Jump to content
Baseops Forums
disgruntledemployee

The Next President is...

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, busdriver said:

Is anyone surprised that the President acts like a petulant child?

Does anyone actually think the politicians we're looking at are quality choices?  You either accept that this is the way the game is played, vote for a third party, or freak the fuck out like this isn't the same ole shit that's been going on forever.  Everyone has already decided which is the lesser shit sandwich to eat, then rationalizes their choice by pointing to the other pile of shit while ignoring their own.

 

The major party POTUS candidates have been especially bad the last two elections.  I'm a third party guy, but I'd take any of the major party candidates from the previous 3 decades over Trump, Hillary or Biden.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, busdriver said:

Is anyone surprised that the President acts like a petulant child?

Does anyone actually think the politicians we're looking at are quality choices?  You either accept that this is the way the game is played, vote for a third party, or freak the fuck out like this isn't the same ole shit that's been going on forever.  Everyone has already decided which is the lesser shit sandwich to eat, then rationalizes their choice by pointing to the other pile of shit while ignoring their own.

 

After the Atlantic story I'm starting to wonder if Trump isn't high functioning autistic which would actually explain A LOT about him. But I actually don't doubt the Atlantic story because he has said things in poor taste to military and veterans in the past. These arent just beyond the normal expectations of social couth but hint that Trump may be incapable of certain degrees of empathy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FLEA said:

After the Atlantic story I'm starting to wonder if Trump isn't high functioning autistic which would actually explain A LOT about him. But I actually don't doubt the Atlantic story because he has said things in poor taste to military and veterans in the past. These arent just beyond the normal expectations of social couth but hint that Trump may be incapable of certain degrees of empathy. 

Atlantic publishes "anonymously sourced" article last night.

On the record sources, including infamous John Bolton, say it's false.

Well-produced and scripted Democrat attack ads released using the story today, within 8 hours of the release.  Same for the anti-Trump veterans letters being distributed citing the piece as evidence.

Same outlet, among others, was 24/7 "Russia, Russia, Russia."

Color me squint-eyed and a little cynical about another type of collusion.

 

Not to mention, nary a word anywhere about a FOIA lawsuit filed this week against Secret Service for admittedly destroying records regarding Biden feeling up the wife of an agent at a photo op.  Agent had to be physically restrained from decking "Fingers."

Nothing to see here.  Move along...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Atlantic publishes "anonymously sourced" article last night.

On the record sources, including infamous John Bolton, say it's false.

Well-produced and scripted Democrat attack ads released using the story today, within 8 hours of the release.  Same for the anti-Trump veterans letters being distributed citing the piece as evidence.

Same outlet, among others, was 24/7 "Russia, Russia, Russia."

Color me squint-eyed and a little cynical about another type of collusion.

 

Not to mention, nary a word anywhere about a FOIA lawsuit filed this week against Secret Service for admittedly destroying records regarding Biden feeling up the wife of an agent at a photo op.  Agent had to be physically restrained from decking "Fingers."

Nothing to see here.  Move along...

This is all true. Definitely a "he said/she said" article. However, the Atlantic likely notified the White House and both parties last week they intended to publish the article. This is common in journalism before you publish a slandering story and I heard as early as Tuesday that the Atlantic intended to publish a story about Trump making negative remarks about the US military. So no surprises there. However....

This is the same President who called POW's losers, and who disparaged the gold star parents of a fallen veteran and described his merits creating jobs and real estate as equally sacrificial to the life of their son. 

I'm not saying this makes Trump a good or bad President. Its an interesting observation. If he is high functioning autistic, he would not be alone, as many people in the intel community believe his good buddy Putin is also high functioning. 

In fact, just looking up the definition of Asperger's again: "a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."

He definitely has repetitive speech patterns. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Atlantic publishes "anonymously sourced" article last night.

On the record sources, including infamous John Bolton, say it's false.

Well-produced and scripted Democrat attack ads released using the story today, within 8 hours of the release.  Same for the anti-Trump veterans letters being distributed citing the piece as evidence.

Same outlet, among others, was 24/7 "Russia, Russia, Russia."

Color me squint-eyed and a little cynical about another type of collusion.

 

Not to mention, nary a word anywhere about a FOIA lawsuit filed this week against Secret Service for admittedly destroying records regarding Biden feeling up the wife of an agent at a photo op.  Agent had to be physically restrained from decking "Fingers."

Nothing to see here.  Move along...

The democrats were probably stroking each other in glee as they thought they hit gold with this hit piece.  Perhaps another “grab her by the pxxxx” October surprise which Trump has apologized for many times (cmon gents.. you have said worse and don’t BS me into claiming you haven’t, right or wrong.)  

Unfortunately, this is just that, a hit piece devoid of any evidence, logic or fact. Much like the hit piece with Russia or Kavanaugh.  It will fall flat...and add it to the reasons why I will laugh so hard when the mass tears flow from the leftists 3 November.  You reap what you sow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day, Trump will be gone.

What will the media do to regain it's credibility then?

But as long as their tribe wins, I guess it's worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(cmon gents.. you have said worse and don’t BS me into claiming you haven’t, right or wrong.)   

No, I haven’t. While I do know people who have talked like this, they aren’t what I’d consider stand up guys. You simply sound like someone who disguises misogyny with “Locker room” talk. I apologize if I mislabeled you, but your statement would lead one to believe it isn’t a stretch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Same outlet, among others, was 24/7 "Russia, Russia, Russia."

AP and Fox News both corroborated the story.

Russia indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, "anonymous sources" claim it.  Multiple on-the-record folks say it's false.  

From outlets that have beclowned themselves repeatedly.  Including Fox News which only corroborated, they say, part of the story.

Not to mention the timing of the Democrat ads using the Atlantic article - hours after the article, boom, there are the well-polished ads.  Complete with veterans against Trump letters.  That's efficiency... 

 

Let those anonymous sources go on the record.  Wonder why they didn't/won't?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear god. This guy really could shoot someone on the street in broad daylight and his supporters would claim fake news. The Atlantic article is completely in character with things he’s said publicly and has been confirmed by multiple sources. Anonymous sources make major contributions to stories all the time. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear god. This guy really could shoot someone on the street in broad daylight and his supporters would claim fake news. The Atlantic article is completely in character with things he’s said publicly and has been confirmed by multiple sources. Anonymous sources make major contributions to stories all the time. 
Ref. Deep Throat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"anonymous sources" isn't as nefarious as it sounds, and no credible journalist would risk their career quoting a shady anonymous source.  I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the process of using anonymous sources.  Trump et al like to think anyone and everyone can be an anonymous source for anything, but that's not how it works.  Also this administration torpedoes anyone who isn't gushingly supportive of Trump, so it's no wonder they don't raise their hand as all you drones will follow your leader into hating him....see McCain who went from your 2012 2008 presidential hopeful to a "RINO" in a matter of years despite him having little to no shift in ideals or positions.

Trump rolled in hot on Kelly during an interview recently, so I think Trump knows it was him, and is annoyed he can't single him out or he verifies the story.

If you've been paying attention this is just the latest in a long line of slights towards the military, so it's hardly a surprise to anyone.  Democrats don't need to "dig" to find stuff on Trump, shit just floats to the surface.  There's always a "greatest hits" list floating around reddit...

 

If even 10% of this is truth, it's reprehensible and you would be howling if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

EDIT: forgot it was 2008, not 2012

Edited by drewpey
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I call BS.

And if anything believes the Democrats are going to treat the military any better, you need professional help!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drewpey said:

"anonymous sources" isn't as nefarious as it sounds, and no credible journalist would risk their career quoting a shady anonymous source.  I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the process of using anonymous sources.  Trump et al like to think anyone and everyone can be an anonymous source for anything, but that's not how it works.  Also this administration torpedoes anyone who isn't gushingly supportive of Trump, so it's no wonder they don't raise their hand as all you drones will follow your leader into hating him....see McCain who went from your 2012 2008 presidential hopeful to a "RINO" in a matter of years despite him having little to no shift in ideals or positions.

Trump rolled in hot on Kelly during an interview recently, so I think Trump knows it was him, and is annoyed he can't single him out or he verifies the story.

If you've been paying attention this is just the latest in a long line of slights towards the military, so it's hardly a surprise to anyone.  Democrats don't need to "dig" to find stuff on Trump, shit just floats to the surface.  There's always a "greatest hits" list floating around reddit...

 

If even 10% of this is truth, it's reprehensible and you would be howling if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

EDIT: forgot it was 2008, not 2012

So while some of this is verifiably true, a lot of this sounds like it's written by someone outside the military with little knowledge of how government works. About 1/3 of these decisions were made far below Trump's level. About another 1/3 aren't really even that big of a deal. And about 1/3 is stuff that he probably shouldn't have said, or a socially couth person at least wouldn't have said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by waveshaper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by brawnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...