Oh I see the difference, R's are worse.False equivalencies. People like you need to figure this crap out. I mean, it's beyond stupid that you can't see the differences at this point, between the 2 parties.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh I see the difference, R's are worse.False equivalencies. People like you need to figure this crap out. I mean, it's beyond stupid that you can't see the differences at this point, between the 2 parties.
So what does this have to do with Trump?True.
Non interventionists draw the ire from both parties.
Again, how does Trump factor into this brand of politician?Yup, and are rebranded as protectionists, which is different.
Yesterday it was "Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable". Today it's "The fear of a looming Trump dictatorship". What will it be tomorrow? "The for really real immenent Trump dictatorship"?
Stable genius. How did we get to this? Almost half the country has been tricked by this lunatic, or at least thinks he's an option.
Oh you mean like all the things the libtards are currently DOING and have done? Who's the one's that censored speech? Who are the one's indicting their main political opponent? You're an idiot.I think it's insane no one believes these people are going to do what they explicitly say they are going to do.
You are a pathetic jokeOh you mean like all the things the libtards are currently DOING and have done? Who's the one's that censored speech? Who are the one's indicting their main political opponent? You're an idiot.
Man. Basketball. Camera.This was interesting to me. I wanted to post it but wasn’t sure where. This is as good of a spot as any.
I was watching old NBA you tube high lights.
On June 1, 1995 game 6 between the Rockets and the Spurs, Donald Trump was a NBC guest cameraman. He was running a camera.
Lol. I don’t laugh out loud often, but this whining bs got me. Silly talk. Was Chis your source on this? So ignorantly dramatic.If reelected, Trump would attempt to gain authoritarian control of the Defense Department’s uppermost levels from the very beginning. There are more Anthony Tatas and Douglas Macgregors out there, and Trump’s allies are likely already seeking to identify them. If the Senate refused to confirm Trump’s appointees, it wouldn’t matter much: Trump has learned that he can keep rotating people through acting positions, daring the Senate to stop him.
The career civil servants underneath these appointees—who work on everything from recruiting to nuclear planning—would disobey Trump if he attacked the constitutional order. These civilians, by law, cannot be fired at will, a problem Trump tried to remedy in the last months of his administration by proposing a new category of government appointments (Schedule F) that would have converted some of the most important civil-service positions into political appointments directly controlled by the White House. President Joe Biden immediately repealed this move after taking office, but Trump has vowed to reinstate it.
Read: Trump’s open plot to dismantle the federal government
In his two-pronged offensive to capture the military establishment while eviscerating the civil service, Trump would likely rely on former officers such as Miller and fringe-dwelling civilians such as Patel, but he would also almost certainly find at least a few serving senior officers—he would not need many—who would accept his offer to abandon their oath. Together, they would make a run at changing the nature of the armed forces.
This is not abstract theorizing. The Heritage Foundation recently released “Project 2025,” a right-wing blueprint for the next Republican president’s administration. The Defense Department chapter was written by none other than former Acting Secretary Christopher Miller. It is mostly a rationalization for more spending, but it includes a clear call for a purge of the military’s senior ranks to clean out “Marxist indoctrination”—an accusation he does not define—along with demands for expelling trans service members and reinstating those service members who were dismissed for refusing COVID vaccinations.
The problems of ideological polarization and extremism in the armed forces are not as extensive as some critics of the military imagine, but they are more worrisome than the military leadership would like to admit. Military officers tend to be more conservative than the public, and as far back as the Clinton and Obama administrations, I occasionally heard senior officers speak of these liberal presidents in deeply contemptuous terms (potentially a crime under military regulations). Today, military bases are subjected to a constant barrage of Fox News in almost every area with a television, and toward the end of my teaching career (I retired in 2022), I often heard senior officers repeating almost verbatim some of the most overheated and paranoid talking points about politics and national affairs from the network’s prime-time hosts. Some of these officers would be tempted to answer Trump’s call.
The rest of the members of the professional military, despite their concerns, would likely follow their instincts and default to the orders of their chain of command. The American political system was never intended to cope with someone like Trump; the military is trained and organized to obey, not resist, the orders of the civilian commander in chief.
Trump’s plans would likely use this obedience to the chain of command to exploit an unfortunate vulnerability in the modern American armed forces: The military, in my experience, has a political-literacy problem. Too many people in uniform no longer have a basic grounding in the constitutional foundation of American government and the civil-military relationship. (Some of my colleagues who teach in senior-military educational institutions share this concern, and over the years, some of us have tried, often in vain, to push more study of the Constitution into the curricula.) These men and women are neither unintelligent nor disloyal. Rather, like many Americans, they are no longer taught basic civics, and they may struggle with the line between executing the orders of the president as the commander in chief and obeying the Constitution.
Trump’s appointees also would be able to influence the future of the armed forces through assignments and promotions (and non-promotions) within each branch—and through their behavior as examples to the rest of the military. With top cover from the White House, Trump’s functionaries in the Pentagon, working with his supporters in the ranks, could poison the military for years to come by ignoring laws, regulations, and traditions as they see fit. (Recall, for example, that Trump is an admirer of the disgraced Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, and intervened to make sure Gallagher kept his SEAL Trident after he was charged with war crimes and found guilty of posing for photos with a captive’s dead body.) America’s military is built on virtues such as honor and duty, but abusing and discarding the norms that support those virtues would change the military’s culture—and faster than we may realize.
Even if only some of the actions I’ve described here succeed, any number of disasters might follow. Trump could jeopardize national security by surrounding himself with military and defense officials who would help him dissolve our alliances (especially NATO), weaken our military readiness, undermine our intelligence services, and abandon our friends around the world, all while he seeks closer relations with authoritarian regimes—especially Vladimir Putin’s Russia. He could issue illegal orders to engage in torture or to commit other war crimes overseas. And he could bring the entire planet to disaster should senior military leaders obey his unhinged orders to kill foreign leaders, start a war, or even use nuclear weapons.
From the January/February 2024 issue: Anne Applebaum on how Trump will abandon NATO
At home, Trump could order unconstitutional shows of military support for his administration to intimidate his opponents. He could order American soldiers into the streets against protesters. (Trump’s allies are reportedly drawing up plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on Inauguration Day to quell any demonstrations against his return to office.) Officers refusing such orders could be dismissed or reassigned, which in turn could provoke a political confrontation between the Trump loyalists in the high command and the rest of the armed forces, itself a frightening and previously unthinkable prospect.
And if Trump succeeds in simultaneously capturing the U.S. military while gutting the other key institutions that protect democracy—especially the courts and the Justice Department—nothing will stop him from using force to put down opposition and stay in power.
Some Americans fear that the United States is already in a struggle with fascism. The firm constitutional loyalty of the armed forces during Trump’s presidency was a reminder that such fears are overblown, at least for the moment. But Trump and his allies understand that by leaving the military outside their political control the last time around, they also left intact a crucial bulwark against their plans. They will not make the same mistake twice.
It is exactly what Trump has told you he'd do.Lol. I don’t laugh out loud often, but this whining bs got me. Silly talk. Was Chis your source on this? So ignorantly dramatic.
LIZ RESPECTS OUR CONSTITUTION YOU IDIOT.Oh, so Liz is a okay. She is a wonderful, amazing person. Just because she's anti-abortion, anti-LGTBQ, anti-climate change, voted against student loan payoff and voted to get rid of Universal Health Care, she's the bizz nizz because she doesn't like Trump. Do you people even listen to yourselves? You'll cut off your face to spite your nose.
But aren't all the things she's against the Constitution? That's what all the liberals claim as to why we need them. Help me understand your logic. I'm not trying to be an ass about this. I'm just very confused with liberal and to some degree conservative logic. You will celebrate her because she doesn't like Trump, because he tried ending wars (we all know Cheneys love wars and profit from them), but she stands for everything you champion for. It's very confusing and frankly scary if you think about it.LIZ RESPECTS OUR CONSTITUTION YOU IDIOT.
I celebrate her because she jumped off the Trump bandwagon and stood to see that our democracy/constitution remains intact. I celebrate her because she respected our judicial system rather than respecting the lies of a fat loser.But aren't all the things she's against the Constitution? That's what all the liberals claim as to why we need them. Help me understand your logic. I'm not trying to be an ass about this. I'm just very confused with liberal and to some degree conservative logic. You will celebrate her because she doesn't like Trump, because he tried ending wars (we all know Cheneys love wars and profit from them), but she stands for everything you champion for. It's very confusing and frankly scary if you think about it.
Try again.But aren't all the things she's against the Constitution?
So, people hate Trump so much, that they are willing to overlook all the things they have stood for, for 50+ years? I'm just curios again, that belief (she doesn't like Trump) separates you from the MAGA crowd, how?I celebrate her because she jumped off the Trump bandwagon and stood to see that our democracy/constitution remains intact. I celebrate her because she respected our judicial system rather than respecting the lies of a fat loser.
I can't stand any of her political beliefs, but again, that's not the point here.
FALSEShe could care less about the Constitution if it didn't suit her.
You won't find any quote from her attempting to overturn or undermine the Constitution.Proof that what I said is false.
I get it. You don't have a job and get paid to be on here as an DNC rep. But Liz Cheney and that family are horrible people. 95% of what that woman says is a lie and the other 5% is complete BS.FALSE
Vote her in as president if you love her so much.You won't find any quote from her attempting to overturn or undermine the Constitution.
Go try, Komrade.
Where did I claim I wanted her as President?Vote her in as president if you love her so much.
She voted against Obamacare. How's that for a quote.Don't think you do.
Didn't find any quotes, did you?
I've seen more liberals try and undermine the Constitution than anybody. You are only saying what you are saying because she is saying against Trump. Trump isn't the problem, he's just a person. The problem is the crazy MAGA people thinking he's a God or something (maybe 10% of the people). Then people like you who are constantly railing against him. If he's that bad, then get your party together and come up with a candidate who has good ideas that the middle of the road people out here. Middle of the road people don't want the far-right agenda and don't want the far-left either. Newsom and Biden aren't the answer. Trump isn't the answer either. You and your buddies getting on here acting like an asshat doesn't help either. Infact it's driving people like me away. Right now, the Democrats have serious problems, and they need to be fixed, and blasting Trump isn't the answer either. I can tell you this, if it's between Trump and Biden, I'm writing in SpongeBob SquarePants.Where did I claim I wanted her as President?
I simply support her position that undermining/overturning our Constitution is 'bad'.
She voted against Obamacare.
Sure, you have, Cletus.I've seen more liberals try and undermine the Constitution than anybody.