President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
read carefully
Instead, what unfolded Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, bore little resemblance to the customary visit from a president and defense secretary. There, President Donald Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium -- blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.
As Trump viciously attacked his perceived political foes, he whipped up boos from the gathered troops directed at California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom -- amid the president's controversial move to deploy the National Guard and Marines against protesters in Los Angeles -- as well as former President Joe Biden and the press. The soldiers roared with laughter and applauded Trump's diatribe in a shocking and rare public display of troops taking part in naked political partisanship.
If you support any portion of this you are an anti-american scumbag.
but then again, this is just liberal reporters from...that long standing Leftist publication military.com
read carefullythose who didn't want to attend were told it wasn't mandatorythat is necessary in the military where nearly all instructions are mandatory - it takes a very dishonest appraisal of that to be construed as "you can't attend unless you support the president" which is how you are trying to paint it - and it's nothing close to thatthis is literally "the president is go
I didn’t say presidents don’t normally speak before troops. Did you read the full article? There was Trump merch being sold there and even the military said this shouldn’t happen again.
Also I don’t think the characterization of what the article is showing is accurate. They said no fatties and asked people to excuse themselves if they disagree politically with the president.
Adding to the spectacle, a pop-up shop operated by 365 Campaign, a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based retailer that sells pro-Trump and other conservative-coded memorabilia, was set up on-site with campaign-style merchandise on Army property. Soldiers were seen purchasing clothing and tchotchkes, including "Make America Great Again" chain necklaces to faux credit cards labeled "White Privilege Card: Trumps Everything."
Permitting the sale of overtly partisan merchandise on an Army base likely runs afoul of numerous Defense Department regulations aimed at preserving the military's long-standing commitment to political neutrality. The Army has historically gone to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of partisanship.
Parnell did not respond to follow-up questions about the sale of MAGA campaign gear directly to troops but Col. Mary Ricks, a spokesperson for Fort Bragg, said that “the vendor’s presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar occurrences in the future” in a statement provided after this story was first published.
Trump used much of his speech to slam California Democrats and tout his ongoing and unprecedented surge of nearly 5,000 federalized Guard soldiers and Marines to quell immigration protests.
"We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again," he proclaimed to soldiers, adding that Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass are "incompetent" and falsely said they're aiding "insurrectionists" while goading troops into booing them.
Most presidents wouldn’t say that the troops are being deployed on American soil because the opposite party has destroyed the state and gone on a tirade about them being incompetent and evil.
Also by asking troops to screen themselves he is clearly indicating that this is a political rally. If it was just “if you don’t want to attend you don’t have to” that would be completely unimpeachable. But saying “if you don’t want to attend for political disagreement with the president, talk to your commanding officer”. Like what? In what world is that the same thing as just saying you don’t have to attend?
very dishonest characterization - oh no that evil fascist said if soldiers don't want to be present they can opt outand the very idea that trump - the most incompetent and hands off exec we've ever had in our entire history - a history which includes many notable incompetents and at least two senile men - somehow has both the ambition and fotitu
You frequently come up with this exact same answer.
And somehow you never bring up the usefull critic yourself, kinda (I mean exactly like) victor (or lozen).
You frequently come up with this exact same answer.
And somehow you never bring up the usefull critic yourself, kinda (I mean exactly like) victor (or lozen).
To be fair victor does critique Trump in his own lefty way. His critique of Trump would probably be that he is a normal genocidal bloodthirsty working-class hating elite. So he leverages Trump to sew dissent against the Democrats by trying to show they act like him and don’t oppose his worst qualities.
It is definitely a way of helping Trump though by making every criticism come down to “both sides bad”.
To be fair victor does critique Trump in his own lefty way. His critique of Trump would probably be that he is a normal genocidal bloodthirsty working-class hating elite. So he leverages Trump to sew dissent against the Democrats by trying to show they act like him and don’t oppose his worst qualities.It is definitely a way of helping Trump though by making every criticism come
under Viktor lenses (soviet tankies) though trump is indeed less disastrous than, say, Bush, or even Clinton.
for example for Viktor disregarding deficits is preferable than austerity.
maybe I'm a complete idiot but I think the politicizing the military part was giving a partisan speech laced with attacks towards political opponents set to the resounds jeers and cheers from the military members
yet oddly instead of addessing this, you guys dealt with utter red herring nonsense
this should be a lesson so that next time you don't bury the lede and focus on what actually matters and it'll get taken seriously
I dunno who "you guys" means.
crd posted "bruh" and "least surprising news ever" to some snippets that included
Service officials declined to comment when asked about the extent to which troops were screened, whether soldiers displaying partisan cheers on television -- a violation of long-standing Pentagon rules -- would be disciplined or if soldiers who objected to participating in the event, citing disagreements with the administration, would be disciplined or admonished in any way.
"This has been a bad week for the Army for anyone who cares about us being a neutral institution," one commander at Fort Bragg told Military.com on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation. "This was shameful. I don't expect anything to come out of it, but I hope maybe we can learn from it long term."
which does mostly address the legitimate concern of a neutral armed force
maybe I'm a complete idiot but I think the politicizing the military part was giving a partisan speech laced with attacks towards political opponents set to the resounds jeers and cheers from the military members
When the uniform goes on, political leaning must be taken off.
Most of the time, that is easy. Sometimes it can be hard. A commander in chief should respect that. He should also respect that he is the commander in chief of every US soldier, not just those with opinions he agrees with.
What happened here was just a sad state of affairs. Soldiers who lacked professionalism, a POTUS who disrespects his citizenry and a commander in chief who doesn't give a **** about a significant portion of his troops.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertar...
It’s hilarious that your ilk of libertarians as a collective are so unprincipled that we had to define a paradoxical dichotomy to attempt to understand them
there is no "libertarian collective".
and no lack of principles either on my side.
Hayek fled communist horrors and was always from day one in favor of the state existing almost solely to have a tool to kill violent criminal socialists before they got power.
and it all works perfectly with NAP, that's the principle.
Basic principle is don't touch other people body and property, if you do, then those people have a right to use unlimited violence against you (*with the state if it exists) until they are secure you won't ever again be able to touch their body or property.
you like many other just conflate the existence of anarcho-libertarians (of many colors) with small state, classic liberal libertarians.
yet oddly instead of addessing this, you guys dealt with utter red herring nonsense
this should be a lesson so that next time you don't bury the lede and focus on what actually matters and it'll get taken seriously
Isn’t this basically you conceding the argument that the rally was politicized? So shouldn’t this raise your credence that the article’s contention that the instructions given to troops was part of that politicization?
When the uniform goes on, political leaning must be taken off. Most of the time, that is easy. Sometimes it can be hard. A commander in chief should respect that. He should also respect that he is the commander in chief of every US soldier, not just those with opinions he agrees with.What happened here was just a sad state of affairs. Soldiers who lacked professionalism, a POTU
nice principle, which got violated beyond recognition by the military adopting the pseudo religion of LGBTQ which is basically taking a side in an hyper-controversial political topic that neatly divides society in two.
once you allow rainbow flags by the militaries, those are political flags that symbolize political statements.
I dunno who "you guys" means.
crd posted "bruh" and "least surprising news ever" to some snippets that included
which does mostly address the legitimate concern of a neutral armed force
I mean I think it’s overdetermined in this case. You can point to any number of bad things about this rally to indicate that it is far more politicized than the normal presidential troop rallies.
nice principle, which got violated beyond recognition by the military adopting the pseudo religion of LGBTQ which is basically taking a side in an hyper-controversial political topic that neatly divides society in two.
once you allow rainbow flags by the militaries, those are political flags that symbolize political statements.
This is an exceptionally bad post from you and you know how I generally think about your average post
Basic principle is don't touch other people body and property, if you do, then those people have a right to use unlimited violence against you (*with the state if it exists) until they are secure you won't ever again be able to touch their body or property.
Let's say you have a date or a friend at your house and a plate is thrown on the floor intentionnally because reasons (anger for exemple).
Does that mean you now can execute that person for attacking your property?
I looked at the oath of enlistment...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
so what happens when the president breaks the constitution? Which takes precedence, 'support and defend of constitution' or 'obey the orders of the President' ?
I looked at the oath of enlistment..."I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to r
the constitution. If the question is "how do i interpret it in case of ambuigity", the answer is SCOTUS
Let's say you have a date or a friend at your house and a plate is thrown on the floor intentionnally because reasons (anger for exemple).
Does that mean you now can execute that person for attacking your property
Remember the idea is to terminate the assault and avoid future assault. If kicking the person out is enough, that's enough. If you break my plate, i tell you to go out, i use violence to kick you out, you resist, then yes i can shoot you (in my model).
As for the riots, idea is you order to desperse. 5 min later they are not dispersed, you start shooting not-to-kill. 5 min later they still don't disperse, you start shooting to kill. 5-10 down, you wait 2-3 min. They still don't disperse, you kill them all.
Keep in mind though it would never happen. If people knew for a fact at 100% certainty that they would be mowed down if they riot, they wouldn't riot. So in my model you get *far less violence*. Credibly threatening lethal violence does work as a deterrent.
Just an example of a clear cut IRL situation
https://x.com/realaustinzone/status/1932...
Tolerating this is completly insane. No one should wake up and think he can do this without his life ending on the spot. Disregarding the guy who tackles down the criminal thug a few seconds later, you lose all credibility and all deterrance if you point armed guns at people and then aren't ready to kill in cold blood when assaulted.
there is no "libertarian collective".and no lack of principles either on my side.Hayek fled communist horrors and was always from day one in favor of the state existing almost solely to have a tool to kill violent criminal socialists before they got power.and it all works perfectly with NAP, that's the principle. Basic principle is don't touch other people body and property, if
the NAP may be consistently applied but it leads to moral absurdities like saying no one is allowed to touch your shoulder without your consent even if it would cause infinite pain and suffering. I’m not a utilitarian but pure deontic morality is wholly untenable.
No, it is not is a "nice" principle, is in fact often aggressively "not nice". Like I said, most of the time it is easy. Sometimes it is very difficult.
However, it is a necessary principle.
And it is the third in a matter of days where you are left with no argument to defend this president and his administration, so you have to offer up milquetoast #bothsidesbad excuses, this time with a sprinkling of culture war.
Instead of lashing out, perhaps you should start to ponder why you so often are left with no reasonable hand to defend this trainwreck of a president.
As for the riots, idea is you order to desperse. 5 min later they are not dispersed, you start shooting not-to-kill. 5 min later they still don't disperse, you start shooting to kill. 5-10 down, you wait 2-3 min. They still don't disperse, you kill them all.Keep in mind though it would never happen. If people knew for a fact at 100% certainty that they would be mowed down if th
When your model of how situations should be handled deviates this far from reality you’ll tend to attract weaker minds to your ideas. Serious people in politics , and more importantly serious people in governance don’t care about arguments that do not relate to reality in any kind of tangible way. The idea of gunning down a bunch of protestors for not following proper etiquette for ten minutes is a non starter in any developed country. No one who has conversations with serious thinkers can have a serious conversation with you. Granted, you might think but Im exaggerating my positions for the purposes of debate , specifically to show the arrogance of liberals- a common motif amongst the incel crowd. That doesn’t change things directionally, and it actually reveals your own arrogance.
