The polls are wrong. Just ask Trump.jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:48 am Trump's numbers among active duty military have slipped since he took office. Last Military Times poll I saw said he was a wash, mid-40s kind of approval and disapproval numbers. I suspect he has slipped most with the officer corp. This latest pardon probably doesn't help his numbers there. His debacle with the Kurds I don't think has been reflected in any poll of the military.
Orange Duce
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32839
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Orange Duce
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
-
cradleandshoot
- Posts: 14539
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Orange Duce
As always the only poll that matters takes place in November 2020.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:33 amThe polls are wrong. Just ask Trump.jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:48 am Trump's numbers among active duty military have slipped since he took office. Last Military Times poll I saw said he was a wash, mid-40s kind of approval and disapproval numbers. I suspect he has slipped most with the officer corp. This latest pardon probably doesn't help his numbers there. His debacle with the Kurds I don't think has been reflected in any poll of the military.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15167
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Orange Duce
Many people did in 2016....and he was correct.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:33 amThe polls are wrong. Just ask Trump.jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:48 am Trump's numbers among active duty military have slipped since he took office. Last Military Times poll I saw said he was a wash, mid-40s kind of approval and disapproval numbers. I suspect he has slipped most with the officer corp. This latest pardon probably doesn't help his numbers there. His debacle with the Kurds I don't think has been reflected in any poll of the military.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32839
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Orange Duce
That’s why I said ask Trump.youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:39 pmMany people did in 2016....and he was correct.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:33 amThe polls are wrong. Just ask Trump.jhu72 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:48 am Trump's numbers among active duty military have slipped since he took office. Last Military Times poll I saw said he was a wash, mid-40s kind of approval and disapproval numbers. I suspect he has slipped most with the officer corp. This latest pardon probably doesn't help his numbers there. His debacle with the Kurds I don't think has been reflected in any poll of the military.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Re: Orange Duce
Democrat John Bel Edwards wins reelection in solidly red Louisiana in spite of the OD's pleas to the contrary. It would seem Trump's persuasive skills aren't quite as strong as he would like them to be at this juncture.
-
seacoaster
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: Orange Duce
More on Trump's intervention into the military justice process. He knows more than the Generals, and better than the process by which servicemen's actions are typically evaluated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/t ... -ios-share
"Military officials publicly accepted the president’s orders — pardons for Maj. Matthew Golsteyn of the Army Special Forces and Lieutenant Lorance, and a sentence reduction for Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs — with a terse yessir.
“We acknowledge his order and are implementing it,” the Navy chief of information said on Twitter.
Privately, though, many worried that Mr. Trump’s actions could erode discipline by sending a message to troops and commanders that in some cases the laws of war would not apply.
“It’s just institutionally harmful,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate who now teaches law at Southwestern Law School. “This isn’t about these three individuals, it’s about the whole military justice system and whether that system itself is something of value to the operations of the military.”
The president, she added, “is saying he knows best.”
While all three men were accused of war crimes, the details of their cases raised disparate concerns for military order.
Lieutenant Lorance was convicted at trial in 2013 for ordering the shooting of a group of civilians in Afghanistan, an order he then tried to cover up. He was given a full pardon.
Chief Gallagher was charged with the murder of a captive in Iraq but was acquitted this summer of all charges except for the minor charge of posing for a photo with a corpse.
Major Golsteyn was awaiting trial on charges that he murdered an unarmed Afghan in 2010.
“Golsteyn is the most troubling, because the system was never given a chance to work,” said Charles Dunlap, a retired major general who was the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force and is now the head of Duke University’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.
“A court-martial is the best way to determine the facts,” he added. “We were never able to find out whether the facts would clear Golsteyn or not.”
Many senior military leaders felt the pardons sent the wrong message, said Phillip Carter, an Iraq War veteran who researches military issues at the RAND Corporation.
“Ever since Vietnam the leadership has sent a message that there is a link between discipline, respect for laws of war and military effectiveness,” Mr. Carter said. “The pardons send a different message that sometimes the laws get in the way.”
Mr. Trump is not the first commander in chief to wield the power of clemency in a polarizing way.
Washington pardoned men convicted of treason in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-94 despite howls of protest from other Federalists, said Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota.
President Abraham Lincoln repeatedly pardoned soldiers sentenced to death for desertion, even though his generals warned it would undermine battlefield discipline. President Gerald Ford announced in 1974 at a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that he planned to conditionally pardon 13,000 deserters and draft dodgers, which did not go over well with the audience of war veterans. His successor, Jimmy Carter, unconditionally pardoned hundreds of thousands of draft evaders.
“It has happened after every war,” Mr. Osler said. “Pardons are used as a way to forgive the crime and heal the nation. What is different now is, the signal here seems to be to embrace the crime, not forgive it. President Trump seems to be sending a message that the gloves are off, that we are not going to constrain our military.”
Reactions from combat veterans were split. Many thanked the president for intervening on behalf of men who had volunteered to serve and protect their country. Others said the gesture of forgiveness tarnished the service of troops who served in the same vexing conditions, but did not break the laws of war.
“This is a sad day for the tens of thousands of us who led troops in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who were proud of the way in which we maintained our good order and discipline in the face of many challenges,” Andrew Exum, a former Army Special Forces officer who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, said on Twitter. “These men, now pardoned, remain a disgrace to our ranks.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/t ... -ios-share
"Military officials publicly accepted the president’s orders — pardons for Maj. Matthew Golsteyn of the Army Special Forces and Lieutenant Lorance, and a sentence reduction for Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs — with a terse yessir.
“We acknowledge his order and are implementing it,” the Navy chief of information said on Twitter.
Privately, though, many worried that Mr. Trump’s actions could erode discipline by sending a message to troops and commanders that in some cases the laws of war would not apply.
“It’s just institutionally harmful,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate who now teaches law at Southwestern Law School. “This isn’t about these three individuals, it’s about the whole military justice system and whether that system itself is something of value to the operations of the military.”
The president, she added, “is saying he knows best.”
While all three men were accused of war crimes, the details of their cases raised disparate concerns for military order.
Lieutenant Lorance was convicted at trial in 2013 for ordering the shooting of a group of civilians in Afghanistan, an order he then tried to cover up. He was given a full pardon.
Chief Gallagher was charged with the murder of a captive in Iraq but was acquitted this summer of all charges except for the minor charge of posing for a photo with a corpse.
Major Golsteyn was awaiting trial on charges that he murdered an unarmed Afghan in 2010.
“Golsteyn is the most troubling, because the system was never given a chance to work,” said Charles Dunlap, a retired major general who was the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force and is now the head of Duke University’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.
“A court-martial is the best way to determine the facts,” he added. “We were never able to find out whether the facts would clear Golsteyn or not.”
Many senior military leaders felt the pardons sent the wrong message, said Phillip Carter, an Iraq War veteran who researches military issues at the RAND Corporation.
“Ever since Vietnam the leadership has sent a message that there is a link between discipline, respect for laws of war and military effectiveness,” Mr. Carter said. “The pardons send a different message that sometimes the laws get in the way.”
Mr. Trump is not the first commander in chief to wield the power of clemency in a polarizing way.
Washington pardoned men convicted of treason in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-94 despite howls of protest from other Federalists, said Mark Osler, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota.
President Abraham Lincoln repeatedly pardoned soldiers sentenced to death for desertion, even though his generals warned it would undermine battlefield discipline. President Gerald Ford announced in 1974 at a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that he planned to conditionally pardon 13,000 deserters and draft dodgers, which did not go over well with the audience of war veterans. His successor, Jimmy Carter, unconditionally pardoned hundreds of thousands of draft evaders.
“It has happened after every war,” Mr. Osler said. “Pardons are used as a way to forgive the crime and heal the nation. What is different now is, the signal here seems to be to embrace the crime, not forgive it. President Trump seems to be sending a message that the gloves are off, that we are not going to constrain our military.”
Reactions from combat veterans were split. Many thanked the president for intervening on behalf of men who had volunteered to serve and protect their country. Others said the gesture of forgiveness tarnished the service of troops who served in the same vexing conditions, but did not break the laws of war.
“This is a sad day for the tens of thousands of us who led troops in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who were proud of the way in which we maintained our good order and discipline in the face of many challenges,” Andrew Exum, a former Army Special Forces officer who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, said on Twitter. “These men, now pardoned, remain a disgrace to our ranks.”
Re: Orange Duce
Sad. AND consistent with this President's general admiration for strongmen around the globe.seacoaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 7:16 am More on Trump's intervention into the military justice process. He knows more than the Generals, and better than the process by which servicemen's actions are typically evaluated.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/t ... -ios-share
“It has happened after every war,” Mr. Osler said. “Pardons are used as a way to forgive the crime and heal the nation. What is different now is, the signal here seems to be to embrace the crime, not forgive it. President Trump seems to be sending a message that the gloves are off, that we are not going to constrain our military.”
-
seacoaster
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: Orange Duce
Tom Friedman on our Secretary of State's service to the President, and not much else:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/opin ... e=Homepage
"Yes, Pompeo knew 100 percent that it was all a setup. We know that because, when Senator Bob Menendez asked Pompeo’s deputy secretary of state, John Sullivan, about Yovanovitch — at Sullivan’s Senate confirmation hearing on Oct. 30 to become the next U.S. ambassador to Moscow — he stated that she had served “admirably and capably.” When Menendez asked Sullivan whether Giuliani was behind her removal, Sullivan baldly declared that Giuliani was “seeking to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch, or have her removed. I believed he was, yes.”
Those were the words of Pompeo’s own deputy!
But they’ve never come out of Pompeo’s mouth. Though he reportedly argued privately to the President to keep Yovanovitch in place, Pompeo faithfully executed Trump’s order without uttering a word to defend his ambassador’s reputation in public.
Pompeo instead let his ambassador to Ukraine — who depended on him for protection — be stabbed in her back with a Twitter knife, wielded by the president, rather than tell Trump: “Sorry, Mr. President, if you fire her, I will resign. Because to do otherwise would be unjust and against my values and character — and because I would lose the loyalty of all my diplomats if I silently went along with such a travesty of justice against a distinguished 33-year veteran of the foreign service.”
The irony us, I guess, that if Pompeo had given the President an ultimatum like this, there's a pretty good chance the President would have avoided the impeachable conduct he and Rudy and Gordon later engaged in. Don McGhan has a lesson for you, Mike.
"Trump, the cowardly bully that he is, probably would have backed down had Pompeo showed some spine. But Pompeo did not attempt that, because he wants to run for president after Trump — and did not want to risk alienating Trump. It is as simple as that, folks.
Or it’s as simple as this: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” — Mark 8:36."
Assumes a fact not in evidence?
As two now retired, longtime State Department diplomats, Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky, wrote on CNN.com on Saturday, “At the very least, Pompeo enabled the smear campaign to go unchallenged, acquiesced in the Giuliani back-channel effort with Ukraine and failed to say a word in defense of Bill Taylor, George Kent or Marie Yovanovitch. These are breathtaking acts of craven political cowardice and beneath the dignity of any secretary of state.”
Mike Pompeo: Last in his class at West Point on ethics in leadership.
I get the fact that Congressman Devin Nunes and Senator Lindsey Graham have a contest going over who can debase themselves in public the most by defending indefensible actions by Trump. (It’s neck and neck.) But they’re G.O.P. politicians, people we now know who will do anything to avoid giving up their $174,000-a-year salaries and free parking at National Airport.
But Pompeo is the secretary of state. That is such a privilege and responsibility. Thomas Jefferson was the first person to hold that job. Pompeo is no Jefferson. All he is doing now is trying to hide as much as possible from public view, counting on the next Trump outrage to wash away his own outrageous behavior. But the mark of Cain on his forehead will not wash off. He didn’t even have the decency or courage to speak to Yovanovitch personally, to look her in the eye and at least say, “Hey, I’m sorry.’’
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/opin ... e=Homepage
"Yes, Pompeo knew 100 percent that it was all a setup. We know that because, when Senator Bob Menendez asked Pompeo’s deputy secretary of state, John Sullivan, about Yovanovitch — at Sullivan’s Senate confirmation hearing on Oct. 30 to become the next U.S. ambassador to Moscow — he stated that she had served “admirably and capably.” When Menendez asked Sullivan whether Giuliani was behind her removal, Sullivan baldly declared that Giuliani was “seeking to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch, or have her removed. I believed he was, yes.”
Those were the words of Pompeo’s own deputy!
But they’ve never come out of Pompeo’s mouth. Though he reportedly argued privately to the President to keep Yovanovitch in place, Pompeo faithfully executed Trump’s order without uttering a word to defend his ambassador’s reputation in public.
Pompeo instead let his ambassador to Ukraine — who depended on him for protection — be stabbed in her back with a Twitter knife, wielded by the president, rather than tell Trump: “Sorry, Mr. President, if you fire her, I will resign. Because to do otherwise would be unjust and against my values and character — and because I would lose the loyalty of all my diplomats if I silently went along with such a travesty of justice against a distinguished 33-year veteran of the foreign service.”
The irony us, I guess, that if Pompeo had given the President an ultimatum like this, there's a pretty good chance the President would have avoided the impeachable conduct he and Rudy and Gordon later engaged in. Don McGhan has a lesson for you, Mike.
"Trump, the cowardly bully that he is, probably would have backed down had Pompeo showed some spine. But Pompeo did not attempt that, because he wants to run for president after Trump — and did not want to risk alienating Trump. It is as simple as that, folks.
Or it’s as simple as this: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” — Mark 8:36."
Assumes a fact not in evidence?
As two now retired, longtime State Department diplomats, Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky, wrote on CNN.com on Saturday, “At the very least, Pompeo enabled the smear campaign to go unchallenged, acquiesced in the Giuliani back-channel effort with Ukraine and failed to say a word in defense of Bill Taylor, George Kent or Marie Yovanovitch. These are breathtaking acts of craven political cowardice and beneath the dignity of any secretary of state.”
Mike Pompeo: Last in his class at West Point on ethics in leadership.
I get the fact that Congressman Devin Nunes and Senator Lindsey Graham have a contest going over who can debase themselves in public the most by defending indefensible actions by Trump. (It’s neck and neck.) But they’re G.O.P. politicians, people we now know who will do anything to avoid giving up their $174,000-a-year salaries and free parking at National Airport.
But Pompeo is the secretary of state. That is such a privilege and responsibility. Thomas Jefferson was the first person to hold that job. Pompeo is no Jefferson. All he is doing now is trying to hide as much as possible from public view, counting on the next Trump outrage to wash away his own outrageous behavior. But the mark of Cain on his forehead will not wash off. He didn’t even have the decency or courage to speak to Yovanovitch personally, to look her in the eye and at least say, “Hey, I’m sorry.’’
Re: Orange Duce
The Three Stooges — Roger the Dodger, Pauly Walnuts, and Rudy Colludi — no doubt are sweating bullets over Trump’s trip to the hospital on Saturday. Probably lit a candle or two praying The Donald stays upright. I am sure they are also hoping he loses in 2020, that is, if he is not removed via impeachment. If he loses the election, then those precious pardons will come through by January 20, 2021. If he wins, I suspect he will still pardon them, but the timing of that would be uncertain, and could be much later.
Re: Orange Duce
wow.....just wow.
RE-election....that still means that one was ALREADY been elected (and Congress does so at a 98% clip)
this is your whataboutism attempt to show tRump is losing appeal?
just as you guys want a traffic cone, anyone other than him.......many in the USA do NOT support donald S. tRump....as a person or politician. But, NO ONE is more perfectly suited too piss off the pretends in the pretend parties of pretend difference. And yes, LAUGH at guys on street corners holding tRump signs and yelling "facts" in rural Massachesettes towns. Tell me you don't enjoy laughing at this women, pretends? Where's the arrests? The outrage? It's sickening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWIMt9JxugQ
As AFAN loves to point out....even the pretend CONServatives don't care about the GOP's number one tenant .........spending........and it's out of control increases that ONLY go to the oligarchs.
oligarchy thanks you......same as it evah was
-
ardilla secreta
- Posts: 2168
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 am
- Location: Niagara Frontier
Re: Orange Duce
Another fine Trump supporter who loves the president is having trouble with reality. As an added Trump bonus, his plea included admitting he illegally had guns (two were found). He’d been barred from possessing them after a 1998 felony criminal mischief conviction.
“Prosecutors say the 55-year-old called Omar’s office March 21, told a staffer the congresswoman was a “terrorist” and threatened to shoot her.
Carlineo later told the FBI that he is a patriot, hates people he perceives to be radical Muslims in the U.S. government, and loves Republican President Donald Trump, according to a criminal complaint.”
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/rocheste ... -omar.html
“Prosecutors say the 55-year-old called Omar’s office March 21, told a staffer the congresswoman was a “terrorist” and threatened to shoot her.
Carlineo later told the FBI that he is a patriot, hates people he perceives to be radical Muslims in the U.S. government, and loves Republican President Donald Trump, according to a criminal complaint.”
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/rocheste ... -omar.html
Re: Orange Duce
Why would anyone be surprised?ardilla secreta wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:51 am Another fine Trump supporter who loves the president is having trouble with reality. As an added Trump bonus, his plea included admitting he illegally had guns (two were found). He’d been barred from possessing them after a 1998 felony criminal mischief conviction.
“Prosecutors say the 55-year-old called Omar’s office March 21, told a staffer the congresswoman was a “terrorist” and threatened to shoot her.
Carlineo later told the FBI that he is a patriot, hates people he perceives to be radical Muslims in the U.S. government, and loves Republican President Donald Trump, according to a criminal complaint.”
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/rocheste ... -omar.html
Re: Orange Duce
Orange Duce lost another court appeal today. Does he ever get tired of winning?
-
seacoaster
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: Orange Duce
Interesting:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/trac ... istration/
I looked this up after reading about the idiot Press Secretary this morning.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/trac ... istration/
I looked this up after reading about the idiot Press Secretary this morning.
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15167
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Orange Duce
#LeakersMatterseacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:33 am Interesting:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/trac ... istration/
I looked this up after reading about the idiot Press Secretary this morning.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
Re: Orange Duce
Anyone else notice yesterday when the stable genius exited AF1 in Austin that he used the lower (shorter) stairs and was accompanied by the WH Physician?
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
Re: Orange Duce
Must be the spurz are flairing up.
Re: Orange Duce
Seeming to put to lie the BS explanations of his visit to Walter Read.
-
ardilla secreta
- Posts: 2168
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 am
- Location: Niagara Frontier