The extent to which the public has forgotten Trump's call to terminate the Constitution on the basis of his "stolen election" narrative is wild. It's just another example of the utterly disqualifying insanity that he serves up on a regular basis that evaporates into the air because he's Trump.
The military is already subjugated by DEI and other left wing politics. So it's already heavily political. What you mean is, Trump will try to reverse some of that.
See current DEI problems within the Secret Service for more examples.
If still in doubt, see the 'powerful, strong hand' of the Commander in Chief, who is a literal walking zombie and incapable of walking a straight for more examples of how politics are affecting the Military.
If still in doubt, see the disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan while the Taliban parade around with the weapons we left behind.
The US spends more on their military than the next 20 countries combined, and should be the most powerful force in the world, and yet it's a laughing stock to the world at this point.
Disgraceful is the perfect word for it, and it's disgraceful simply because of political interference from the Left, just like the political interference into the Presidential race in 2020 through misinformation campaigns, the political interference into the FDA in 2021 and the political interference into everything that should be non-political these days.
If Trump is going to do anything, it's going to be to reverse this trend that has ruined America's global reputation.
You're showing the size of your intellect, by not engaging with the facts of the discussion but rather by engaging with an attempt at character assassination of a nobody on the internet by another nobody.
Stick to the points, because they're true.
And if you can't stick to the points, you've already lost. Just like every other neo-Con Leftie who resorts to dishonest play to win at all costs even if it means playing unfairly.
With all due respect, please have some respect for the author and the commentors on this site. Like the commentator, you have asserted that you know what the author "means" or does not "mean." Please allow the author to respond for himself. By the way, author engagement in the commentary happens very infrequently on this site. Perhaps this is because of your strong inclination to step in for an author almost immediately (in this case 10 minutes) after a comment is made with which you disagree. If you want to promote an echo-chamber and extinguish viewpoint diversity, then keep engaging in this behavior.
Everything in this comment is stupid and wrong. Nearly universally, authors dread the comment sections and stay as far away from them as they can. This is the case at every well-known publication. Many of them even emphasize that they make it a point never to wade into the comment sections because of how bad they get. Commentators make silly claims, get nasty, derail the conversation toward their pet interests, etc. So authors naturally steer clear. We are trying to build something here where we actually keep the conversation going in the comments. When there is a comment I want to engage with—positively or critically—I do so. The commenter in this case presumed to offer a new interpretation of the author’s argument and given that know for a fact the author didn’t intend that, I challenged it. All our authors are welcome to chime in, and they sometimes do, but I’ve made it a point to do so more frequently.
Unfortunately, this argument cuts both ways. If Trump wins the election, wouldn't the military be subject to his (civilian) authority -- and wouldn't it be guilty of insubordination (and politicization) if it resists?
Isn’t there already a not insignificant percentage of people in the military who embrace MAGA ideology and are a risk to the nation because of their insurrectionist sympathies?
The extent to which the public has forgotten Trump's call to terminate the Constitution on the basis of his "stolen election" narrative is wild. It's just another example of the utterly disqualifying insanity that he serves up on a regular basis that evaporates into the air because he's Trump.
The military is already subjugated by DEI and other left wing politics. So it's already heavily political. What you mean is, Trump will try to reverse some of that.
Please have some respect for our author, who would never “mean” something as prohibitively absurd as that.
How is what Gilgamech said incorrect?
See current DEI problems within the Secret Service for more examples.
If still in doubt, see the 'powerful, strong hand' of the Commander in Chief, who is a literal walking zombie and incapable of walking a straight for more examples of how politics are affecting the Military.
If still in doubt, see the disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan while the Taliban parade around with the weapons we left behind.
The US spends more on their military than the next 20 countries combined, and should be the most powerful force in the world, and yet it's a laughing stock to the world at this point.
Disgraceful is the perfect word for it, and it's disgraceful simply because of political interference from the Left, just like the political interference into the Presidential race in 2020 through misinformation campaigns, the political interference into the FDA in 2021 and the political interference into everything that should be non-political these days.
If Trump is going to do anything, it's going to be to reverse this trend that has ruined America's global reputation.
Hello little MAGA bot. Run along now and let the serious adults talk about serious adult things.
You know nothing about me, or what I believe.
You're showing the size of your intellect, by not engaging with the facts of the discussion but rather by engaging with an attempt at character assassination of a nobody on the internet by another nobody.
Stick to the points, because they're true.
And if you can't stick to the points, you've already lost. Just like every other neo-Con Leftie who resorts to dishonest play to win at all costs even if it means playing unfairly.
Take your ball and go home.
With all due respect, please have some respect for the author and the commentors on this site. Like the commentator, you have asserted that you know what the author "means" or does not "mean." Please allow the author to respond for himself. By the way, author engagement in the commentary happens very infrequently on this site. Perhaps this is because of your strong inclination to step in for an author almost immediately (in this case 10 minutes) after a comment is made with which you disagree. If you want to promote an echo-chamber and extinguish viewpoint diversity, then keep engaging in this behavior.
Everything in this comment is stupid and wrong. Nearly universally, authors dread the comment sections and stay as far away from them as they can. This is the case at every well-known publication. Many of them even emphasize that they make it a point never to wade into the comment sections because of how bad they get. Commentators make silly claims, get nasty, derail the conversation toward their pet interests, etc. So authors naturally steer clear. We are trying to build something here where we actually keep the conversation going in the comments. When there is a comment I want to engage with—positively or critically—I do so. The commenter in this case presumed to offer a new interpretation of the author’s argument and given that know for a fact the author didn’t intend that, I challenged it. All our authors are welcome to chime in, and they sometimes do, but I’ve made it a point to do so more frequently.
Unfortunately, this argument cuts both ways. If Trump wins the election, wouldn't the military be subject to his (civilian) authority -- and wouldn't it be guilty of insubordination (and politicization) if it resists?
Isn’t there already a not insignificant percentage of people in the military who embrace MAGA ideology and are a risk to the nation because of their insurrectionist sympathies?