. There are some shitty servicemen who do shitty things to get out of work. Bush, though, I would have felt different if he was a maintenance officer for the rec & welfare unit; the fact that he got into flight school, passed flight school did well enough to earn fighters, and was assigned to a pretty good aircraft demonstrates he wasn't flying under the radar (no pun intended).
You guys are forgetting the part where he stopped going to drills. I served with a couple of Marines who missed ONE drill and were sent to active duty.
I think DJT shouldn’t throw rocks unless he is willing to take some coming back. Private or public, not that there is much difference when you’re POTUS, dont matter.
Thanks, and I agree.
You guys are forgetting the part where he stopped going to drills.
Proved to be fake news. If all you are going to believe is leftest propaganda about Bush and Trump then you are part of the problem.
You guys are forgetting the part where he stopped going to drills. I served with a couple of Marines who missed ONE drill and were sent to active duty.
LOL. Not doubting you, at all, just had...a different experience. Even when I was attached to MARFORRES recon, there were 0321s who decided they had enough and were just admin sep'd or placed into IRR, eventually separated. But never sent to AD. After 9/11 that changed some because every swinging dick wanted to shoot bad guys in the face; but even then, some decided enough was enough and faded into the sunset.
LOL. Not doubting you, at all, just had...a different experience. Even when I was attached to MARFORRES recon, there were 0321s who decided they had enough and were just admin sep'd or placed into IRR, eventually separated. But never sent to AD. After 9/11 that changed some because every swinging dick wanted to shoot bad guys in the face; but even then, some decided enough was enough and faded into the sunset.
I'm not talking about the GWOT era, I'm talking about the VN era, when President Bush was in the Air Guard. Served with two Marines who had been sent to active duty, I took one of their billets when he finished his active duty requirement - two years.
Proved to be fake news. If all you are going to believe is leftest propaganda about Bush and Trump then you are part of the problem.
Uhm huh.
After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots and lost his authorization to be a pilot. According to Bush's pay records, he did not attend any drills between mid-April and the end of October 1972. He drilled in Alabama in October and November 1972, and again in January 1973; what duties he performed are unknown. Bush returned to his home unit in Houston and was paid for his service in April 1973 through July 1973; again, what duties he performed are not documented in any way.
On October 1, 1973, Bush was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and transferred to the Air Force Reserve's inactive reserves in Denver, Colorado. He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974, ending his military service.
If Bush hadn't had familial connections he wouldn't have been given this treatment.
As I said, he grew as a person later in life. Something President Trump has not evidenced.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-23-19, 02:20
Oh, why didn’t you say that you had text in italics, that totally changes everything. Must be true then. ;)
Here is the fallacy of unfounded left wing smears against Bush and now Trump .They want us to totally believe their lies but with the entire deep state, intel community, fed le, demorats, and media all working to find or manufacture evidence about nefarious dealings of Republican Presidents they come up empty. Yet those like 26 Inf persist in believing the worst cause.......feelzzz. Trump is the most investigated man in history and after 3 years all they can come up with is not even fresh but recycled lies to try and take him down. Every day they push this nonsense they reveal themselves for what they are, wannabe tyrants who want us powerless or dead. News flash, many Trump backers don't even like the man that much, but we realize the stakes of what is happening, this is a battle for whats left of the Republic pure and simple. We know the evil of this socialist/commie crap being pushed on us by the left and their legion of brainwashed minions and useful idiots and do not want to see the country we remember and love be destroyed from within. So sides are being picked you are either for America or against it, and if you are for it you need to support Trump because like him or not he is the one fighting the deep state and if we lose America as we know it is lost.
Whiskey_Bravo
10-23-19, 07:28
Uhm huh.
After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots and lost his authorization to be a pilot. According to Bush's pay records, he did not attend any drills between mid-April and the end of October 1972. He drilled in Alabama in October and November 1972, and again in January 1973; what duties he performed are unknown. Bush returned to his home unit in Houston and was paid for his service in April 1973 through July 1973; again, what duties he performed are not documented in any way.
On October 1, 1973, Bush was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and transferred to the Air Force Reserve's inactive reserves in Denver, Colorado. He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974, ending his military service.
If Bush hadn't had familial connections he wouldn't have been given this treatment.
As I said, he grew as a person later in life. Something President Trump has not evidenced.
Nice wikipedia pull.
The whole Bush thing has been beaten to death (https://www.factcheck.org/2004/02/new-evidence-supports-bush-military-service-mostly/). I think it's time we can steer this back to Trump/McRaven.
Averageman
10-23-19, 12:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efs3QRr8LWw
Go to around the 33:45 minute mark and give it ten minutes or so and you'll understand how guys at this level feel like they are justified in being more powerful than a sitting POTUS and why we will have a very difficult time taking this power back from the upper levels of the military and the IC.
They actually believe they are entitled to pick our leaders and direct all of our foreign policy.
Diamondback
10-23-19, 12:56
Worth a read about some interesting Deep State connections...
https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2019/10/23/mittens-deep-state-ongoing-coup-potus/
Oh, why didn’t you say that you had text in italics, that totally changes everything. Must be true then. ;)
Sorry for the confusion. From this point forward it would probably be better if you just adopted the unshakeable belief that I am infallible.
Nice wikipedia pull.
Sorry forgot to link. Generally, when I quote something I place it in italics.
Proved to be fake news. If all you are going to believe is leftest propaganda about Bush and Trump then you are part of the problem.
If all you are going to believe is the talking points from either side, and walk in lock-step, I'd say you are part of the problem.
Independent thinking is scary, it makes the people you don't agree with angry you won't conform.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-23-19, 23:59
Sorry for the confusion. From this point forward it would probably be better if you just adopted the unshakeable belief that I am infallible.
I tell people that all I ask for is that they follow my directions as they would the word of God.
Nightvisionary
10-26-19, 14:01
"B-b-but Admiral McRaven was a SEAL!" Yeah, well Duke Cunningham was a fighter ace, one of the last, before he sold out and became a crooked Congressman. What you do in service does not buy a free pass for what you do after.
Unfortunately, but perhaps fortunately in this case, the SEAL credential doesn't automatically carry the weight of credibility it once did.
just a scout
10-26-19, 15:34
Unfortunately, but perhaps fortunately in this case, the SEAL credential doesn't automatically carry the weight of credibility it once did.
The problem with SEALs is you know a guy is/was a SEAL about 14 seconds after he walks into the room. The only SEAL I ever met that I liked was Kyle Defoor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah ever since those two SEAL's killed that Green Beret my opinion of them went down a notch.
One on my wife’s former students married a SEAL, he’s out now, we’ve met and hung out a few times, great dude, doesn’t really talk about it much, he’s got a plaque on their mantle, I think it’s in the shape of an oar but it’s been a few years since I’ve been to their house, with all the names of the members of the team. That’s literally the only thing in the house out in the open that hints to his service.
I remember when we first met he had just gotten out pretty recently and was struggling to make the switch from being a SEAL to being a stay at home dad to an infant daughter.
Total thread drift, my apologies, but there are some other good dudes out there besides Kyle, at least one anyway.
Deleted.. further thread drift.
One on my wife’s former students married a SEAL, he’s out now, we’ve met and hung out a few times, great dude, doesn’t really talk about it much, he’s got a plaque on their mantle, I think it’s in the shape of an oar but it’s been a few years since I’ve been to their house, with all the names of the members of the team. That’s literally the only thing in the house out in the open that hints to his service.
I remember when we first met he had just gotten out pretty recently and was struggling to make the switch from being a SEAL to being a stay at home dad to an infant daughter.
Total thread drift, my apologies, but there are some other good dudes out there besides Kyle, at least one anyway.
There are a lot of good and honorable SEAL's out there, but the point is not all of them and especially McCraven are, either money or the lust for power got to the man. By hitching his wagon to the Obama/Clinton corruption train and now publicly attacking the current POTUS he has highlighted that no matter what he has done in the past he is now a total POS.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.