View Full Version : Trump vs the U.S. Military
titsonritz
06-08-20, 02:51
Trump's SecDef publicly comes out against his boss...
"The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act," he told reporters. Esper also distanced himself from a maligned photo-op outside St. John's Church.
Pentagon chief on shaky ground with White House after breaking with Trump over protest response
His former SecDef throws down a scathing statement...
“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.” - James Mattis
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/
and now Colin Powell...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV5g4kE6NvM
What is this? The military industrial complex fighting back against Trump's attempts to end US involvement in endless wars or a legit rebuke of Trump's "abuse of power"?
I think this is nothing more than people trying to portray Trump as a racist who will use the military to achieve his racist ends (ending the riots?) and everyone jumping on the bandwagon.
That said, Trump should have seen this coming a long way away.
The SecDefs statement that "We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers" is telling and shows amazing bias and agenda. But bad as this shit is, rolling out the National Guard to restore order LOOKS like a military dictatorship and that is what everyone is hoping for.
Just takes that one photo of a kid near a guy who has a fixed bayonet and you have lost the images war. Trump should leave this shit to the states, let them be the one to DEMAND Federal assistance and intervention by the National Guard.
I could not care less what Mattis says. If he and I were still in uniform, I would still follow him to hell (as I did before). But he's John Q Public now, so.... he's entitled to his opinion.
But current SECDEF, and any flag 'O' in uniform now? Time to go....
Has been deep state generals and political appointees are "NOT" the U.S. military.
I find it hilarious that people are suddenly portraying any military disagreement with Trump as part of the "er ma gurd! The Deep State is sabotaging him!" Disagreements happen, especially when you're proposing to do something that could spiral out of control Want a Boog? Send in the Army to break up protests. That's exactly how you get a Boog. Seems like the military get that, or at least grasp key parts of that idea. Trump doesn't, probably due to his own god-complex, though maybe he just liked that bunker?
And it should be remembered that Obama also faced serious challenges by various former and then-current military leaders, as did presidents dating back to at least Lincoln, if not all the way back to Monroe and Jackson feuding over Florida. Hardly anything new.
I just keep circling around to the question: how unwilling (or vocal about it) would the military be if asked to help enforce the "law of the land" regarding non-compliant individuals and some future gun ban? Don't know why but I have a gut feeling they'd be a little more in lockstep with whatever administration is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at the time. Not sure why I feel that way, but I do.
just a scout
06-08-20, 09:51
I just keep circling around to the question: how unwilling (or vocal about it) would the military be if asked to help enforce the "law of the land" regarding non-compliant individuals and some future gun ban? Don't know why but I have a gut feeling they'd be a little more in lockstep with whatever administration is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at the time. Not sure why I feel that way, but I do.
Because of Obama’s “fundamental transformation “ most/all of the flags and all of the bureaucracy are fellow travelers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
polydeuces
06-08-20, 10:19
I find it hilarious that people are suddenly portraying any military disagreement with Trump as part of the "er ma gurd! The Deep State is sabotaging him!" Disagreements happen, especially when you're proposing to do something that could spiral out of control Want a Boog? Send in the Army to break up protests. That's exactly how you get a Boog. Seems like the military get that, or at least grasp key parts of that idea. Trump doesn't, probably due to his own god-complex, though maybe he just liked that bunker?
And it should be remembered that Obama also faced serious challenges by various former and then-current military leaders, as did presidents dating back to at least Lincoln, if not all the way back to Monroe and Jackson feuding over Florida. Hardly anything new.
Well said.
Life's a Hillary
06-08-20, 10:22
I find it hilarious that people are suddenly portraying any military disagreement with Trump as part of the "er ma gurd! The Deep State is sabotaging him!" Disagreements happen, especially when you're proposing to do something that could spiral out of control Want a Boog? Send in the Army to break up protests. That's exactly how you get a Boog. Seems like the military get that, or at least grasp key parts of that idea. Trump doesn't, probably due to his own god-complex, though maybe he just liked that bunker?
And it should be remembered that Obama also faced serious challenges by various former and then-current military leaders, as did presidents dating back to at least Lincoln, if not all the way back to Monroe and Jackson feuding over Florida. Hardly anything new.
It's pretty impressive how Mattis went from being one of the baddest mfers around to just some old, overrated general in a couple of Trump tweets
It's pretty impressive how Mattis went from being one of the baddest mfers around to just some old, overrated general in a couple of Trump tweets
The people that blindly worship a draft dodger aren’t impressed by successful military leaders. Surprise.
The people that blindly worship a draft dodger aren’t impressed by successful military leaders. Surprise.
To me it's not a binary choice. I love Mattis. But I will vote (again) for Trump. In a battleground state, we're in a position of "to not vote is a vote", and I sure as hell ain't voting for Biden.
That said, if I had to be led by one, or the other, it isn't Trump....
To me it's not a binary choice. I love Mattis. But I will vote (again) for Trump. In a battleground state, we're in a position of "to not vote is a vote", and I sure as hell ain't voting for Biden.
That said, if I had to be led by one, or the other, it isn't Trump....
You’re not the people I’m talking about. We’re probably in agreement.
To me it's not a binary choice. I love Mattis. But I will vote (again) for Trump. In a battleground state, we're in a position of "to not vote is a vote", and I sure as hell ain't voting for Biden.
That said, if I had to be led by one, or the other, it isn't Trump....
This is my view point as well. President Trump is far from perfect, but I’m not voting for Biden. I have respect Gen Mattis, but that doesn’t mean I blindly agree with him. More that a few of the retired generals who have come out against President Trump this week are pro gun control and have stated publicly that firearms like the AR-15 don’t belong in the hands of civilians. I spent 22 years as an officer in the USAF and in my experience the advice of an E-8 is much more valuable than the advice from O-8.
It can be two things at once. It can be a deeply held belief that Trump is wrong to consider civil disobedience as a threat to our nation, while recognizing that Joe Biden would be more amenable to the military industrial complex than Trump.
Trump has a golden opportunity presented to him on a platter with these troubles, and he sent it back to the kitchen like it was a steak not charred into a hockey puck. He has foolishly squandered an opportunity that could've ensured him a win in November. Now he'll have to fight for it and those of us who value ALL of the Constitution, will have to hold our noses if we vote for him. :(
I can't respect a guy who has an emotional breakdown over CNN's version of reality, not the actual reality. Mattis is over the hill, or let emotions get the better of his judgment. The protesters were not peaceful, tear gas was not used, and neither were active troops.
The idea that active military is the last resort, as the Sec said, and Trump threatening the send the military if States and cities didn't get thing under control, seems to be more of a media made controversy.
Barr said about the same thing, plans are in place but only as a last resort.
Life's a Hillary
06-08-20, 13:06
It can be two things at once. It can be a deeply held belief that Trump is wrong to consider civil disobedience as a threat to our nation, while recognizing that Joe Biden would be more amenable to the military industrial complex than Trump.
Trump has a golden opportunity presented to him on a platter with these troubles, and he sent it back to the kitchen like it was a steak not charred into a hockey puck. He has foolishly squandered an opportunity that could've ensured him a win in November. Now he'll have to fight for it and those of us who value ALL of the Constitution, will have to hold our noses if we vote for him. :(
I agree completely. I think he showed terrible leadership during this and I have seen some of the most ardent Trump supporters say they are considering just sitting out this next election because they can't hold their nose and vote for him again. It is going to be an uphill battle, far steeper than it should have been, but if the economy explodes in the latter half of this year, like it definitely could, then I think he still has a chance. It's a shame that it's come to this though.
Averageman
06-08-20, 13:17
You know, General Mattis has a valid opinion;
I'm just not cool with coming out against the old Chain of Command. Really? I didn't like it when I was serving, I still don't like it now. Mattis should have got an appointment and laid it out in person.
Having said all that, Mattis's opinion about what is going on in the Trump Presidency is based upon what he see's now. What he isn't seeing is the bigger picture, the whole landscape of the responsibilities, it was that way even when he was in the cabinet.
Yeah, that's too bad General Mattis, I will be voting for Trump again though.
I have seen the same thing with many Israeli generals.
Never under estimate the power of;
1. numbered Swiss bank account
2. ego
Those in the know in Israel understand the following, most Lt. Col's are still true warriors, split on full Colonels, brigadier generals minority are still warriors, all general rank about need to be issued special pants with reinforced knees
Averageman
06-08-20, 14:31
I have seen the same thing with many Israeli generals.
Never under estimate the power of;
1. numbered Swiss bank account
2. ego
Those in the know in Israel understand the following, most Lt. Col's are still true warriors, split on full Colonels, brigadier generals minority are still warriors, all general rank about need to be issued special pants with reinforced knees
I know there were a lot of General Officers removed during the Obama Administration, but I can't think that all of them now believe that insurrection if defined by protests with looting arson and violence isn't happening now.
Wasn't their a violent mob in front of the White House trying the perimeter a couple of days ago?
SeriousStudent
06-08-20, 14:48
I wonder if anybody here is old enough to remember when Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock back in 1957?
http://armored-column.com/little-rock-nine-1957-101st-airborne-division/
He flew a 1,000 troops in to assist with the civil rights movement.
I met General Mattis a long time ago in South Korea outside Pohang. He was a Captain, and I was a Corporal. He was surprised to see a Corporal reading Marcus Aurelius, and I was surprised to see an officer not bitch about my filthy uniform. A pleasant conversation ensued while we waited for a ride back to our respective units.
I dunno about what is going on now. I figure they will all get it settled without the world blowing up, and next week people will be watching reruns of "Dancing With the Stars" again.
It's pretty impressive how Mattis went from being one of the baddest mfers around to just some old, overrated general in a couple of Trump tweetsThis is going to be heresy but there are those serving who believe his biggest accomplishments are knowing how to turn a phrase.
This is looking across a long series of decisions and actions.
Straight Shooter
06-08-20, 16:30
I just keep circling around to the question: how unwilling (or vocal about it) would the military be if asked to help enforce the "law of the land" regarding non-compliant individuals and some future gun ban? Don't know why but I have a gut feeling they'd be a little more in lockstep with whatever administration is occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at the time. Not sure why I feel that way, but I do.
I NEVER held out hope OR believed that the majority of cops/LE and/or military would go against unconstitutional orders.
We have TOO MANY precedents as proof. For decades theyve enforced illegal laws, in emergency & non emergency situations. Look at what happened in Katrina- goblins shooting at Med-flight helos, murder/rape/looting as of then unprecedented amounts..they were taking guns from citizens & literally 90 year old women, AFTER body slamming them{see the vid on THAT}.
I never recall them going after the thugs-only the EASY targets, law abiding citizens. They WILL come for your guns when ordered. The military WILL do so too. Very few will refuse or quit.
Ive already seen that the last week or so too. They WILL NOT "have our backs" at all, I believe.
Officers at his pay grade and appointment are political animals. Those that aren't, don't get too that position. He's entitled to his thoughts and as a civilian more than welcome to air them.
That said, I think he needs a short history lesson about US troops operating on American soil during this 50 years in uniform. I'll give him Kent State as that was before he enlisted, but during his time as a Marine, we had the US military involved at Wounded Knee in 1973, the LA Riots in 1992 (and in LA the Marines put rounds downrange supporting the LAPD), Waco in 1993, and gun seizures during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. So I think his comments may be a bit disingenuous.
That said, I think he needs a short history lesson about US troops operating on American soil during this 50 years in uniform.
I suspect Mattis is familiar with recent military history.
BoringGuy45
06-08-20, 17:02
I NEVER held out hope OR believed that the majority of cops/LE and/or military would go against unconstitutional orders.
We have TOO MANY precedents as proof. For decades theyve enforced illegal laws, in emergency & non emergency situations. Look at what happened in Katrina- goblins shooting at Med-flight helos, murder/rape/looting as of then unprecedented amounts..they were taking guns from citizens & literally 90 year old women, AFTER body slamming them{see the vid on THAT}.
I never recall them going after the thugs-only the EASY targets, law abiding citizens. They WILL come for your guns when ordered. The military WILL do so too. Very few will refuse or quit.
Ive already seen that the last week or so too. They WILL NOT "have our backs" at all, I believe.
I don't think it's the majority, but it's certainly a sizeable minority. As I've said before, the segment that will turn against us is made up of true believers who support the mission, impartial mercenaries who follow any and all orders, and those who follow orders in order to survive but personally disagree with what they are doing. On the other side, there will be the saboteurs, the defectors, and the intentionally ineffective.
I wonder if anybody here is old enough to remember when Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock back in 1957?
http://armored-column.com/little-rock-nine-1957-101st-airborne-division/
He flew a 1,000 troops in to assist with the civil rights movement.
Don't remember it personally but know of the event from history. But there is a rather large distinction between sending the National Guard to enforce school integration in an area that hasn't really gotten out of control and sending in the National Guard to end something like the Watts riots.
Both had to be done, but one looks really, really bad.
I suspect Mattis is familiar with recent military history.
then he's at best disingenuous.
SeriousStudent
06-08-20, 18:06
Don't remember it personally but know of the event from history. But there is a rather large distinction between sending the National Guard to enforce school integration in an area that hasn't really gotten out of control and sending in the National Guard to end something like the Watts riots.
Both had to be done, but one looks really, really bad.
Understood, but that was not really what I was referring to. The Guvnah of Arkansas owned the National Guard in his state, unless they were federalized and came under the control of the DOD. At that point, they report up to the President and are paid out of a different bucket o' cash.
Ike deliberately bypassed him and sent not just Regular Army, but members of an Airborne Division. I know you are intimately familair with their role in the ETO, you have studied history as much or more than I have.
Sending the 101st was a very deliberate message, which was received by people who had either seen or heard of their deeds in Europe. It was not an accident.
Not ragging on ya at all, just expanding on it for our viewers at home.
Understood, but that was not really what I was referring to. The Guvnah of Arkansas owned the National Guard in his state, unless they were federalized and came under the control of the DOD. At that point, they report up to the President and are paid out of a different bucket o' cash.
Ike deliberately bypassed him and sent not just Regular Army, but members of an Airborne Division. I know you are intimately familair with their role in the ETO, you have studied history as much or more than I have.
Sending the 101st was a very deliberate message, which was received by people who had either seen or heard of their deeds in Europe. It was not an accident.
Not ragging on ya at all, just expanding on it for our viewers at home.
I had actually forgotten the specific details of that tidbit. I was assuming Ike sent the NG to enforce the rules. And yeah, the 101 did send a rather specific message. Curious how he squared that with Posse Comitatus specifically. Did the requirements of the Insurrection Act get satisfied?
Just sounds like pay back for getting fired to me, especially since the good general's spiel sounded like he was quoting CNN.
It can be two things at once. It can be a deeply held belief that Trump is wrong to consider civil disobedience as a threat to our nation, while recognizing that Joe Biden would be more amenable to the military industrial complex than Trump.
Trump has a golden opportunity presented to him on a platter with these troubles, and he sent it back to the kitchen like it was a steak not charred into a hockey puck. He has foolishly squandered an opportunity that could've ensured him a win in November. Now he'll have to fight for it and those of us who value ALL of the Constitution, will have to hold our noses if we vote for him. :(
I’ve seen this said elsewhere and I have to ask, what should/could he have done, that he didn’t? And what didn’t he do that he should have?
I’m not baiting, truly want to know cause I haven’t really been keeping up with his actions during all of this. My understanding is that he was giving the governors of each state a long leash to handle their business and only recently said he would send in troops otherwise (And I don’t like the idea of that to be honest...just too many ways for that to go south and blow back on Trump)
I’ve seen this said elsewhere and I have to ask, what should/could he have done, that he didn’t? And what didn’t he do that he should have?
I’m not baiting, truly want to know cause I haven’t really been keeping up with his actions during all of this. My understanding is that he was giving the governors of each state a long leash to handle their business and only recently said he would send in troops otherwise (And I don’t like the idea of that to be honest...just too many ways for that to go south and blow back on Trump)
It's really three missteps in combination that squandered his advantage, perhaps four if you count the overall net loss.
First, this is primarily a BLM movement, which is at it's core a leftist/communist movement. It's being funded by Soros, JayZ, Zuckerberg, and so on. Soros funds both BLM and Antifa, so Antifa is acting in a support role here. Yet the totality of it is primarily inner city minorities, rebelling against the leadership on mostly liberal controlled turf. You're pissed at the popo? Well who actually controls them? Democrat mayors, city counselors and appointed agency chiefs.
So what does Trump do? Goes on the offensive against Antifa. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but it's lower on the priority target list right now. Moderate undecideds don't even have Antifa on their radar and the ones who do would never vote for Biden. Every day he should've been pointing out that he sees and understands their frustrations, and make it a point to remind them that THEIR city leaders that they have been electing for decades are the ones responsible for trampling their rights. Trump doesn't control city PD's. That doesn't alienate any of his core constituency because they agree.
Second, I recognize that most Trump voters are knee jerk thin blue line supporters, but over the past decade or so the leftists who control blue zones have been openly weaponizing them against gun owners, who are also Trump supporters most of the time. Duncan Lemp came before Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, so where's the outpouring of support to hold his killers accountable? Well he was white and no one but the police took any video, so too bad, so sad for him right? But we know it stinks to high heaven. You don't have to be clairvoyant to see the holes in that debacle.
I'm not aware of anyone who disagrees with the idea of police accountability to the citizenry they police, except police who don't want to be held accountable to the citizenry they police. Left, right, center, accountability is something perpetually lacking with ALL government, including LE. Trump could've picked up significant support across the board by mobilizing DoJ and sending them in to examine these troubled PD's WHILE making a big production of it. He could've established a working group of well known and regarded leaders in both policing and community relations, to come up with best practice guidelines through BJA to push out nationwide reforms in use of force policies. He should've also worked with governors to push legislation on reforming UoF reviews that promote accountability where it counts, the communities.
Nah, he went after George Floyd's character. Yes Floyd was a criminal, but that's irrelevant to the core complaint which is UNNECESSARY UoF. All those black voters who considered voting for him after Biden got into a beef with Charlamagne Tha God over plantation voting? Yeah, he just lost them. BIG opportunity squandered. Why not just say that government has no right to use unnecessary, excessive force on it's citizens and that has to change? No one has to support Floyd's criminality to afford him basic human decency.
Finally, WTF was he thinking when he decided it was a good idea to suggest using the Insurrection Act against civil rights protesters? FOR them? Sure. Overall the NG units have been less violent and more supportive of the people than the police. Yes there's been violence and damage, and that's unacceptable. But there are now hundreds of videos online showing unnecessary UoF against protesters not being violent. In many jurisdictions there hasn't been violence and destruction, and it's important to see, show and understand the difference. Simply saying you're going to come in and quell dissent over the objections of governors and mayors is foolish.
I'm not suggesting I have all the answers because I don't. But even a blind man could see this is hurting Trump when it shouldn't. The critical issue these many millions of citizens are marching for have nothing to do with Republican leadership. Improper use of police to enforce unconstitutional policies, in exchange for defacto absolute immunity to their enforcers is a problem that affects everyone, from all walks of life. On this one we should unite, not further the divide.
Understood, but that was not really what I was referring to. The Guvnah of Arkansas owned the National Guard in his state, unless they were federalized and came under the control of the DOD. At that point, they report up to the President and are paid out of a different bucket o' cash.
Ike deliberately bypassed him and sent not just Regular Army, but members of an Airborne Division. I know you are intimately familair with their role in the ETO, you have studied history as much or more than I have.
Sending the 101st was a very deliberate message, which was received by people who had either seen or heard of their deeds in Europe. It was not an accident.
Not ragging on ya at all, just expanding on it for our viewers at home.IIRC was not the guvnah of Arkansas planning to use his NG to block the black students from attending school. He didnt just send the 101st, Eisenhower federalized and stood down the Arkansas NG.
Maybe I missed something but I saw Trump mention of using military forces as analogous to a mother threatening to clean a childs room if they refused to it themselves. In this case, as most* the child cleaned their room and no real action was necessary.
Sent from my SM-A205U using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
06-09-20, 11:24
Trump's biggest problem is that he is tactless and impetuous. He can't stand criticism and goes off on immature rants against anyone who dares take issue with anything he says or does. From a neutral standpoint, none of his policies or actions have been any further right wing in nature than Bush Jr., or even Obama in many cases! It's okay to be unapologetic about the truth, and one should be. But he comes across too much as a loose cannon, whether that's true or not. He was going to take the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred from the left; that was inevitable. During W's administration, the left was claiming we lived in a Christian dictatorship not unlike Taliban, and openly wondered if we wouldn't be better off with Osama bin Laden in the White House...and they meant it. But the moderates and swing voters, the ones who determine the elections, saw through that crap, and they likely would see through all the stuff that the left says about Trump if he had an ounce of tact. Trump's big mouth is why an all but guaranteed reelection has shifted over to him being in very real danger of losing in a landslide to a senile old man.
I NEVER held out hope OR believed that the majority of cops/LE and/or military would go against unconstitutional orders.
We have TOO MANY precedents as proof. For decades theyve enforced illegal laws, in emergency & non emergency situations. Look at what happened in Katrina- goblins shooting at Med-flight helos, murder/rape/looting as of then unprecedented amounts..they were taking guns from citizens & literally 90 year old women, AFTER body slamming them{see the vid on THAT}.
I never recall them going after the thugs-only the EASY targets, law abiding citizens. They WILL come for your guns when ordered. The military WILL do so too. Very few will refuse or quit.
Ive already seen that the last week or so too. They WILL NOT "have our backs" at all, I believe.
I'm now completely convinced of this as well.
Tucker Carlson said it best the other night
you never hear the left whining complaining about the military any more like they used to cause they took it over they put enough people in place they now have control over it !
the last conservative hold out is the police and you are now seeing the take over control of the police
the military leaders will disobey trump if they need to and then be praised for it by the controlling party
Whiskey_Bravo
06-09-20, 12:59
the military leaders will disobey trump if they need to and then be praised for it by the controlling party
Unfortunately I believe this is correct.
Unfortunately I believe this is correct.
Maybe should have said told to by the controlling left or felt to by their own progressive leftist nature
HardToHandle
06-09-20, 19:52
the military leaders will disobey trump if they need to and then be praised for it by the controlling party
Honestly, there is significant precedent for military leaders, especially appointed Secretaries, to take moral stands. It is a good and right American phenomena.
Today, the Wall Street Journal has a story about Esper standing against Trump using the Insurrection Act. Trump wanted to fire him.
The Insurrection Act is the utter last line of defense. Esper said had the balls to correctly say the MSP situation and some kids marching wasn’t a war. Esper was right, morally and historically.
I think Mattis was right to resign over Syria. He couldn’t support the CinC and he couldn’t execute the policy, so he honorably handled the situation. Strikes me as integrity.
A few years ago, the book Raven Rock revealed that the Nixon Administration senior national security staff were worried about the President’s fitness during the darkest days of Watergate. There was a tacit decision to backstop any nuclear weapon deployment. That sort of agreement might be extra-Constitutional and technically outside the law, but still consistent with American values.
I don’t want an imperial presidency, no matter the man nor party. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and others built those type of totalitarian systems.
Trump's biggest problem is that he is tactless and impetuous. He can't stand criticism and goes off on immature rants against anyone who dares take issue with anything he says or does. From a neutral standpoint, none of his policies or actions have been any further right wing in nature than Bush Jr., or even Obama in many cases! It's okay to be unapologetic about the truth, and one should be. But he comes across too much as a loose cannon, whether that's true or not. He was going to take the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred from the left; that was inevitable. During W's administration, the left was claiming we lived in a Christian dictatorship not unlike Taliban, and openly wondered if we wouldn't be better off with Osama bin Laden in the White House...and they meant it. But the moderates and swing voters, the ones who determine the elections, saw through that crap, and they likely would see through all the stuff that the left says about Trump if he had an ounce of tact. Trump's big mouth is why an all but guaranteed reelection has shifted over to him being in very real danger of losing in a landslide to a senile old man.
Yeah, Trumps biggest problem is an image problem. I try to explain to people that Twitter isn't policy but few people can distinguish between the two. Trump is also deliberately provocative as a negotiating tactic and that doesn't always play well in the MSM who presents shock value statements as stated goals of an administration. It works well for Trump in terms of negotiating a position, but it hurts him in terms of image and credibility.
But for the life of me, with the absolute LUNACY we've all seen from the like of Pelosi and a few others, Trump clearly isn't getting equal consideration. If Trump was a democrat promoting liberal views, nobody would be talking about how his Twitter posts are divisive and childish. AOC has posted some of the most offensive ideas I've ever read and almost nobody calls her out on it. And if you want to talk about divisive, hateful and reprehensible comments just listen to Ilhan Omar for 5 minutes. Suddenly everyone goes silent on that War Against Women topic because she posts some hateful shit when it comes to women's rights.
titsonritz
06-09-20, 22:02
Trump's biggest problem is that he is tactless and impetuous. He can't stand criticism and goes off on immature rants against anyone who dares take issue with anything he says or does. From a neutral standpoint, none of his policies or actions have been any further right wing in nature than Bush Jr., or even Obama in many cases! It's okay to be unapologetic about the truth, and one should be. But he comes across too much as a loose cannon, whether that's true or not. He was going to take the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred from the left; that was inevitable. During W's administration, the left was claiming we lived in a Christian dictatorship not unlike Taliban, and openly wondered if we wouldn't be better off with Osama bin Laden in the White House...and they meant it. But the moderates and swing voters, the ones who determine the elections, saw through that crap, and they likely would see through all the stuff that the left says about Trump if he had an ounce of tact. Trump's big mouth is why an all but guaranteed reelection has shifted over to him being in very real danger of losing in a landslide to a senile old man.
Yep, spot on, that is exactly Trump's problem and the sad part is (IMO) he can be extremely presidential when he makes effort. It doesn't last long though.
Trump's faults mentioned in this thread are what you get when you hire a non-politician for President. We wanted an outsider, and we got someone rude, crude and lacking in tact sometimes. And yet Trump has some real qualities that make him connect with the average Joe on the street. Trump rubs the political and military elites the wrong way. He's an aberration who somehow got in, and they can't let that happen again.
I spent 22 years in the Army and I rubbed shoulders with plenty of upper echelon officers , O-7 and above. Met and worked with Schwarzkopf, Powell, Garrison, Ham and others. Brigadier General is the introduction to the political world; O-8 on up and they're entrenched in the political system, and part of it. It' all power and influence, and jousting for that extra Star before retirement. I saw it not only with Army but Air Force brass as well. These are the untouchables who dine with the swells at Georgetown swank eateries, and they rub shoulders with the media elites in those venues.
I retired a few months before my promotion to O-5 (Lieutenant Colonel). I was in the zone and a shoe-in for the rank, and I would have just turned age 40. Retired because my Dad died and I left the military to return to the family ranch and take over the business. Who knows, if I had stayed in longer, maybe I could have been a General too.....? Also, above Captain, in Army aviation you don't get to fly as much. That's why we have Warrant Officers.
Trump's faults mentioned in this thread are what you get when you hire a non-politician for President. We wanted an outsider, and we got someone rude, crude and lacking in tact sometimes. And yet Trump has some real qualities that make him connect with the average Joe on the street. Trump rubs the political and military elites the wrong way. He's an aberration who somehow got in, and they can't let that happen again.
I don't think we wanted Trump "The Outsider" so much as we didn't want anyone else. I was originally hoping for Rand Paul, who of course didn't stand a chance. Then I was leaning towards Ben Carson, until I discovered he was a little nuts and then it came down to a whole bunch of people I knew I didn't want and one wild card candidate and like many others I'm sure, I took a shot on the unknown because I knew what everyone else would be.
I don't think we wanted Trump "The Outsider" so much as we didn't want anyone else. I was originally hoping for Rand Paul, who of course didn't stand a chance. Then I was leaning towards Ben Carson, until I discovered he was a little nuts and then it came down to a whole bunch of people I knew I didn't want and one wild card candidate and like many others I'm sure, I took a shot on the unknown because I knew what everyone else would be.
After watching all President Trump has had to face the past 3.5 years, I think he has changed some himself - maybe a little more paranoid and that thick skin has gotten a little more thin. It's been constant political and social warfare, and we have been given a front row seat to watch how the American Left really operates. Instead of operating in the shadows, they've had to move into the light and throw nearly everything they have.
For the American public, it's not that they dislike Trump; it's more they've gotten worn out with all the political strife. The average non-political junkie gets tired of all the fighting and they don't want to hear about it anymore. Sometimes I think people change the administration because they just want the fighting to quit. You see it in some of the general population I have spoken with. It's not my position, but I know it's out there. If Trump loses in November, it will be a mix of voting fraud funny business and a voting public who lost some of their enthusiasm. Some of that loss of enthusiasm can also come from the military elites giving their 2 cents, making the public question the Trump Presidency.
Honestly, there is significant precedent for military leaders, especially appointed Secretaries, to take moral stands. It is a good and right American phenomena.
Today, the Wall Street Journal has a story about Esper standing against Trump using the Insurrection Act. Trump wanted to fire him.
The Insurrection Act is the utter last line of defense. Esper said had the balls to correctly say the MSP situation and some kids marching wasn’t a war. Esper was right, morally and historically.
I think Mattis was right to resign over Syria. He couldn’t support the CinC and he couldn’t execute the policy, so he honorably handled the situation. Strikes me as integrity.
A few years ago, the book Raven Rock revealed that the Nixon Administration senior national security staff were worried about the President’s fitness during the darkest days of Watergate. There was a tacit decision to backstop any nuclear weapon deployment. That sort of agreement might be extra-Constitutional and technically outside the law, but still consistent with American values.
Bolded/italicized is called "a constitutional crisis." I agree, it's the right thing to do, but some day it's going to be an issue. Regarding Esper, his issue was airing dirty laundry in public. I loathe that. He could have chosen his words more carefully and walked the line, but in my opinion he was pretty insubordinate. I don't have a problem firing him for that.
Trump's faults mentioned in this thread are what you get when you hire a non-politician for President. We wanted an outsider, and we got someone rude, crude and lacking in tact sometimes. And yet Trump has some real qualities that make him connect with the average Joe on the street. Trump rubs the political and military elites the wrong way. He's an aberration who somehow got in, and they can't let that happen again.
I spent 22 years in the Army and I rubbed shoulders with plenty of upper echelon officers , O-7 and above. Met and worked with Schwarzkopf, Powell, Garrison, Ham and others. Brigadier General is the introduction to the political world; O-8 on up and they're entrenched in the political system, and part of it. It' all power and influence, and jousting for that extra Star before retirement. I saw it not only with Army but Air Force brass as well. These are the untouchables who dine with the swells at Georgetown swank eateries, and they rub shoulders with the media elites in those venues.
I retired a few months before my promotion to O-5 (Lieutenant Colonel). I was in the zone and a shoe-in for the rank, and I would have just turned age 40. Retired because my Dad died and I left the military to return to the family ranch and take over the business. Who knows, if I had stayed in longer, maybe I could have been a General too.....? Also, above Captain, in Army aviation you don't get to fly as much. That's why we have Warrant Officers.
Agree re: Trump as a non-politician. Regarding flag rank, when I was an enlisted man, one of my mentors was an 03; after I got my commission, a rear admiral (lower half). I worked on staff for a short time; man, what an eye-opening, educational experience that was, a real look into politics at its' finest and ugliest.
Regarding flying, used to be a program where senior enlisted could go to flight school in the Navy. I met a couple of these "flying chiefs" back in the early-90s. They said it was the best duty ever: all they did was fly. No collateral duties, no leadership roles, just fly.
Regarding flying, used to be a program where senior enlisted could go to flight school in the Navy. I met a couple of these "flying chiefs" back in the early-90s. They said it was the best duty ever: all they did was fly. No collateral duties, no leadership roles, just fly.
For the Army, most commissioned officers come out of ROTC programs, and they have an average 6-8 year obligation. Officers are managers, and when you hit Captain, and Captain's Career Course, you get shifted from aviation flight time to managerial duties. There's also the factor that a large number of officers leave after their required time. The Army invests a lot of time and money in their aviation program, and the Warrant Officer has more longevity with time in service. The last statistic I read was it is a 6 to 1 ratio in Army aviation of Warrant Officer to Commissioned Officer.
Of my 22 years in the Army, I flew for 18 of those years, and racking up nearly 8,000 hours of flight time. I do miss it.
For the Army, most commissioned officers come out of ROTC programs, and they have an average 6-8 year obligation. Officers are managers, and when you hit Captain, and Captain's Career Course, you get shifted from aviation flight time to managerial duties. There's also the factor that a large number of officers leave after their required time. The Army invests a lot of time and money in their aviation program, and the Warrant Officer has more longevity with time in service. The last statistic I read was it is a 6 to 1 ratio in Army aviation of Warrant Officer to Commissioned Officer.
Of my 22 years in the Army, I flew for 18 of those years, and racking up nearly 8,000 hours of flight time. I do miss it.
One of my best friends from high school, we saw Top Gun together in 86. He was neither pro- nor anti-military, he never thought of it at all. Until he saw Top Gun. Went to college, AOCS, and flew F-14s. About halfway through 03 (Navy Lieutenant), he got out for the same thing: he was flying less and less, and managing more and more. Then he hopped around the airline industry. I love the WO concept the Army has. So do most Naval pilots.
Bolded/italicized is called "a constitutional crisis." I agree, it's the right thing to do, but some day it's going to be an issue. Regarding Esper, his issue was airing dirty laundry in public. I loathe that. He could have chosen his words more carefully and walked the line, but in my opinion he was pretty insubordinate. I don't have a problem firing him for that.
Agree re: Trump as a non-politician. Regarding flag rank, when I was an enlisted man, one of my mentors was an 03; after I got my commission, a rear admiral (lower half). I worked on staff for a short time; man, what an eye-opening, educational experience that was, a real look into politics at its' finest and ugliest.
Regarding flying, used to be a program where senior enlisted could go to flight school in the Navy. I met a couple of these "flying chiefs" back in the early-90s. They said it was the best duty ever: all they did was fly. No collateral duties, no leadership roles, just fly.
I once got a ride from a SCPO that claimed to be the last of that kind.
Averageman
06-10-20, 14:08
After watching all President Trump has had to face the past 3.5 years, I think he has changed some himself - maybe a little more paranoid and that thick skin has gotten a little more thin. It's been constant political and social warfare, and we have been given a front row seat to watch how the American Left really operates. Instead of operating in the shadows, they've had to move into the light and throw nearly everything they have.
For the American public, it's not that they dislike Trump; it's more they've gotten worn out with all the political strife. The average non-political junkie gets tired of all the fighting and they don't want to hear about it anymore. Sometimes I think people change the administration because they just want the fighting to quit. You see it in some of the general population I have spoken with. It's not my position, but I know it's out there. If Trump loses in November, it will be a mix of voting fraud funny business and a voting public who lost some of their enthusiasm. Some of that loss of enthusiasm can also come from the military elites giving their 2 cents, making the public question the Trump Presidency.
Oh how they would have loved to have Mitt Romney.
I don't think we wanted Trump "The Outsider" so much as we didn't want anyone else. I was originally hoping for Rand Paul, who of course didn't stand a chance. Then I was leaning towards Ben Carson, until I discovered he was a little nuts and then it came down to a whole bunch of people I knew I didn't want and one wild card candidate and like many others I'm sure, I took a shot on the unknown because I knew what everyone else would be.
The three words: Better than Hilary.
And it should be remembered that Obama also faced serious challenges by various former and then-current military leaders, as did presidents dating back to at least Lincoln, if not all the way back to Monroe and Jackson feuding over Florida. Hardly anything new.
Well said, the only type of people who I can see this news affecting is my well-to-do aunt who praises all things Military because my father and myself served.
titsonritz
06-10-20, 17:09
The three words: Better than Hilary.
My dog, who I buried 1/15/18 would be better than Hillary.
My dog, who I buried 1/15/18 would be better than Hillary.
Your dog wasn't on the ticket as I recall.
I'm shocked at all the pearl clutching over the use of the NG. One of my earliest memories is of the 82nd Abn flying over my house on their way downtown to quell the Detroit riots in '67. Also remember the tanks positioned on the overpasses. Gov. Romney seemed to find it necessary to stop the stupidity - and guess what? It worked. Firemen took incoming fire while trying to pull people out of burning buildings, said fire was answered by Ma Deuce, folks decided they'd rather be somewhere else. Things calmed down rather quickly after that.
Guess times have changed...
The Insurrection Act is the utter last line of defense. Esper said had the balls to correctly say the MSP situation and some kids marching wasn’t a war. Esper was right, morally and historically.
This is the most "some people did something" take on the 2020 riots I have seen yet.
Reasonable people could debate how bad it was vs how bad it should be to call up active troops, but not if we refuse to see what is in front of our eyes. Governors and mayors were actively NOT calling up the NG, as cities were looted and burned.
Antifa has walled off an autonomous zone (remember when walls were fascist?) in Seattle, word is it's now being ruled by a rapper/warlord. This is not a joke, and the obvious outcome of there being no attempt to restore law and order by the City and State. So how long do you let them do nothing before the Insurrection Act is needed?
I'm now completely convinced of this as well.
I am, also.
This is the most "some people did something" take on the 2020 riots I have seen yet.
Reasonable people could debate how bad it was vs how bad it should be to call up active troops, but not if we refuse to see what is in front of our eyes. Governors and mayors were actively NOT calling up the NG, as cities were looted and burned.
Antifa has walled off an autonomous zone (remember when walls were fascist?) in Seattle, word is it's now being ruled by a rapper/warlord. This is not a joke, and the obvious outcome of there being no attempt to restore law and order by the City and State. So how long do you let them do nothing before the Insurrection Act is needed?
I hate to say it, really I do, but ...
President Trump looks weak. I don’t see how he wins come November, even as bad as Biden is...
After watching all President Trump has had to face the past 3.5 years, I think he has changed some himself - maybe a little more paranoid and that thick skin has gotten a little more thin. It's been constant political and social warfare, and we have been given a front row seat to watch how the American Left really operates. Instead of operating in the shadows, they've had to move into the light and throw nearly everything they have.
For the American public, it's not that they dislike Trump; it's more they've gotten worn out with all the political strife. The average non-political junkie gets tired of all the fighting and they don't want to hear about it anymore. Sometimes I think people change the administration because they just want the fighting to quit. You see it in some of the general population I have spoken with. It's not my position, but I know it's out there. If Trump loses in November, it will be a mix of voting fraud funny business and a voting public who lost some of their enthusiasm. Some of that loss of enthusiasm can also come from the military elites giving their 2 cents, making the public question the Trump Presidency.
^^^^This right here. If President Trump is not re-elected then the ComDems and MSM will have accomplished their goals. By creating constant crises, never ending turmoil and fostering and enabling civil unrest they are hoping the majority, the good citizens, just get tired of it all and don't vote in November.
Averageman
06-11-20, 07:04
If this is insurrection, if the Guard should have been deployed, but weren't because it all didn't meet General "X's" definition of what an insurrection looks like, we're screwed.
I would like to think, if ordered, someone is going to get the order and launch based on protocols and orders.
I don't want it to turn in to a three hour delay as they debate the merit of following orders.
This is not amateur hour or an episode of "The View" you do as your ordered.
Well said, the only type of people who I can see this news affecting is my well-to-do aunt who praises all things Military because my father and myself served.
It's actually been amusing watching those "Thank you for your Service" types suddenly turn on Mattis or other vets because they criticize Trump. Seems like their thanks only extends until they realize Vets are people too, and have their own opinion.
teufelhund1918
06-11-20, 09:25
Milley is now apologizing for having his photo made with Trump in Lafayette Square last week. But it is ok that he is appearing in the news with a prepared speech saying it was wrong that he appeared to be political by being with his commander in chief, yet all the while making a pretty much political speech in the news. Personally, I think this kind of behavior is flippin' disgraceful from a military man regardless of who they are.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joint-chiefs-chairman-milley-says-it-was-mistake-to-appear-with-trump-in-lafayette-square
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/milley-trump-appearance-mistake/index.html
P2Vaircrewman
06-11-20, 09:48
Bolded/italicized is called "a constitutional crisis." I agree, it's the right thing to do, but some day it's going to be an issue. Regarding Esper, his issue was airing dirty laundry in public. I loathe that. He could have chosen his words more carefully and walked the line, but in my opinion he was pretty insubordinate. I don't have a problem firing him for that.
Agree re: Trump as a non-politician. Regarding flag rank, when I was an enlisted man, one of my mentors was an 03; after I got my commission, a rear admiral (lower half). I worked on staff for a short time; man, what an eye-opening, educational experience that was, a real look into politics at its' finest and ugliest.
Regarding flying, used to be a program where senior enlisted could go to flight school in the Navy. I met a couple of these "flying chiefs" back in the early-90s. They said it was the best duty ever: all they did was fly. No collateral duties, no leadership roles, just fly.
I was enlisted Navy and trained as an airframe mechanic. I was also an aircrew qualified sonar operator on antisubmarine aircraft, basically doing two jobs. In 1969 the navy decided to make aircrew a separate unique rate, MOS to you army guys. After that all I did was fly and spend time in the trainer, good duty.
Whiskey_Bravo
06-11-20, 10:30
Milley is now apologizing for having his photo made with Trump in Lafayette Square last week. But it is ok that he is appearing in the news with a prepared speech saying it was wrong that he appeared to be political by being with his commander in chief, yet all the while making a pretty much political speech in the news. Personally, I think this kind of behavior is flippin' disgraceful from a military man regardless of who they are.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joint-chiefs-chairman-milley-says-it-was-mistake-to-appear-with-trump-in-lafayette-square
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/milley-trump-appearance-mistake/index.html
Not only disgraceful, but it almost seems a coordinated effort at this point by current and retired military brass to undermine the commander in chief.
Averageman
06-11-20, 10:39
Not only disgraceful, but it almost seems a coordinated effort at this point by current and retired military brass to undermine the commander in chief.
They are in a panic;
What do they do/what will happen to them if Trump is re-elected?
Think about how desperate a move this is, nearly 250 years of tradition is gone now. Someone is very afraid.
Deep state? What deep state? /sarc
Averageman
06-11-20, 10:48
It's actually been amusing watching those "Thank you for your Service" types suddenly turn on Mattis or other vets because they criticize Trump. Seems like their thanks only extends until they realize Vets are people too, and have their own opinion.
That's something most civilians find it difficult to wrap their mind around. We come from a cross section of society and when we finish our service we return to it.
For the last couple of years when told "Thank You for Your Service." I like to reply with "Thank You for Buying the Ammo."
Knowing that"We couldn't have done it without You." is kind of a double edged sword.
They are in a panic;
What do they do/what will happen to them if Trump is re-elected?
Think about how desperate a move this is, nearly 250 years of tradition is gone now. Someone is very afraid.
Definitely a shame, but hardly novel. MacArthur did it (was fired), a bunch of admirals did it in the early 50s (fired), Alexander Hamilton did it (resigned commission when he and Adams fought).
Milley is now apologizing for having his photo made with Trump in Lafayette Square last week. But it is ok that he is appearing in the news with a prepared speech saying it was wrong that he appeared to be political by being with his commander in chief, yet all the while making a pretty much political speech in the news. Personally, I think this kind of behavior is flippin' disgraceful from a military man regardless of who they are.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joint-chiefs-chairman-milley-says-it-was-mistake-to-appear-with-trump-in-lafayette-square
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/milley-trump-appearance-mistake/index.html
I'd have had a lot more respect for him had he simply explained to Trump why it wasn't a good idea for him to march with Trump, and offered hsi resignation had Trump demanded it. Now? Pathetic is how I'd describe him.
Adrenaline_6
06-11-20, 13:26
Almost everyone and every corporation is caving under this virtue signal. It shows you how many people really only care on how the public view them or how scared they are to be viewed as something they are not.
NASCAR just signed their death warrant...not that they were doing that great to begin with. You don't kick your fan base in the nuts and expect to survive. You would think the drivers, including Wallace, would realize this. Good luck finding another paycheck buddy.
I think any/all conservatives should just ban nascar ban sports all together no watching on tv cancel all cable channels etc.....
Would send a huge message to them as they loose tons of money on top of it
sadly most roll over they talk but no action the fact they won’t even do this shows if fighting came they would cower from it
Almost everyone and every corporation is caving under this virtue signal. It shows you how many people really only care on how the public view them or how scared they are to be viewed as something they are not.
NASCAR just signed their death warrant...not that they were doing that great to begin with. You don't kick your fan base in the nuts and expect to survive. You would think the drivers, including Wallace, would realize this. Good luck finding another paycheck buddy.
Adrenaline_6
06-11-20, 13:49
I think any/all conservatives should just ban nascar ban sports all together no watching on tv cancel all cable channels etc.....
Would send a huge message to them as they loose tons of money on top of it
sadly most roll over they talk but no action the fact they won’t even do this shows if fighting came they would cower from it
I'm not watching anything but motorcycle racing and college football. If college football starts acting up (they can do it on their own time, but not during the game), I will leave that too.
Almost everyone and every corporation is caving under this virtue signal. It shows you how many people really only care on how the public view them or how scared they are to be viewed as something they are not.
NASCAR just signed their death warrant...not that they were doing that great to begin with. You don't kick your fan base in the nuts and expect to survive. You would think the drivers, including Wallace, would realize this. Good luck finding another paycheck buddy.
Did not know about NASCAR until you posted it.
Wow ... just wow. I can scarcely believe my eyes ...
Wait, did people turn this into “complain that NASCAR removed the flag of a failed (if valorous) insurgent/opponent army and disallowed its display at races” thread, while also saying people in or formerly in the actual US military should sit down and keep their mouths shut when disposed to complain about the current leader of the US military?
Not only disgraceful, but it almost seems a coordinated effort at this point by current and retired military brass to undermine the commander in chief.
Yep. Sure looks like it.
Averageman
06-11-20, 14:06
Definitely a shame, but hardly novel. MacArthur did it (was fired), a bunch of admirals did it in the early 50s (fired), Alexander Hamilton did it (resigned commission when he and Adams fought).
Obviously that was back when consequences for actions was a foregone conclusion.
I think that if my influence actually mattered and I had the Mans ear at one point, rather than use my former rank and former position for his political enemies, I would go see the man and talk it over personally.
This on the Man scale is some grade four girly rumor mongering, not at all becoming to a "Man" who should know better,
Almost everyone and every corporation is caving under this virtue signal. It shows you how many people really only care on how the public view them or how scared they are to be viewed as something they are not.
NASCAR just signed their death warrant...not that they were doing that great to begin with. You don't kick your fan base in the nuts and expect to survive. You would think the drivers, including Wallace, would realize this. Good luck finding another paycheck buddy.
The corporations arent even selling the rope they'll be hanged with, they're giving it to them.
Diamondback
06-11-20, 18:08
The corporations arent even selling the rope they'll be hanged with, they're giving it to them.
And paying the bastards to set it up...
Adrenaline_6
06-11-20, 19:12
Wait, did people turn this into “complain that NASCAR removed the flag of a failed (if valorous) insurgent/opponent army and disallowed its display at races” thread, while also saying people in or formerly in the actual US military should sit down and keep their mouths shut when disposed to complain about the current leader of the US military?
Read and comprehend. Nobody is complaining about what they did. I could care less. It's not my heritage. I am explaining that it was stupid to do it. Hence the sentence "You don't kick your fan base in the nuts and expect to survive". Unlike the NFL who took a hit during the Kaepernick era, I doubt they can roll it back like the NFL did, without looking even worse.
It's actually been amusing watching those "Thank you for your Service" types suddenly turn on Mattis or other vets because they criticize Trump. Seems like their thanks only extends until they realize Vets are people too, and have their own opinion.
I see it like McCain. I completely respect his service, the fact that he stayed when he could have gone home and his other sacrifices. I will never speak in a derogative fashion regarding his military service or suggest he served in anything less than an honorable fashion. But McCain the politician, I will completely disagree with him all day long and his service doesn't buy him any kind of automatic deference when it comes to politics. That pretty much applies to everyone else who serves or has served.
That's something most civilians find it difficult to wrap their mind around. We come from a cross section of society and when we finish our service we return to it.
For the last couple of years when told "Thank You for Your Service." I like to reply with "Thank You for Buying the Ammo."
Knowing that"We couldn't have done it without You." is kind of a double edged sword.
Yep. I might steal that line, it's a good one.
I see it like McCain. I completely respect his service, the fact that he stayed when he could have gone home and his other sacrifices. I will never speak in a derogative fashion regarding his military service or suggest he served in anything less than an honorable fashion. But McCain the politician, I will completely disagree with him all day long and his service doesn't buy him any kind of automatic deference when it comes to politics. That pretty much applies to everyone else who serves or has served.
And that's fine. I hold to the idea that respect is earned, not given. Military service is absolutely not a "free ride" or reason not to criticize someone. What I'm referring to is being told "I would normally respect your service, but since you argued against something I'm for, I won't respect your service." It sounds odd, but I'm only slightly paraphrasing a comment I've received recently from a little old granny on Facebook. I guess we can thank Trump for, if not starting it, popularizing it when he used McCain's record to attack him. I was hardly a fan of McCain at that point but that was a low blow to me. Wild times we live in.
I see it like McCain. I completely respect his service, the fact that he stayed when he could have gone home and his other sacrifices. I will never speak in a derogative fashion regarding his military service or suggest he served in anything less than an honorable fashion. But McCain the politician, I will completely disagree with him all day long and his service doesn't buy him any kind of automatic deference when it comes to politics. That pretty much applies to everyone else who serves or has served.
True story. McCain's military service, once he got the 'wild frat boy'-type of thing out of his system, was/is worthy of respect. As a politician, my values and his never lined up. I respect and appreciate McChrystal, Petraeus, McRaven, et al., for their military careers and leadership, but their post-service platforms? Not so much.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.