I don't know a single retired or former naval officer who supports Harris or supported Biden. Otherwise, which party is actively against both the 1st and 2nd Amendments?
The Afghan withdrawal is not just Biden's fault. And we should point out that if we stayed longer, perhaps even increasing our presence, a lot more than 13 would have died. I read two biographies on Trump in 2016. Both pointed out his involvement with laundering Russian mafia money through his real estate. He's still a criminal in my book and completely off the table for president.
To the extent that Harris needs foreign policy experience, it isn't like she won't surround herself with experts ( Biden, Obama and numerous others with current or recent State Department experience would be available -- even Blinken although he doesn't plan to stick around in his role)
As far as the defense budget, well I'm no more a single-issue voter on that than I am on abortion.
I think she recognizes the importance of Ukraine, how much of what we're spending on that is actually flowing back into our economy. The recent bill that passed to prevent presidents from unilaterally withdrawing us from treaties like NATO is an unknown quantity, not yet tested. I'm confident Harris would not entertain any such notions.
Bryan: Can we agree on our national security reality in the past 3.5 years under Biden/Harris. A disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan cost US lives with thousands of other US citizens left behind, and ZERO accountability. The retired military officers blaming Trump for this (none of whom served in 2020) must have forgotten their sacred commitment of military leadership never to "blame the previous commander" for current mission failures. And lets not forget about the resurgence of the Taliban (with US equipment left behind) and ISIS in Afgh. Military readiness (munitions, maintenance, training) is dangerously low. Recruiting and retention are barely recovering from an awful 2 year period in 21/22 and both are now horrifically driving projected military end strength for the first time in history as opposed to our national defense strategy. Shipbuilding is falling further behind. Our Navy is engaged in active combat using multi million dollar munitions against $50k drones on the Red Sea. Putin has attacked not just Ukraine, but also US infrastructure, and we are sending billions with no end in sight. Iran has attacked our strongest ally in the Middle East through its terrorist proxies and may open up a 3rd front while still holding US hostages. Oh, and they also have attacked US infrastructure. China and Russia are conducting joint military maneuvers off the Alaskan Coast. NK and Russia are aligned on arms deliveries. And China is advancing throughout the China Sea and the western Pacific sensing a vacuum of U.S. leadership. Our adversaries are weaponizing Space while we complain “no fair”. And all this “joy” is just the unclass version. As for NATO- Russia aggression has united NATO, not US leadership. President Trump saw the overreliance by NATO Nations on US resources (as did 4 previous Presidents) and actually tried to solve the problem by suggesting the alliance in its current form is outdated and ineffective. Withdrawal was the first option – or a significant change in the sources of resources for the collective defense. Would you admit that in 2024, we are in a different world order where CRINK, led by China, are aligned and coordinating a challenge to the Western World? Where do our NATO commitment add value in our ability to adapt and respond to this campaign? Should we actually be reaching out to Russian and NK to break up the alliance and focus on China. We are indeed on the verge of WWIII and cannot afford another 4 years of failed global leadership. I trust President Trump and his national security team to have better plans and policies to protect US national security interests.
Recapping Trump first, including the "suckers" quote. Snopes, never accused of being even handed to anyone right of Bernie Sanders and his Bros, originally found as "true" the Trump attributed Charlottesville "very fine people" statement that Biden used against Trump. Snopes finally corrected themselves, but only after 7 years of perpetuating the falsehood. (But it was OK because it's just Trump.) As for Trump allegedly calling fallen soldiers "suckers and losers" even Snopes stated: "In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump's alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members "losers" and "suckers." While it was certainly possible that he said those things, Snopes was unable to independently verify the claim." It would be a reasonable presumption Vindman would have been a "source" for The Atlantic. No video, no audio, not even a note from anyone who was there, or not. But an anonymous "claim" is fact because, well, it's Trump, so it just is. Trump didn't like McCain - so what? Trump's biggest, most despised "flaw," is this: Trumpis not a product of a Washington, DC, politically approved pipeline. That, and the fact that he did not recognize that general officers and admirals at the Pentagon, and more generally around the beltway, are themselves in that pipeline or graduates. Milley tops the list. Walks out of the Oval and calls The New York Times. (Books to write, you see...) This appears to extend even into the field grade officer ranks. This gaggle makes their own orders, report to themselves and act in their interests. Kabul was a success, nobody got fired - hell, nobody ever gets fired. It's a promotion machine. How many generals do we have today vs WWII? How many generals got fired in WWII?How many "star" officers do we actually need? Are they really just politicians in uniform? I arrived at Dolan Barracks, West Germany in February, 1972. Nixon mined Haiphong harbor in May. I've met Nazis, real ones, not kids. Same for communists - Vietnam back them, I was spit on at airports, it was the whole U.S. baby killing soldiers era. Sitting this election out, in point of fact, scores a vote for two Marxists. Walz says it's "neighborliness." Harris learned from her boyfriend, mentor, facilitator, guide, man who got her elected to every California office she held from San Francisco District Attorney to California Attorney General to U.S. Senator from California - the one and only, forever, Willie Brown; former San Francisco Mayor, former Speaker of the California State Assembly. He really is that much and he really is that good. I know. I've met him, my state association and I, had to deal with him. Likable guy, on the one hand. Willie is proud at 90! Have no doubt about what Willie helped create or who she is become. Criminals are the only victims, funding criminals' bail, cashless bail, the border - 10 million illegals (or is it 20,) give up our country, just for starters. And her fingerprints are everywhere - same as in my failed home State of California. If you don't cast a vote in this election you are, in fact, voting for Marxism.
I don't like Trump's penchant for making intemperate and ill-advised remarks on Twitter, and I don't like his stance on the Ukraine War. Biden, by dribbling aid to Ukraine and failing to stand up to the promises made in the Budapest Memorandum to defend Ukraine's *1991* borders - promises which were made to induce Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, the possession of which would have deterred Russia from invading, has adopted a weak and feckless policy which will destroy US influence in foreign policy and eventually pose a threat to US national security - and there is no indication that Harris, with *no* foreign policy experience, will be any better.
So far as I'm concerned - or was, up until the attempted assassination - neither Biden nor Harris nor Trump was fit for the office. The thing which tipped the balance for me was when Trump stood up directly after the bullet hit his ear, and made a point of reassuring the crowd that he was OK - bloody yet unbowed. That particular action probably saved the nation from serious civil unrest, perhaps civil conflict. If he had been killed, it would have been a disaster for the US - the ultimate sort of destabilization in the face of a growing threat of war from China. The continuing division in the US - and attempts made to deepen and exacerbate it by both parties and undoubtedly foreign actors including China - comes right out of Sun Tzu: "If your opponent is united, divide him." That's why DEI is in my opinion a weapon of unrestricted warfare used by the Chinese - it destroys vital institutions and creates strife and mistrust. The fact that Trump stood up and short-circuited that took real physical courage, the capacity to reason under fire, and to reasonably calculate the consequences of action - and inaction. That's what tipped the balance for me. In contrast, Biden and Harris are weak - Harris too timid to even answer pre-approved questions in a highly edited interview, in which 22 minutes of 41 were cut out. At this point in our history, we can't take chances on weak, feckless leaders.
Interesting that some said trump was better for the defense budget. Here is what I found:
The Trump administration, after achieving large increases in the U.S. defense budget during its first two years in office, has—to say the least—sent conflicting signals regarding its preferences for defense spending for the next fiscal year. After initially announcing plans for continued growth from $716 billion in fiscal year 2019 to $733 billion in 2020, President Trump directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to plan instead for reductions to a $700 billion budget. In early December 2018, Trump went as far as to call current levels of U.S. defense spending “crazy,” only to announce plans for a $750 billion defense budget just a week later. (These figures include war expenses and nuclear-weapons activities in the Department of Energy.)
This election is about one thing: a free future under law that is not and never will be perfect, but that has freed and allowed to prosper more people than any other system in history… or the fast-advance of an unconstitutional “pen and a phone” dictatorship.
There is no third way forward. One can support freedom and vote Trump … OR .. not vote / vote Harris. It’s a binary choice.
Not understanding this is to not understand history.
Perhaps substackers like the author of this piece should read the Constitution they pretend to defend, and understand that the alternative to Trump is totalitarianism… prior to deciding on their course of “virtue.”
I don't understand why career officers, who spend their lives learning, training, and defending America, can support a party that always cuts the military budget to the bone and cancels projects important to America. And terrible foreign policy that exposed the leadership weakness.
We use to have a military designed to fight 2 wars. Later to fight 1 war and a holding action some where else. Now we can't fight one war with the military we have. Every liberal administration has cut until there are no spare parts, not enough maintenance, and not enough realistic training. Each time we end up with hanger queens, aircraft used for spare parts, harbor queens, ships waiting for years for maintenance or upgrades, and a war reserve of weapons unlikely to last 2 weeks of combat. Except for USMC, we have a woke DEI military that has killed recruiting. When we get an administration that starts to rebuild the military, it's followed by the liberals that try to destroy it. And the senior military leaders that might make a difference say nothing.
Yet there are always Milleys or Austins to push liberal nonsense on the military no matter how ridiculous. They watch and even help the destruction of military capabilities and never say a word.
Only true if you oppose defense spending. Otherwise so much BS. All you have to do is research the military readiness under democrats. Under Clinton and Obama only half our warplanes could fly. The other half were parts planes. And it goes on and on.
It is confusing and appalling that any military or former military would support someone who praises dictators, aspires to be one, has manifested contempt for our Constitution, supported an insurrection and disrespected the sacrifice of men and women soldiers from WW I to the present, not to forget his vile personal behavior, convictions and legal liabilities. Reality is upside down.
What's "confusing and appalling" is not understanding the usage of the word "great" to indicate momentous rather than praise, to think one who obeyed every court action against him has "contempt" for the Constitution while supporting an administration that has re-litigated and/or rejected every loss, someone who thinks that, in a nation with 400M guns, a few thousand unarmed idiots constitutes an "insurrection," or to think that we should use metrics we might use to choose spouse to choose the leader of the free world.
I have to wonder about the quotes from Kelly. The story in the Atlantic, which originally reported this, was retracted the next issue, albeit with a great deal of reluctance, because all those present with Trump, at the time, including Kelly, stated they did NOT hear Trump make such a comment. So Kelly was lying then or he's lying now -- either way, there's a rat in the woodpile somewhere.
Regarding the 'coup attempt', the last time I checked the defintion, you have to have weapons in order to conduct a coup. After it was all said and done, the number of confiscated weapons was roughly 6 handguns, a couple of axes, and a partridge in a pear tree - hardly enough to conduct a coup. Keep in mind, the only casualty was a 36 year female Air Force veteran, who was shot & killed by a Capital policemen who, as it turns out, has questionable history in his job.
At no point in Trump's speech did he call for a riot or a coup - just READ the speech. The last time I checked, it's not against the law to stage a protest, such as those 'peaceful' protests held by the BLM folks. Compared to the BLM protests, the Capitol 'riot' was a pet parade.
Where was the unlawful seizure of power? Where was that attempted? It was certainly CLAIMED by the media, but a riot by a portion of the crowd that trespassed in public buildings is suddenly a coup? That is narrative creation for political reasons, not reality. If it were planned, and the people planning were serious, THAT is not what it would have looked like at all!
So, you said that--last time you checked--a coup had to involve weapons, ergo what happened on 6 Jan cannot have been a coup attempt. (Actually, there are weapons other than firearms, and Trump's mob had plenty of them.) Rather than admitting that you hadn't "checked" at all, you change the subject to the BLM riots.
Trump didn't say, "Go perform a coup." He told his mob to go to the Capitol and fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country any more. What were they supposed to fight for if it wasn't to stop the electoral vote certification in Congress?
BTW, are you unable to have civil discourse? It seems that many Trump-supporters have that difficulty, just as Trump himself does.
OK, it doesn't say weapons, but it DOES say VIOLENT. You're saying violence doesn't involve weapons - but you also say Trump's people had 'plenty' of weapons.
As far as 'seizure' is concerned, there is video evidence to show in several places the protestors were voluntarily given entry by Capitol staff. Seizure also connotates a permanent condition, which is the example used in your definition...'army coup'. At the end of the day, however, the protestors LEFT. The Government didn't fall or cease to exist, the presidential election was STILL validated, no congressional members were kidnapped or assasinated,, the building wasn't burned down.
What the JAN 6 protestors did was certainly less violent than the billions of dollars of damage caused in Minneapolis, Seattle, and other places: and the government, in spite of what you say, did not cease to exist.
I'd love to continue this otherwise pointless discussion; however, inasuch as I have a Hurricane with a track which brings it right onver my house in Baton Rouge, I don't have the time, the inclination, or the wherewithall to do so.
He told them to go there "peacefully and patriotically"...but, of course, the people were already in the Capitol when he said that. So, how exactly did anything he say exhort those people - who had been at the Capitol for some time and not at his speech - to do anything at all?
Thank you for that post, Captain. It's not like I got a whole lot of choice in whom both parties put up as candidates this go-around, as I am registered as "No Party Affiliation" in my state. But I do see that one candidate was a juggernaut and seemed to be his party's pick by acclamation. Though I do loathe the mouth-breathing Rah-Rah chants at some political rallies as much as the scripted sloganeering at most riot, looting, protest events and from many news anchors. The other candidate, who many folks on both sides saw as an inept empty pantsuit, overnight got the nomination in an act of desperation, when the obviously mentally impaired incumbent was stringing his words together in an attempt to convey coherent thoughts was coming off worse than his VP. (Putsch, anyone?) Some choice we have in November. Not a fan of either. I'll hold my nose and vote for the one who seems to be "his own man" and not a meat puppet of some backroom Marxists. I believe that supporting Marxism doesn't comport with the oath I took in 1965 and restated many times after. I offer the "...however slight" clause of UCMJ Article 120(g)(1)(A) for not supporting Marxism with my vote.
When was the last time anybody actually voted “for” the person they cast the vote and not against their opponent? I have found myself voting against candidates since the late 1980’s, choosing the lesser of the two Big Evils. I did have real hope at one time, but then Ross Perot pulled out of the race (and wouldn’t be interesting to know the real reason) and we were once again robbed of a real chance at major political change. He and Admiral Stockdale at the helm of the ship of state would have been a major course correction for the betterment of America.
"Normally, when a political party sees that an issue is overwhelmingly popular – start with voter ID, at 81% support, and go down the line – they get behind it. Why wouldn’t Minnesota’s Democrats (or Democrats in any other state) get on the bandwagon? For some reason, Democrats in every state fight all efforts to improve ballot security tooth and nail, no matter how much public support those measures have. How can we explain such seemingly perverse behavior? I think the only reasonable interpretation is that Democrats consider voter fraud an important part of their electoral strategy, and therefore are determined to stymie any attempt to prevent it."
I don't know a single retired or former naval officer who supports Harris or supported Biden. Otherwise, which party is actively against both the 1st and 2nd Amendments?
The Afghan withdrawal is not just Biden's fault. And we should point out that if we stayed longer, perhaps even increasing our presence, a lot more than 13 would have died. I read two biographies on Trump in 2016. Both pointed out his involvement with laundering Russian mafia money through his real estate. He's still a criminal in my book and completely off the table for president.
To the extent that Harris needs foreign policy experience, it isn't like she won't surround herself with experts ( Biden, Obama and numerous others with current or recent State Department experience would be available -- even Blinken although he doesn't plan to stick around in his role)
As far as the defense budget, well I'm no more a single-issue voter on that than I am on abortion.
I think she recognizes the importance of Ukraine, how much of what we're spending on that is actually flowing back into our economy. The recent bill that passed to prevent presidents from unilaterally withdrawing us from treaties like NATO is an unknown quantity, not yet tested. I'm confident Harris would not entertain any such notions.
How are you confident about Harris's foreign policy positions? Has she publicly stated any of these?
I suspect we'll hear more about it during the debate but here's one newspapers take on it
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-09-10/harris-foreign-policy
Meany people are writing on the internet.
https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-trump-taj-mahal-casino-resort-10-million-significant-and-long
Ha... I'd say that's better than hearing something on Fox News or truth social
Bryan: Can we agree on our national security reality in the past 3.5 years under Biden/Harris. A disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan cost US lives with thousands of other US citizens left behind, and ZERO accountability. The retired military officers blaming Trump for this (none of whom served in 2020) must have forgotten their sacred commitment of military leadership never to "blame the previous commander" for current mission failures. And lets not forget about the resurgence of the Taliban (with US equipment left behind) and ISIS in Afgh. Military readiness (munitions, maintenance, training) is dangerously low. Recruiting and retention are barely recovering from an awful 2 year period in 21/22 and both are now horrifically driving projected military end strength for the first time in history as opposed to our national defense strategy. Shipbuilding is falling further behind. Our Navy is engaged in active combat using multi million dollar munitions against $50k drones on the Red Sea. Putin has attacked not just Ukraine, but also US infrastructure, and we are sending billions with no end in sight. Iran has attacked our strongest ally in the Middle East through its terrorist proxies and may open up a 3rd front while still holding US hostages. Oh, and they also have attacked US infrastructure. China and Russia are conducting joint military maneuvers off the Alaskan Coast. NK and Russia are aligned on arms deliveries. And China is advancing throughout the China Sea and the western Pacific sensing a vacuum of U.S. leadership. Our adversaries are weaponizing Space while we complain “no fair”. And all this “joy” is just the unclass version. As for NATO- Russia aggression has united NATO, not US leadership. President Trump saw the overreliance by NATO Nations on US resources (as did 4 previous Presidents) and actually tried to solve the problem by suggesting the alliance in its current form is outdated and ineffective. Withdrawal was the first option – or a significant change in the sources of resources for the collective defense. Would you admit that in 2024, we are in a different world order where CRINK, led by China, are aligned and coordinating a challenge to the Western World? Where do our NATO commitment add value in our ability to adapt and respond to this campaign? Should we actually be reaching out to Russian and NK to break up the alliance and focus on China. We are indeed on the verge of WWIII and cannot afford another 4 years of failed global leadership. I trust President Trump and his national security team to have better plans and policies to protect US national security interests.
Recapping Trump first, including the "suckers" quote. Snopes, never accused of being even handed to anyone right of Bernie Sanders and his Bros, originally found as "true" the Trump attributed Charlottesville "very fine people" statement that Biden used against Trump. Snopes finally corrected themselves, but only after 7 years of perpetuating the falsehood. (But it was OK because it's just Trump.) As for Trump allegedly calling fallen soldiers "suckers and losers" even Snopes stated: "In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump's alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members "losers" and "suckers." While it was certainly possible that he said those things, Snopes was unable to independently verify the claim." It would be a reasonable presumption Vindman would have been a "source" for The Atlantic. No video, no audio, not even a note from anyone who was there, or not. But an anonymous "claim" is fact because, well, it's Trump, so it just is. Trump didn't like McCain - so what? Trump's biggest, most despised "flaw," is this: Trumpis not a product of a Washington, DC, politically approved pipeline. That, and the fact that he did not recognize that general officers and admirals at the Pentagon, and more generally around the beltway, are themselves in that pipeline or graduates. Milley tops the list. Walks out of the Oval and calls The New York Times. (Books to write, you see...) This appears to extend even into the field grade officer ranks. This gaggle makes their own orders, report to themselves and act in their interests. Kabul was a success, nobody got fired - hell, nobody ever gets fired. It's a promotion machine. How many generals do we have today vs WWII? How many generals got fired in WWII?How many "star" officers do we actually need? Are they really just politicians in uniform? I arrived at Dolan Barracks, West Germany in February, 1972. Nixon mined Haiphong harbor in May. I've met Nazis, real ones, not kids. Same for communists - Vietnam back them, I was spit on at airports, it was the whole U.S. baby killing soldiers era. Sitting this election out, in point of fact, scores a vote for two Marxists. Walz says it's "neighborliness." Harris learned from her boyfriend, mentor, facilitator, guide, man who got her elected to every California office she held from San Francisco District Attorney to California Attorney General to U.S. Senator from California - the one and only, forever, Willie Brown; former San Francisco Mayor, former Speaker of the California State Assembly. He really is that much and he really is that good. I know. I've met him, my state association and I, had to deal with him. Likable guy, on the one hand. Willie is proud at 90! Have no doubt about what Willie helped create or who she is become. Criminals are the only victims, funding criminals' bail, cashless bail, the border - 10 million illegals (or is it 20,) give up our country, just for starters. And her fingerprints are everywhere - same as in my failed home State of California. If you don't cast a vote in this election you are, in fact, voting for Marxism.
I don't like Trump's penchant for making intemperate and ill-advised remarks on Twitter, and I don't like his stance on the Ukraine War. Biden, by dribbling aid to Ukraine and failing to stand up to the promises made in the Budapest Memorandum to defend Ukraine's *1991* borders - promises which were made to induce Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, the possession of which would have deterred Russia from invading, has adopted a weak and feckless policy which will destroy US influence in foreign policy and eventually pose a threat to US national security - and there is no indication that Harris, with *no* foreign policy experience, will be any better.
So far as I'm concerned - or was, up until the attempted assassination - neither Biden nor Harris nor Trump was fit for the office. The thing which tipped the balance for me was when Trump stood up directly after the bullet hit his ear, and made a point of reassuring the crowd that he was OK - bloody yet unbowed. That particular action probably saved the nation from serious civil unrest, perhaps civil conflict. If he had been killed, it would have been a disaster for the US - the ultimate sort of destabilization in the face of a growing threat of war from China. The continuing division in the US - and attempts made to deepen and exacerbate it by both parties and undoubtedly foreign actors including China - comes right out of Sun Tzu: "If your opponent is united, divide him." That's why DEI is in my opinion a weapon of unrestricted warfare used by the Chinese - it destroys vital institutions and creates strife and mistrust. The fact that Trump stood up and short-circuited that took real physical courage, the capacity to reason under fire, and to reasonably calculate the consequences of action - and inaction. That's what tipped the balance for me. In contrast, Biden and Harris are weak - Harris too timid to even answer pre-approved questions in a highly edited interview, in which 22 minutes of 41 were cut out. At this point in our history, we can't take chances on weak, feckless leaders.
Interesting that some said trump was better for the defense budget. Here is what I found:
The Trump administration, after achieving large increases in the U.S. defense budget during its first two years in office, has—to say the least—sent conflicting signals regarding its preferences for defense spending for the next fiscal year. After initially announcing plans for continued growth from $716 billion in fiscal year 2019 to $733 billion in 2020, President Trump directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to plan instead for reductions to a $700 billion budget. In early December 2018, Trump went as far as to call current levels of U.S. defense spending “crazy,” only to announce plans for a $750 billion defense budget just a week later. (These figures include war expenses and nuclear-weapons activities in the Department of Energy.)
I guess you approve of trumps tomahawks spent uselessly on an empty airfield in Syria?
Some of you might want to read what NATO says about 2%
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
We do not have TV reception here in the Gamma Quadrant. TV and Radio sound bites on national defense don't cut it.
This election is about one thing: a free future under law that is not and never will be perfect, but that has freed and allowed to prosper more people than any other system in history… or the fast-advance of an unconstitutional “pen and a phone” dictatorship.
There is no third way forward. One can support freedom and vote Trump … OR .. not vote / vote Harris. It’s a binary choice.
Not understanding this is to not understand history.
Perhaps substackers like the author of this piece should read the Constitution they pretend to defend, and understand that the alternative to Trump is totalitarianism… prior to deciding on their course of “virtue.”
More here: https://alexanderscipio.substack.com/p/trump-harris-americas-future
I don't understand why career officers, who spend their lives learning, training, and defending America, can support a party that always cuts the military budget to the bone and cancels projects important to America. And terrible foreign policy that exposed the leadership weakness.
We use to have a military designed to fight 2 wars. Later to fight 1 war and a holding action some where else. Now we can't fight one war with the military we have. Every liberal administration has cut until there are no spare parts, not enough maintenance, and not enough realistic training. Each time we end up with hanger queens, aircraft used for spare parts, harbor queens, ships waiting for years for maintenance or upgrades, and a war reserve of weapons unlikely to last 2 weeks of combat. Except for USMC, we have a woke DEI military that has killed recruiting. When we get an administration that starts to rebuild the military, it's followed by the liberals that try to destroy it. And the senior military leaders that might make a difference say nothing.
Yet there are always Milleys or Austins to push liberal nonsense on the military no matter how ridiculous. They watch and even help the destruction of military capabilities and never say a word.
Only true if you oppose defense spending. Otherwise so much BS. All you have to do is research the military readiness under democrats. Under Clinton and Obama only half our warplanes could fly. The other half were parts planes. And it goes on and on.
It is confusing and appalling that any military or former military would support someone who praises dictators, aspires to be one, has manifested contempt for our Constitution, supported an insurrection and disrespected the sacrifice of men and women soldiers from WW I to the present, not to forget his vile personal behavior, convictions and legal liabilities. Reality is upside down.
What's "confusing and appalling" is not understanding the usage of the word "great" to indicate momentous rather than praise, to think one who obeyed every court action against him has "contempt" for the Constitution while supporting an administration that has re-litigated and/or rejected every loss, someone who thinks that, in a nation with 400M guns, a few thousand unarmed idiots constitutes an "insurrection," or to think that we should use metrics we might use to choose spouse to choose the leader of the free world.
In This Dimension: Welcome to the upside down world.
I have to wonder about the quotes from Kelly. The story in the Atlantic, which originally reported this, was retracted the next issue, albeit with a great deal of reluctance, because all those present with Trump, at the time, including Kelly, stated they did NOT hear Trump make such a comment. So Kelly was lying then or he's lying now -- either way, there's a rat in the woodpile somewhere.
Regarding the 'coup attempt', the last time I checked the defintion, you have to have weapons in order to conduct a coup. After it was all said and done, the number of confiscated weapons was roughly 6 handguns, a couple of axes, and a partridge in a pear tree - hardly enough to conduct a coup. Keep in mind, the only casualty was a 36 year female Air Force veteran, who was shot & killed by a Capital policemen who, as it turns out, has questionable history in his job.
At no point in Trump's speech did he call for a riot or a coup - just READ the speech. The last time I checked, it's not against the law to stage a protest, such as those 'peaceful' protests held by the BLM folks. Compared to the BLM protests, the Capitol 'riot' was a pet parade.
1. Coup: a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government. I guess you didn't really check the definition.
Where was the unlawful seizure of power? Where was that attempted? It was certainly CLAIMED by the media, but a riot by a portion of the crowd that trespassed in public buildings is suddenly a coup? That is narrative creation for political reasons, not reality. If it were planned, and the people planning were serious, THAT is not what it would have looked like at all!
BLM riots - a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizeure of power from a government[s]. I guess you don't know the difference....
By the way - did you even bother to read the Trump speech, which I doubt? You tell me where Trump advocated a coup in his speech...
So, you said that--last time you checked--a coup had to involve weapons, ergo what happened on 6 Jan cannot have been a coup attempt. (Actually, there are weapons other than firearms, and Trump's mob had plenty of them.) Rather than admitting that you hadn't "checked" at all, you change the subject to the BLM riots.
Trump didn't say, "Go perform a coup." He told his mob to go to the Capitol and fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country any more. What were they supposed to fight for if it wasn't to stop the electoral vote certification in Congress?
BTW, are you unable to have civil discourse? It seems that many Trump-supporters have that difficulty, just as Trump himself does.
OK, it doesn't say weapons, but it DOES say VIOLENT. You're saying violence doesn't involve weapons - but you also say Trump's people had 'plenty' of weapons.
As far as 'seizure' is concerned, there is video evidence to show in several places the protestors were voluntarily given entry by Capitol staff. Seizure also connotates a permanent condition, which is the example used in your definition...'army coup'. At the end of the day, however, the protestors LEFT. The Government didn't fall or cease to exist, the presidential election was STILL validated, no congressional members were kidnapped or assasinated,, the building wasn't burned down.
What the JAN 6 protestors did was certainly less violent than the billions of dollars of damage caused in Minneapolis, Seattle, and other places: and the government, in spite of what you say, did not cease to exist.
I'd love to continue this otherwise pointless discussion; however, inasuch as I have a Hurricane with a track which brings it right onver my house in Baton Rouge, I don't have the time, the inclination, or the wherewithall to do so.
He told them to go there "peacefully and patriotically"...but, of course, the people were already in the Capitol when he said that. So, how exactly did anything he say exhort those people - who had been at the Capitol for some time and not at his speech - to do anything at all?
It wasn't, because it failed. Had it succeeded, the power of the government would have been seized by the guy who lost the election.
Thank you for that post, Captain. It's not like I got a whole lot of choice in whom both parties put up as candidates this go-around, as I am registered as "No Party Affiliation" in my state. But I do see that one candidate was a juggernaut and seemed to be his party's pick by acclamation. Though I do loathe the mouth-breathing Rah-Rah chants at some political rallies as much as the scripted sloganeering at most riot, looting, protest events and from many news anchors. The other candidate, who many folks on both sides saw as an inept empty pantsuit, overnight got the nomination in an act of desperation, when the obviously mentally impaired incumbent was stringing his words together in an attempt to convey coherent thoughts was coming off worse than his VP. (Putsch, anyone?) Some choice we have in November. Not a fan of either. I'll hold my nose and vote for the one who seems to be "his own man" and not a meat puppet of some backroom Marxists. I believe that supporting Marxism doesn't comport with the oath I took in 1965 and restated many times after. I offer the "...however slight" clause of UCMJ Article 120(g)(1)(A) for not supporting Marxism with my vote.
Marxism? You are not very bright, are you?
☺
RR x2, GHWB, GWB X2, Romney (2012)
When was the last time anybody actually voted “for” the person they cast the vote and not against their opponent? I have found myself voting against candidates since the late 1980’s, choosing the lesser of the two Big Evils. I did have real hope at one time, but then Ross Perot pulled out of the race (and wouldn’t be interesting to know the real reason) and we were once again robbed of a real chance at major political change. He and Admiral Stockdale at the helm of the ship of state would have been a major course correction for the betterment of America.
"Normally, when a political party sees that an issue is overwhelmingly popular – start with voter ID, at 81% support, and go down the line – they get behind it. Why wouldn’t Minnesota’s Democrats (or Democrats in any other state) get on the bandwagon? For some reason, Democrats in every state fight all efforts to improve ballot security tooth and nail, no matter how much public support those measures have. How can we explain such seemingly perverse behavior? I think the only reasonable interpretation is that Democrats consider voter fraud an important part of their electoral strategy, and therefore are determined to stymie any attempt to prevent it."
— John Hinderaker in PowerLine, 9/9/24