Trump's Policies Part 5

[81usaf92]

Yep. It may be that the military is advising political leaders against such hyper-partisan speech on a military base (and carefully couching even that as advice not protest), but we in the public should never see that because it happens behind closed doors. The Atlantic writers seem unaware of that dynamic.

What’s the saying: “the military teaches you how to dress, be on time, and take orders. And the military also teaches you how to cuss, complain, and ‘tactically acquire’ lost items”. The point is that I’m 100% positive that behind closed doors most top brass in both the NG and AD sides aren’t in favor of Trump’s recent use of the military, but to openly complain sets an even more dangerous precedent than what people think is already being set by Trump. Think about a Stratcom Commander or the installation commander of Fort Bragg openly criticizing the president over policy…. You are talking about a guy who is over the US’s entire nuclear weapons program and a guy who is over a large base of elite troops not far from DC challenging the president publicly. Do these people really want military brass to engage in politics…

 

[Tidewater]

What’s the saying: “the military teaches you how to dress, be on time, and take orders. And the military also teaches you how to cuss, complain, and ‘tactically acquire’ lost items”. The point is that I’m 100% positive that behind closed doors most top brass in both the NG and AD sides aren’t in favor of Trump’s recent use of the military, but to openly complain sets an even more dangerous precedent than what people think is already being set by Trump. Think about a Stratcom Commander or the installation commander of Fort Bragg openly criticizing the president over policy…. You are talking about a guy who is over the US’s entire nuclear weapons program and a guy who is over a large base of elite troops not far from DC challenging the president publicly. Do these people really want military brass to engage in politics…

Exactly right. I would bet there are some who like his antics. And I would also bet that there are many who despise Trump. And there are even more regardless of party leanings that just do not want a politicized military.
A nonpolitical military has been the standard since Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. In 1948, nobody knew under whose party banner Ike would run. That's a good thing.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

What’s the saying: “the military teaches you how to dress, be on time, and take orders. And the military also teaches you how to cuss, complain, and ‘tactically acquire’ lost items”. The point is that I’m 100% positive that behind closed doors most top brass in both the NG and AD sides aren’t in favor of Trump’s recent use of the military, but to openly complain sets an even more dangerous precedent than what people think is already being set by Trump. Think about a Stratcom Commander or the installation commander of Fort Bragg openly criticizing the president over policy…. You are talking about a guy who is over the US’s entire nuclear weapons program and a guy who is over a large base of elite troops not far from DC challenging the president publicly. Do these people really want military brass to engage in politics…

The very idea of a standing army terrified the founding fathers, as they saw such as being automatically involved in politics...

 

[PaulD]

Again… everyone is caught up with the “support and defend the constitution part” of the oath of enlistment but no one likes to say the “obey the orders of the president of the United States” part. Nowhere in that oath does it says “I must interpret the constitutional conflict between a president nationalizing the national guard and a governor saying that is unconstitutional.” Nor does it say “ I must reject the president of the United States when he deploys me to a United States City”.

A soldier’s duty is to follow orders of his superiors. His highest superior is the President of the United States. Yes he has the right to question unethical orders but not to question whether the President is using the military in an unconstitutional manner. Yes he has the right to refuse orders to fire upon or arrest US civilians and non combatants, but he doesn’t have the right to refuse his unit’s mobilization to LA. The point is the military at the end of the day is the arm of the president. The chain of command has the president at the top of it no matter if he is Trump or Obama. So with the consistent changes between parties the military can not be political or expected to voice a concern of constitutionality of what the president orders them to do unless it’s something so immoral and inhumane that it’s obvious.

So expecting military brass to openly objecting to what their superior is gross misunderstanding of what the military is and how it functions. While it may not be reassuring but the vast majority of the military is closer to what Colonel Jessop and Captain Ramsey would see it than what Lt Kaffey and Commander Hunter would.

At the end of the day the President is the head of the military and he orders them who to invade, who they kill, and who they launch a nuke on. Any dissent to those orders on a political or constitutional ground cannot happen or else you are inviting a military coup to your streets. The Constitution provides checks to the President’s powers but nowhere does it say that the military is one of them… in fact it states the military is one of HIS constitutional powers.

And before someone brings up “well the Nazis were following orders too”. We are specifically talking about presidential policy of where deploying troops not killing innocent men, women, and children based on race, ethnicity, and sexuality. Yes as a soldier you have the expectation to refuse an obvious and blatant order that is inhumane, degrading, and cruel and unusual against people. But you don’t have the power and privilege to question the constitutionality of a deployment mandated by the president of the United states in public or amongst your troops.

While I disagree with the NG callup and the Marine deployment, I don't believe that the military has yet crossed the posse comitatis line by becoming part of law enforcement. If I hadn't retired, I would advise the commanders that no unlawful order has yet been given.

It is more than an expectation that a member of the military decline to follow a clearly unlawful order, it is a requirement, even though it would likely be a career-ending requirement.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The Atlantic Gift Link

The Silence of the Generals
As President Donald Trump crossed a dangerous line at Fort Bragg, the brass failed to speak out in the Army’s defense.

President Donald Trump continued his war against America’s most cherished military traditions today when he delivered a speech at Fort Bragg. It is too much to call it a “speech”; it was, instead, a ramble, full of grievance and anger, just like his many political-rally performances. He took the stage to Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA”—which has become a MAGA anthem—and then pointed to the “fake news,” encouraging military personnel to jeer at the press.

He mocked former President Joe Biden and attacked various other political rivals. He elicited cheers from the crowd by announcing that he would rename U.S. bases (or re-rename them) after Confederate traitors. He repeated his hallucinatory narrative about the invasion of America by foreign criminals and lunatics. He referred to 2024 as the “election of a president who loves you,” to a scatter of cheers and applause. And then he attacked the governor of California and the mayor of Los Angeles, again presiding over jeers at elected officials of the United States.

He led soldiers, in other words, in a display of unseemly behavior that ran contrary to everything the founder of the U.S. Army, George Washington, strove to imbue in the American armed forces.

Tom Nichols is a smart guy who should know better, though.

You know, it's always funny how we can tell who served in the military and who did not based on questions like this. And in no way does that make any of us special (Nichols decries Spartanism towards military members being set aside as special in US society nowadays - and I agree with virtually all of his points).

The more accurate representation here is "But MacArthur criticized Truman," not "but the Nazis" or "but Calley." It's a balancing act at times, mixed in with the UCMJ, the LOAC, and (in some cases) the Geneva Convention."

Besides - I'm old enough to remember when "you military folks are supposed to take orders and get your vaccine or you should be court-martialed." Seems like it was just one President ago I heard that one.

 

[Its On A Slab]

I'm reasonably certain those clowns are unaware of a lot of things.

Except for the reality that they know full well of the Emperor's nekkidness. Of which the vast majority of MAGA is clueless. Either that or they love seeing his backside, even if there is no way to tell from his face.

 

[Tidewater]

The very idea of a standing army terrified the founding fathers, as they saw such as being automatically involved in politics...

The Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 predates the US Bill of Rights by 15 years.
"... standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Samuel Nason of Massachusetts spoke of "the fatal effects of standing armies, that bane of republican governments. A standing army! Was it not with this that Caesar passed the Rubicon, and laid prostrate the liberties of his country? ... Britain attempted to enforce her arbitrary measures by a standing army. ... I am utterly opposed to a standing army in time of peace."

Patrick Dollard of South Carolina said, "My constituents ... say, your standing army, like Turkish janizaries enforcing despotic laws, must ram it down their throats with the points of bayonets."

New Hampshire recommended, as a constitutional amendment, that "no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three-quarters of the members of each branch of Congress."

Patrick Henry opposed ratification of the Constitution because, "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?" (the mace was the symbol of the legislative authority of a legislature).

James Madison said, "a standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen."

 

[Its On A Slab]

The Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 predates the US Bill of Rights by 15 years.
"... standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Samuel Nason of Massachusetts spoke of "the fatal effects of standing armies, that bane of republican governments. A standing army! Was it not with this that Caesar passed the Rubicon, and laid prostrate the liberties of his country? ... Britain attempted to enforce her arbitrary measures by a standing army. ... I am utterly opposed to a standing army in time of peace."

Patrick Dollard of South Carolina said, "My constituents ... say, your standing army, like Turkish janizaries enforcing despotic laws, must ram it down their throats with the points of bayonets."

New Hampshire recommended, as a constitutional amendment, that "no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three-quarters of the members of each branch of Congress."

Patrick Henry opposed ratification of the Constitution because, "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?" (the mace was the symbol of the legislative authority of a legislature).

James Madison said, "a standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen."

You have to wonder: If we didn't give our "standing army" something to do, if there was no bad boy in the world to attend to......would our standing army be a problem for our republican (small "r") government. In the same way that Central and South America has been prone to military dictatorships.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

You have to wonder: If we didn't give our "standing army" something to do, if there was no bad boy in the world to attend to......would our standing army be a problem for our republican (small "r") government. In the same way that Central and South America has been prone to military dictatorships.

I surmise part of the problem is the fact that the United States in 1800 was a few states joined together collectively into a union that was hardly a world power. I don't dispute any of the assessments made thus far regarding standing armies, but this may also be one of those cases where it became necessary in the wake of things like the two world wars (and sadly - ripe for abuse in cases like Vietnam and the Second Gulf War).

 

[Tidewater]

You have to wonder: If we didn't give our "standing army" something to do, if there was no bad boy in the world to attend to......would our standing army be a problem for our republican (small "r") government. In the same way that Central and South America has been prone to military dictatorships.

I do not know. Maybe. The US Army prior to the Civil War was tiny.
At point in the 1790s, the entire US Army would have fit into the lecture hall at ten Hoor Hall. It was down to one battery of artillery at West Point. That was it.
n 1860, the vast majority of the Army was either (a) in coastal fortifications defending against a foreign (probably British) invasion or (b) along the frontier to protect settlers and also protect the Indians from encroachment by the settlers. One of my ancestors, John S. "Rip" Ford was a Texas Ranger who pursued a war party from burned houses and dead settlers on the Texas frontier to a reservation in what is now southwest Oklahoma. The Army denied him entry into the reservation because the US had a treaty with these Comanches. "But we followed a war party into the reservation; these guys murdered Texans," Ford said. "Too bad," the Army officer said. "You cannot go in there after them." Rip was less than happy.
In 1941, the US Army was the the 14th largest in the world, and was smaller than Portugal's. The benefit of two large moats east and west and nice neighbors to the north.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Automaker GM now plans to invest $4 BILLION in the United States to move additional production out of Mexico.

This will result in the reopening of an assembly plant in DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1932805511306412471

 

[Huckleberry]

Trump says he plans to phase out FEMA after 2025 hurricane season

Last month, Trump pushed out the acting head of FEMA after the administrator testified before Congress that he disagreed with dismantling the agency.

www.firstcoastnews.com

I haven’t heard any mention of returning money to the states for disaster relief. So when the next hurricane or natural disaster hits Florida or any other state, where is this relief money going to come from?

 

[75thru79]

Trump says he plans to phase out FEMA after 2025 hurricane season

Last month, Trump pushed out the acting head of FEMA after the administrator testified before Congress that he disagreed with dismantling the agency.

www.firstcoastnews.com

I haven’t heard any mention of returning money to the states for disaster relief. So when the next hurricane(s) hit Florida or any other Gulf States, where is this relief money going to come from?

This is another one I have to disagree with the President on. Considering hurricanes and floods can span multiple states it makes more sense to have a Federal response. Everything can't always be about not spending Federal money.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

It is most definitely not about spending less Federal money; look at his big, beautiful, costly budget. It's about shifting the help to private industries so he and the oligarchs can exploit those in need, because most states cannot afford disaster relief without federal assistance.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

This is another one I have to disagree with the President on. Considering hurricanes and floods can span multiple states it makes more sense to have a Federal response. Everything can't always be about not spending Federal money.

Sounds like swapping federal waste and incompetence for state waste and incompetence. I understand why a lot of people's asses are still chapped after the crap FEMA pulled in NC (selective assistance for people who weren't politically right-leaning) but I fail to see how this is going to fix anything. There's still a ton of corruption at the state level and in some cases, possibly more.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This is another one I have to disagree with the President on. Considering hurricanes and floods can span multiple states it makes more sense to have a Federal response. Everything can't always be about not spending Federal money.

Seriously - back before Rush Limbaugh lost his damn mind (he never would have been a Trump guy in the 90s and early 00s), he had a caller to his show ranting about the federal government providing relief to the central states during the 1993 floodings. Rush actually corrected him and said, "No, this is one of those things the federal government SHOULD do."

(Now, I understand the cynicism of, "Well, of course, because he was from Cape Girardeau, MO, and they got flooded," but at that point he'd been consistent on disaster relief).

We can't have this nonsense of "well, since your state didn't vote for me, no relief for you."
That is absurd.

 

[some_al_fan]

How exactly can we expect states to deal with a Category 4 hurricane without federal assistance?

 

[JDCrimson]

This is about extorting further leverage from distressed states and people if he can unilaterally control the aid distribution...

This is another one I have to disagree with the President on. Considering hurricanes and floods can span multiple states it makes more sense to have a Federal response. Everything can't always be about not spending Federal money.

 

[jthomas666]

Members of the Fulbright scholarship board resign, accusing Trump of meddling

Nearly all the members of a board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright scholarships on Wednesday resigned in protest of what they call the Trump administration’s meddling with the selection of award recipients, according to a statement they issued.

apnews.com

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This is about extorting further leverage from distressed states abd people if can unilaterally control the aid distribution...

"You don't like me, so no soup for you."

Just ridiculous.

This is why "the GOP was always like Trump" is absurd.

George W. Bush didn't tell Louisiana, "Hey, you have a Democratic crooked city mayor and a Democratic governor, so I'm not helping you" when Katrina hit. And he was never facing the voters again.