The Next President is...

[drewpey]

5 hours ago, M2 said:

Really?  If anyone isn't suspicious as to the timing of this "news," they are blindly naïve!  If such a statement was made, especially in front of John Kelly, it would have been newsworthy two years ago.

Yeah the timing is politics, and during an election year you can expect many things to come out on both sides during the run-up.  You can hate the player, but it's misguided.  I don't recall you complaining about the timing of all the stories on Benghazi and Clinton's emails that were older than this story's events, and now after an investigation were directed by trump's people specifically timed w/ russian assets to distract from negative Trump stories.  There isn't a statue of limitations on public opinion. 

Also disagree on your judgement on Kelly.  Maybe you are the type to stab your boss in the back while you are working for him, but now that Trump has taken a few swings at Kelly, he might be willing to talk to the press anonymously.  Sure it could all be BS, but it wouldn't take but 5 seconds for him to come out and say that....but there has been nothing but silence.  Odd isn't it?  Why would he hesitate to swat down this story that revolves around him?

 

[drewpey]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

 someone outside the military with little knowledge of how government works

soooo....the majority of the voting populace?  Optics are a huge thing during elections, and Trump seems to be determined to win on "hard mode".  So many of the verifiably true things are softball pitches he watched fly by that build the overarching narrative that he hates troops.

Again it's politics...many of the narratives surrounding Benghazi were devoid of understanding how the military and government works, but that doesn't stop politics from bending the narrative.

Overall I don't think he hates us, but I do think he has no concept of understanding of who we are or what we do, and I can entirely see him making these statements and him not seeing them as offensive.  If I grew up shitting in gold toilets my entire life I would wonder why people would volunteer to go to third world countries, eating shit food and being shot at for a living.  It's not his fault, but he could work a little harder un-entrenching himself from his worldview.

[FLEA]

19 minutes ago, drewpey said:

soooo....the majority of the voting populace?  Optics are a huge thing during elections, and Trump seems to be determined to win on "hard mode".  So many of the verifiably true things are softball pitches he watched fly by that build the overarching narrative that he hates troops.

Again it's politics...many of the narratives surrounding Benghazi were devoid of understanding how the military and government works, but that doesn't stop politics from bending the narrative.

Overall I don't think he hates us, but I do think he has no concept of understanding of who we are or what we do, and I can entirely see him making these statements and him not seeing them as offensive.  If I grew up shitting in gold toilets my entire life I would wonder why people would volunteer to go to third world countries, eating shit food and being shot at for a living.  It's not his fault, but he could work a little harder un-entrenching himself from his worldview.

I think your bottom assessment is pretty accurate. People will still vote for him regardless because of policy though and not what he thinks. He's said some crappy things but he has also come a long way at getting us disentangled in the ME, which I think most troops care more about than statements about our nature. 

[M2]

I just saw a Biden commercial.  Is he trying to get people to vote for Trump?!? 

[AirGuardianC141747]

NONE of the past Presidents really have a clue what these past 20 years plus have meant to the American servicemen. Some try harder than others, but don’t fool yourselves when it comes down to Brass Tacks. Good breakdown.

Regarding an earlier statement about stopping military folks on COVID support orders prior to all benefits being earned outright, you have got to be kidding me. Has anyone not been here long enough within the Reserve Component and not had this happen at least 2, 3, or more times a few years after 9/11??? Anyone recall orders for 179 Days only, over and over again. Really. I mean it’s always “pull out what fits the narrative.” No one is blind to this with experience. Unit dependent, time frame dependent, budget dependent. Plenty of like experiences to draw from over the years....

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, AirGuardianC141747 said:

NONE of the past Presidents really have a clue what these past 20 years plus have meant to the American servicemen. Some try harder than others, but don’t fool yourselves when it comes down to Brass Tacks. Good breakdown.

 

I think W and Laura had a pretty good reputation regarding interaction with and compassion for military members. I didn’t agree much with the foreign policy decisions that got us involved in forever wars but W and the First Lady did plenty of visits to wounded troops, their families, and troops in the field. From what I hear, they were very humble and generous with their time. I think he truly understood the gravity of the fact he was sending many Americans to their deaths. Biden had a military son and has a better understanding than most of the sacrifices we ask our service members to make on a daily basis. Trump thinks you are there to put on nice parades and buy him the patriotic vote. It’s fair enough to believe that he’ll preserve and increase the defense budget over a Democratic rival, but he’s also more likely to bumble his way into an avoidable conflict (re the near war with Iran not so long ago). Personally, I think prior service ought to be a requirement for the Presidency. It’s a shame so few of the current crop seem to have it, but I’m encouraged to see that many of our newest members of Congress on both sides of the aisle do. 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I think W and Laura had a pretty good reputation regarding interaction with and compassion for military members. I didn’t agree much with the foreign policy decisions that got us involved in forever wars but W and the First Lady did plenty of visits to wounded troops, their families, and troops in the field. From what I hear, they were very humble and generous with their time. I think he truly understood the gravity of the fact he was sending many Americans to their deaths. Biden had a military son and has a better understanding than most of the sacrifices we ask our service members to make on a daily basis. Trump thinks you are there to put on nice parades and buy him the patriotic vote. It’s fair enough to believe that he’ll preserve and increase the defense budget over a Democratic rival, but he’s also more likely to bumble his way into an avoidable conflict (re the near war with Iran not so long ago). Personally, I think prior service ought to be a requirement for the Presidency. It’s a shame so few of the current crop seem to have it, but I’m encouraged to see that many of our newest members of Congress on both sides of the aisle do. 

The fact you think Trump will bumble his way to an unintended conflict shows you aren't paying much attention to his guidance. He is the LEAST likely President we've had in probably 20 years to take us to war with anyone. Trump is ending and reducing our foreign entanglements and his policy is geared toward is being less dependent on foreign interest. He is very clear about that. He talks a big talk against some countries like nK and PRC but his likely hood to commit blood and metal is very low. He realizes the economic fallout on his legacy would be disasterous and he had a low appetite to go to war for other countries defense (i.e. Europe and sK) .

[waveshaper]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

The fact you think Trump will bumble his way to an unintended conflict shows you aren't paying much attention to his guidance. He is the LEAST likely President we've had in probably 20 years to take us to war with anyone.

Here's a list of "NEW" wars/conflicts the US has been involved in since the mid 1970's. President Ford was the last President to not get the US involved in a new war/conflict. 

POTUS Scorecard for getting the US involved in "NEW" wars/conflicts (I only covered the new war/conflict start dates not the war/conflict end dates). The timeframe covered is from President Ford to President Trump;

- President Ford = He got the US involved in "Zero" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.
  President Carter = He got the US involved in "Two" New Wars/Conflicts (One Minor League Conflict and One Doozy with lots of blowback) during his term in office.
- President Reagan = He got the US involved in "Seven" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.
- President HW Bush = He got the US involved in "Five" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.
- President Clinton = He got the US involved in "Three" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.
- President GW Bush = He got the US involved in "Five" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.
- President Obama = He got the US involved in "Seven" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.
- President Trump = So far he has gotten the US involved in "Zero" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.

Edited September 7, 2020 by waveshaper

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, waveshaper said:

President Trump = So far he has gotten the US involved in "Zero" New Wars/Conflicts during his term in office.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani

I guess this was just a continuation of our longstanding war with Iran. More blatant propaganda drivel.

[Danger41]

If you don’t think we’re at war with Iran and their (former) leader of the Quds Force then you’re completely naive. That was a fantastic move to me.

And I know I’m as jaded as they come, but IDGAF about what Trump says about how he feels about the troops. I don’t care if he doesn’t understand the deep inner psyche of military members and why we joined. Keep modernizing the force, stop cupping China’s nuts, empower the leaders in the military, and make our “allies” do their part. 

[Negatory]

I’m not naive. There’s a difference between war and posturing, and to say we’re at war with Iran is laughable. I have had them tell me to leave their airspace before and intentionally ignored it, but that ain’t war.

You probably also say we’re at war with Russia when it’s convenient to your argument but disregard the numerous pro Russia foreign policy moves that have been made by the administration.

By your logic, you’d probably say we’re at war with China, Venezuela, Yemen, half of Africa, etc.

Edited September 7, 2020 by brawnie

[waveshaper]

1 hour ago, brawnie said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani

I guess this was just a continuation of our longstanding war with Iran. More blatant propaganda drivel.

IMHO, Soleimani should've been targeted/killed long before the current POTUS ever took office. Also, I place most of the blame for these endless wars squarely on "Congress".

When and under what authorization did we get stuck "Again" in the middle of this Iraqi/Syrian - Sunni/Shia/Kurd/Tribal/etc/etc endless Civil War? 

- When (Round 3/4?) = Operation Inherent Resolve (start date - 2014/end date - TBD).  

- Authorization - 2002 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq).

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by waveshaper

[Danger41]

37 minutes ago, brawnie said:

I’m not naive. There’s a difference between war and posturing, and to say we’re at war with Iran is laughable. I have had them tell me to leave their airspace before and intentionally ignored it, but that ain’t war.

My logic is literally thousands of American casualties (603 deaths CAO 2019) are directly linked to Iran. And the primary culprit of those are proxies led by the Quds Force. And Soleimani was the leader of the Quds Force. 
 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/04/04/iran-killed-more-us-troops-in-iraq-than-previously-known-pentagon-says/

 

I’m not going point for point with you on the other talking points because I’m not pro-Trump and there’s no point. But the Soleimani one piques my interest whenever that gets brought up as a bad thing.

[AirGuardianC141747]

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

I think W and Laura had a pretty good reputation regarding interaction with and compassion for military members. I didn’t agree much with the foreign policy decisions that got us involved in forever wars but W and the First Lady did plenty of visits to wounded troops, their families, and troops in the field. From what I hear, they were very humble and generous with their time. I think he truly understood the gravity of the fact he was sending many Americans to their deaths. Biden had a military son and has a better understanding than most of the sacrifices we ask our service members to make on a daily basis. 

Ok, definitely retract my statement about “W” as I can personally attest to his care and compassion for the Troops he sent in harms way. Actually had him on board of one our Air Evac Missions which we dominated for years coming into Andrews AFB from the sandbox, both of them. He routinely had AF1 going into a holding pattern and let us land before he did (to include AE troops unloading during the normal shutdown). One of our crews experienced “W” coming board, shutting the doors (keeping press off) after the CCATT left to visit with our patients prior to movement to Walter Reed. Actually laid on the floor next to a double amputee in his suit. Thanks for making me think about that as I misspoke regarding “W”. Like him or not as President, he did care.
 

Obama always made us hold and rightfully so regulation wise, but no Grace whatsoever. Clinton’s era - worked first tour in D.C. and you could feel the rift. Disliked Sir Bill so much prior to meeting him. Truly impressed with his charisma and he was tough to dislike and hated myself for it -A True Politician. During their last party out of the Whitehouse, they also trashed AF1... Presidential hardware, dish ware, silverware gone, carpet stains (Wine, etc.) excessive damage for the incoming administration shows true colors. (My former Crew Chief gave a fantastic tour and mentioned all the work they had to do)
 

Won’t drag in Biden as he hasn’t had to make decisions involving War with his lone shoulders taking the brunt of it. Not like he can make his own decisions now. So where will leadership come from - Really need to focus on Harris. Biden isn’t President as of yet and we can judge him later if he is and puts flesh at risk. Undeniably Biden has experienced even greater trauma beyond his military son’s death (JAG) due to brain cancer. Even more unfortunate times for Biden during the early years losing his wife and daughter which is tragic.

Smacking Qasem Salami down sends a message. That was long overdue... If you have been coddled, are time out centric, have a 12th place trophy and rely on safe spaces you will never understand what getting spanked is really all about. Sometimes you have to show the limit when people or countries are searching for it. 

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by AirGuardianC141747

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, brawnie said:

I’m not naive. There’s a difference between war and posturing, and to say we’re at war with Iran is laughable. I have had them tell me to leave their airspace before and intentionally ignored it, but that ain’t war.

You probably also say we’re at war with Russia when it’s convenient to your argument but disregard the numerous pro Russia foreign policy moves that have been made by the administration.

By your logic, you’d probably say we’re at war with China, Venezuela, Yemen, half of Africa, etc.

The assassination isn't going to fly as entering us into a conflict because 1.) It didn't. Crises was over 48 hours later. 2.) Strike occured in a hostile zone that began (or resumed) under the Obama administration, in which we were already involved in an existing proxi conflict with Iran via their backing of Hezbollah affiliated militias. Iran was a beliggerent in the ISIS conflict and hence this was just a continuation of a conflict Trump inhereted. 

What I think is more uncomfortable is how many members of the Public can't name every conflict we've been in the last 20 years and think Iraq and Afghanistan are the only two. I especially criticize Obama on this one as he entered us into so many new conflicts after campaigning on peace and removing us from conflicts. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by FLEA

[brickhistory]

So to be clear and I can understand:

Anonymous sources = good.

On-the-record = bad.

"Mostly peaceful" riots = good

Church services = bad

Trump going to Kenosha = bad

Biden going to Kenosha = good

Unending wars/military commitments = bad

Trump reducing military commitments/not getting us into wars = bad

 

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

So to be clear and I can understand:

Anonymous sources = Commonly used and often necessary for a story. Readers are dependent on the writer’s integrity, skill, and experience .

On-the-record = Better. Readers less dependent on the writer.

"Mostly peaceful" riots = Bad. Any violence is bad. Peaceful protests can be effective and are a proven way to effect change in our country. Unfortunately the two methods have often occurred simultaneously lately and the police have the unenviable job of sorting it all out. 

Church services = Good. In person school is good. Sporting events are good. Concerts are good. I look forward to the time when we can all gather together again safely. For the record, mass protests in the streets are very bad for controlling a pandemic. 

Trump going to Kenosha = The mayor and governor asked him not to come out of fear he’d spark more violence. Trump only has his own volatile rhetoric to blame.

Biden going to Kenosha = good (Biden is capable of making non-inflammatory statements on the matter, so, yes.)

Unending wars/military commitments = bad (Agreed)

Trump reducing military commitments/not getting us into wars = bad Not at all. My previous statement here reflected my concern with Trump’s personality. His thin skin and casual approach to the military leads me to believe he’s likely to get the U.S. involved in conflicts we don’t need to be in.  I admit this is pure conjecture on my part and he is, for the record, attempting to extricate us from current conflicts.

 

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

On 9/3/2020 at 10:44 AM, Desk Jobs Suck said:

1 party is introducing socialist platforms, and 1 party is firmly against that. That is all one needs to know to make a logical choice. 

I wish it wasn't so simple. But it is.

[FLEA]

56 minutes ago, Prozac said:

 

I think your biggest fallacy here though with journalist is most people don't believe they are professional or have integrity. American opinion of journal media is at an all time low. Also, I don't want a story. I want information. Let me make conjectures about what that information means. Your story is just opinionated rubbish that needs to stay between a journalist and their friends. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by FLEA

[drewpey]

58 minutes ago, FLEA said:

American opinion of journal media is at an all time low.

Americans can't differentiate entertainment from journalism.  Also Trump calls anything that isn't state-sponsored propaganda lies, even stuff that is entirely backed up by fact, corroborating evidence, or in some cases even video/photographic evidence.  It was literally the firs thing his administration did when he marched Spicer out to complain about crowd sizes, when the truth was evident.  You all follow him into the indefensible positions and just attack the source and not the content or facts.  Once your base believes your blatant lies, you can then call anything into question.

The right want to rail against anonymous sources, while Trump himself is one of the more renowned anonymous sources.  He loves to talk to the press, and has been doing it for years and you think he suddenly stops when he gets into the oval office?  He loves Haberman and is probably the source for a lot of her "a senior official" stories.  It's his thing...he floats ideas out there anonymously...when they flop with his base he calls them lies. 

What would you do as a reporter when Trump, Kelly, Mattis, Kushner, Pompeo, Barr etc. call you up and give you a story scoop but then tell you to not quote them, but use them as an anonymous source?  Literally every one of them do it, because they all have their PFA within the administration and are jockeying for power, and use the press to move the ball behind the scenes.  It's an integral part of the process, and yes it is up to the journalist to sift through the drivel, but in the end if the journalist wasn't there they have to rely on their sources and how reputable they are.

How do you think journalistic integrity could be fixed in the eyes of the right and there be actual critical reporting of their actions and policy and still be viewed positively?  It's entirely not possible...the right is to the point that even Fox News is seen as being too left.

[SurelySerious]

Present facts without your opinion. That’s what I want. 

[drewpey]

21 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Present facts without your opinion. That’s what I want. 

Again...see differentiating entertainment/opinion from real journalism.

Who determines what is fact and what isn't?  What if two people were at an event, and they have differing opinions of what occurred or was said?  How does one report on that?

[FLEA]

50 minutes ago, drewpey said:

Americans can't differentiate entertainment from journalism.  Also Trump calls anything that isn't state-sponsored propaganda lies, even stuff that is entirely backed up by fact, corroborating evidence, or in some cases even video/photographic evidence.  It was literally the firs thing his administration did when he marched Spicer out to complain about crowd sizes, when the truth was evident.  You all follow him into the indefensible positions and just attack the source and not the content or facts.  Once your base believes your blatant lies, you can then call anything into question.

The right want to rail against anonymous sources, while Trump himself is one of the more renowned anonymous sources.  He loves to talk to the press, and has been doing it for years and you think he suddenly stops when he gets into the oval office?  He loves Haberman and is probably the source for a lot of her "a senior official" stories.  It's his thing...he floats ideas out there anonymously...when they flop with his base he calls them lies. 

What would you do as a reporter when Trump, Kelly, Mattis, Kushner, Pompeo, Barr etc. call you up and give you a story scoop but then tell you to not quote them, but use them as an anonymous source?  Literally every one of them do it, because they all have their PFA within the administration and are jockeying for power, and use the press to move the ball behind the scenes.  It's an integral part of the process, and yes it is up to the journalist to sift through the drivel, but in the end if the journalist wasn't there they have to rely on their sources and how reputable they are.

How do you think journalistic integrity could be fixed in the eyes of the right and there be actual critical reporting of their actions and policy and still be viewed positively?  It's entirely not possible...the right is to the point that even Fox News is seen as being too left.

It has nothing to do with right vs left. I'm very central moderate. However, as early as highschool English I was told I need to cite my sources and in college, taught to critically think on articles that weren't appropriately cited. Now i'm older, have a ton of experience within government, and can read between the lines. I would never suggest government controlled journalism because I do think free press is instrumental to keeping the government in check. However, as a profession, journalist have a lot of word to do to return credibility to their field.

For one, they are not experts on anything. Even an aviation journalist might know a lot about planes, but I would never trust him to fly one. How many times have you read an aviation related news article and had a short "that's not quite right" moment that changes the whole context of the article. Now apply that to EVERYTHING you've ever read in the news. Nothing you read is written by someone who is credentialed in the field they are writing on. They are simply "average joe's" writing for other "average joe's". 

Two, I have no reason to trust a journalist's integrity based on his profession. I don't trust the President based on his, why would I trust a journalist? Am I supposed to believe the guy who makes his living on his ability to get published in an era when shock news sells has any reason to be honest? Or his publisher who needs to concern himself with making the publications bottom line? Or is Brian Williams the face of journalist integrity I should be looking toward? At the end of the day though, almost ALL news media is for profit, And even that which is "not for profit" exist in a loose 501c grey area, because the reality is, if no one is reading your news, you aren't relevant. So shock value pulls "views" and "views" generate dollars. Few honest people in this world. I doubt journalism attracts more of them than any other profession. 

Three, and this is more of a personal taste, but the writing quality of journal news has really plummeted in the last 20 years. I don't have any specific examples on me at the moment but I feel about once a month I read an article and just role my eyes thinking "did a 12th grader write this?" I'm not talking so much about grammar/editing, but more so choice of words, phrases, terms, etc... A lot of what you read anymore just doesn't sound professional. 

Four, you make a good point about rolling the ball of power, if we were talking 20 years ago. But the reality is American's don't need to rely on journalist anymore, as we are in an era when any American can broadcast from home via social media. Trump saw that before his rivals and its one of the reasons he sits on the iron throne. 

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, drewpey said:

Again...see differentiating entertainment/opinion from real journalism.

Who determines what is fact and what isn't?  What if two people were at an event, and they have differing opinions of what occurred or was said?  How does one report on that?

How do police document eye witness discrepancy in reports and intel analyst rate and score source reliability? Investigation is an art practiced in many fields. Journalist seem to forgot its a huge portion of theirs. 

But herein lies the difficulty with hiding your sources. If the source is unknown how is the public privy to the sources reliability? What do the other facts indicate? Better yet, don't make an assumption, just present both accounts, both sources, and then the empirical facts. Let the reader make a judgement then. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by FLEA

[Prozac]

There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. Never has been. The whole idea is a fallacy. That’s why it’s important to read a variety of sources. And when I say read, I mean read almost exclusively as cable news networks are universally garbage. Jeffrey Goldberg is certainly biased. But he is also an accomplished and well respected journalist and his stories have merit. It’s reasonable to believe the timing of his story is meant to have maximum impact on the election. So what? Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’ll choose to believe his report, which has been verified by other, independent outlets over the pathological liar in the White House. Journalism may have its flaws, but the bigger flaw is the lack of critical thinking ability on the part of the average American. Like it or not, the free press is a critical part of a free and open society.