ADVERTISEMENT

General John Kelly

Well, good luck with all that.
And there’s literally 3 years difference in their ages, yet I don’t see a constant media blitz regarding Trump’s age. Maybe in 3 years Trump will suddenly be too old for office.

Trump is too old for office. Bernie is too old, Warren is too old. I've argued for quite a while we need to turn over leadership to a new generation of leadership. One not stuck in 1960s-1980s thinking. Biden isn't even a Boomer, Trump is barely a Boomer. Boomers (and pre-Boomers) have had a long crack at solving our problems. Let's go to Gen X and see what they have to offer. And I say that as a Boomer.
 
It was not that unusual the Chairman of the JCS talks to counterparts in other countries from time to time. He says it was an authorized call and I believe him. At this point I don't believe anything that Trump and his closest cronies say about much of anything. Definitely not this. He's destroyed all his credibility and only he says it was unauthorized. Remember that he said Milley developed plans to attack Iran? That was NONSENSE on steroids because the Joint Chiefs don't develop war plans. They're not in the operational chain of command. I'm sure we do have plans, but they'd be developed by the Combatant Commander (CENTCOM in this case) and not the Joint Chiefs.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Trump has damaged support for Republicans in previously overwhelmingly Republican groups like the military. I've seen it and I've heard it. It might be permanent if the MAGA wing becomes the dominate wing of the party. It's almost there now in that otherwise standard Republicans pay lip service to it and try to court the MAGA republican portion of the party.
Aloha, given Ronald Reagan's policies helped convince you to transition to the Republican party thought this article 'MAGA’ Republicans Are Dismantling Ronald Reagan’s Legacy would be of interest to you.

The article in part states the following...

Today a Republican Party still enthralled by former President Donald Trump and his acolytes in the “MAGA” populist movement are systematically dismantling that legacy. Following Trump’s example, they try relentlessly to politicize the U.S. military by forcibly drafting it into their culture wars with vague charges of “wokeness” in order to score partisan points. Adding injury to insult, these Republicans are undermining the U.S. military at a moment when it faces a very real recruiting crisis — with the Army falling 15,000 short of its goal of 60,000 active-duty recruits last year — even as war rages in Europe and dark clouds gather in the Indo-Pacific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Aloha, given Ronald Reagan's policies helped convince you to transition to the Republican party thought this article 'MAGA’ Republicans Are Dismantling Ronald Reagan’s Legacy would be of interest to you.

The article in part states the following...

Today a Republican Party still enthralled by former President Donald Trump and his acolytes in the “MAGA” populist movement are systematically dismantling that legacy. Following Trump’s example, they try relentlessly to politicize the U.S. military by forcibly drafting it into their culture wars with vague charges of “wokeness” in order to score partisan points. Adding injury to insult, these Republicans are undermining the U.S. military at a moment when it faces a very real recruiting crisis — with the Army falling 15,000 short of its goal of 60,000 active-duty recruits last year — even as war rages in Europe and dark clouds gather in the Indo-Pacific.
What do you think your pull quote means?

Does the author really believe that the military doesn’t meet its recruiting goals because of too much Trump? I don’t have the detailed data at hand, but I read that well over most of the military recruits comes from the old Confederacy and other areas of the country that vote Republican. The recruiting shortfall is because the blue democrats are not signing up—despite the Administration push towards inclusivity and multiple genders in the military.

The Tuberville hold-up of promotions is a perfect example of the problem. Lloyd Austin believes that paying for abortions and paying transportation to liberal abortion states is vital to our national interests. Tuberville thinks that violates the Hyde Amendment. The Democrats won’t even allow a vote on that abortion funding as Tuberville suggested. I believe Austin’s national security claim is hogwash. So the Administration is using the national security claim to advance its abortion agenda. Is that not using the military for politics? Moreover, they believe they are saving democracy by not allowing a vote? We aren’t talking about voting on a decision to bomb something here.

Addition: The worst part of Reagan’s legacy is the libertarian message imbedded in his “im from the government and I’m here to help” message. Does anybody think Trump detracts from that message? I I think Reagan would have been pleased with Trumps tax reforms, border policy, and energy policy. Moreover, I think MAGA is actually Trumps version of shining city on the hill. Reagan was very amiable and likeable Trump is the opposite in every way. But that is different from Reagan’s governmental legacy.
 
Last edited:
Trump is too old for office. Bernie is too old, Warren is too old. I've argued for quite a while we need to turn over leadership to a new generation of leadership. One not stuck in 1960s-1980s thinking. Biden isn't even a Boomer, Trump is barely a Boomer. Boomers (and pre-Boomers) have had a long crack at solving our problems. Let's go to Gen X and see what they have to offer. And I say that as a Boomer.
In 1960-1980, Sex and gender was binary, civil rights meant non-discrimination, we had federal budgets, education meant math, science and civics, borders meant something, and nuclear was the future of energy. I’ll take 1960-1980 thinking.
 
Biden will be 82 years old at the beginning of the next term. The average life expectancy of someone who reaches the age of 80 is 7 years. So there is probably a chance of at least 40%
that Biden will die in office. And then there will be the matter of likely ongoing mental deterioration.

On the other side of the aisle Trump starts out as a seriously flawed sociopath with no moral compass.

So Biden wins hands down as the lesser of two evils.
And to put the "age" issue into perspective... If Biden and Trump attended the same high school Biden would have been a senior while Trump was a sophmore...
 
Trump is too old for office. Bernie is too old, Warren is too old. I've argued for quite a while we need to turn over leadership to a new generation of leadership. One not stuck in 1960s-1980s thinking. Biden isn't even a Boomer, Trump is barely a Boomer. Boomers (and pre-Boomers) have had a long crack at solving our problems. Let's go to Gen X and see what they have to offer. And I say that as a Boomer.
Well, it looks like Biden and Trump will be your two choices, so you’re just going to have to be an adult and make your choice. Or you can waste your vote on a “protest vote” if you feel that will do some good, or just make you feel all warm and fuzzy.
 
Milley may or may not be a narcissist, but I'm sure we can all agree we'd prefer him representing sensitive US interests, even if he violated usual norms. With Trump, the Generals were in a tough spot as the man has no clue to the importance the US plays on in the world stage. Everything is transactional in his world.
Biden gave the military the finger as he pulled out of Afghanistan.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
quote:
"Not every Republican, not even a majority of Republicans, adhere to the MAGA extremist ideology. I know because I’ve been able to work with Republicans my whole career".

The same thing has been said OVER, and OVER, and OVER again. Wake up.

Okay. The Biden phyc-op works on you. We know that without you quoting Biden.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying his description of captured and dead combat troops as "losers and suckers" and "I don't get it, what was in it for them?" should be disqualifying. Period. Full stop. It's fvcking beyond the pale.
Just started reading this thread. People may want to believe I'm a Trump guy. I'm not. I just can't stand the Democrat party. My choices suck.

That said, my grandpa made it through Korea and Vietnam. You're not weak or a loser if you get wounded or die in combat.

I encourage you all to read this man's story. If you don't want to that's fine. But Floyd J Thompson was drafted in 1956 and was in an airplane the got shot down in Vietnam in 1963. And spent almost 10 years in captivity in jungle camps in South Vietnam.

 
Just started reading this thread. People may want to believe I'm a Trump guy. I'm not. I just can't stand the Democrat party. My choices suck.

That said, my grandpa made it through Korea and Vietnam. You're not weak or a loser if you get wounded or die in combat.

I encourage you all to read this man's story. If you don't want to that's fine. But Floyd J Thompson was drafted in 1956 and was in an airplane the got shot down in Vietnam in 1963. And spent almost 10 years in captivity in jungle camps in South Vietnam.

That's one helluva story. Doubt if he was even treated for PTSD back then. RIP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cthulhu85
What do you think your pull quote means?

Does the author really believe that the military doesn’t meet its recruiting goals because of too much Trump? I don’t have the detailed data at hand, but I read that well over most of the military recruits comes from the old Confederacy and other areas of the country that vote Republican. The recruiting shortfall is because the blue democrats are not signuping up—despite the Administration push towards inclusivity and multiple genders in the military.

The Tuberville hold-up of promotions is a perfect example of the problem. Lloyd Austin believes that paying for abortions and paying transportation to liberal abortion states is vital to our national interests. Tuberville thinks that violates the Hyde Amendment. The Democrats won’t even allow a vote on that abortion funding as Tuberville suggested. I believe Austin’s national security claim is hogwash. So the Administration is using the national security claim to advance its abortion agenda. Is that not using the military for politics? Moreover, they believe they are saving democracy by not allowing a vote? We aren’t talking about voting on a decision to bomb something here.

Addition: The worst part of Reagan’s legacy is the libertarian message imbedded in his “im from the government and I’m here to help” message. Does anybody think Trump detracts from that message? I I think Reagan would have been pleased with Trumps tax reforms, border policy, and energy policy. Moreover, I think MAGA is actually Trumps version of shining city on the hill. Reagan was very amiable and likeable Trump is the opposite in every way. But that is different from Reagan’s governmental legacy.

CoH, always appreciate our exchanges.

Will respond to the Tuberville position in respect to maintaining our all recruited military force after some research.
 
Totally get why you wouldn't want to vote for Biden or any Democrats. I can't imagine a world where you would vote for the Democratic nominee for President, so I would imagine you are focused on the Republican nominee, which is the primary subject of this thread.

Why aren't Republicans working harder to wash themselves of Trump and put forward a candidate that you can get excited about. I see very little work being done by my conservative brethren to talk up and champion someone other that DJT. Why aren't Republicans rallying around someone they feel can carry the positives of the conservative message without all of the unnecessary negative baggage?
Who knows. I mean none of us supposedly really wants either of these geriatric crooks but it increasingly looks like that is what we are going to get again.

I would take any Republican over a Democrat right now and I would take almost anyone currently in the primary over Trump (there are a few exceptions there) but by the time I get a say in Indiana these things are usually long over.

Neither of these parties appear to be super serious to me at this point. That is part of the reason I think we are a nation in decline. The question is whether that decline is permanent or do we get things figured out? I grow more pessimistic on that question the older I get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cthulhu85
Who knows. I mean none of us supposedly really wants either of these geriatric crooks but it increasingly looks like that is what we are going to get again.

I would take any Republican over a Democrat right now and I would take almost anyone currently in the primary over Trump (there are a few exceptions there) but by the time I get a say in Indiana these things are usually long over.

Neither of these parties appear to be super serious to me at this point. That is part of the reason I think we are a nation in decline. The question is whether that decline is permanent or do we get things figured out? I grow more pessimistic on that question the older I get.
Craze, you bring up a good point when mentioning we are a nation in decline.

An example being having to choose between two "geriatric crooks" as our next president.

So how do we measure decline ? Then once we agree on a measurement how do we go about improving our standings ?

Can remember when FDR was president and in failing health. Too sick to be our leader. Nevertheless, we really didn't care because the country was united in winning the war. Winning the war proved we were a nation on the upswing.

So could it be our nation is in decline because we have become so divided politically that we couldn't agree on how to measure decline Then once agreeing on measuring decline, we probably couldn't agree on what to do about it ?
 
Craze, you bring up a good point when mentioning we are a nation in decline.

An example being having to choose between two "geriatric crooks" as our next president.

So how do we measure decline ? Then once we agree on a measurement how do we go about improving our standings ?
I think part is a feeling and part is comparing where we are today with different touchpoints in the past on a host of measurable. Foreign influence, quality of life, economic power, etc. How to improve is the rub.
Can remember when FDR was president and in failing health. Too sick to be our leader. Nevertheless, we really didn't care because the country was united in winning the war. Winning the war proved we were a nation on the upswing.

So could it be our nation is in decline because we have become so divided politically that we couldn't agree on how to measure decline Then once agreeing on measuring decline, we probably couldn't agree on what to do about it ?
I think there are quite a few objective measures we could look at. I don't think there is much disagreement around the things believed to not be going well. The disagreement is more on what the causes of that are and how to fix it, IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
Sorry, dude. This is a news story and worthy of discussion. Sorry if it's too much for your sensibilities.
I am very liberal. Surprise! But I am also Trump fatigued. He loves the drama. He loves the media vilifying him. He is con man and a reality tv character. He loves everything happening right now. It's great ratings and the money is pouring in. Most, with an IQ above their shoe size and who think most reality TV is trash, are tired of it of all. Tired of it coming from both sides.

That said. A former president suggesting that one of our four star generals should be executed for treason is sort of a big deal. And one I'd hope even the most ardent Trump supporters couldn't ignore or deflect.
 
Sorry, dude. This is a news story and worthy of discussion. Sorry if it's too much for your sensibilities.
This isn’t a news story. It’s simply a Kelly CNN rehash of what Kelly said months ago. He offers nothing new in support of his alleged confirmation. Confirmation means new material.
 
I think part is a feeling and part is comparing where we are today with different touchdowns in the past on a host of measurable. Foreign influence, quality of life, economic power, etc. How to improve is the rub.

I think there are quite a few objective measures we could look at. I don't think there is much disagreement around the things believed to not be going well. The disagreement is more on what the causes of that are and how to fix it, IMO.
This all starts with a breakdown of respect and tolerance. The reason is simple. We enjoy bashing others. We have come to believe that mindless name calling and insults makes us better. We see this every day from the Oval Office and from most of those who want to occupy the Oval Office.

My posts in the 8 MAGA thread expose this. 208 Democrats voted with Gaetz only to build another path to criticize the GOP while all the Dems can smugly say “we can do it better”. This is sickening. God help us.
 
What do you think your pull quote means?

Does the author really believe that the military doesn’t meet its recruiting goals because of too much Trump? I don’t have the detailed data at hand, but I read that well over most of the military recruits comes from the old Confederacy and other areas of the country that vote Republican. The recruiting shortfall is because the blue democrats are not signing up—despite the Administration push towards inclusivity and multiple genders in the military.

The Tuberville hold-up of promotions is a perfect example of the problem. Lloyd Austin believes that paying for abortions and paying transportation to liberal abortion states is vital to our national interests. Tuberville thinks that violates the Hyde Amendment. The Democrats won’t even allow a vote on that abortion funding as Tuberville suggested. I believe Austin’s national security claim is hogwash. So the Administration is using the national security claim to advance its abortion agenda. Is that not using the military for politics? Moreover, they believe they are saving democracy by not allowing a vote? We aren’t talking about voting on a decision to bomb something here.

Addition: The worst part of Reagan’s legacy is the libertarian message imbedded in his “im from the government and I’m here to help” message. Does anybody think Trump detracts from that message? I I think Reagan would have been pleased with Trumps tax reforms, border policy, and energy policy. Moreover, I think MAGA is actually Trumps version of shining city on the hill. Reagan was very amiable and likeable Trump is the opposite in every way. But that is different from Reagan’s governmental legacy.

CoH, Tuberville is right about the Hyde Amendment.

Heaven only knows where a healthy Reagan would stand today in respect to Trump's policies or the way Trump deals with both his friends and foes.

Have a hard time figuring out how abortion and the military assisting in it plays a roll in recruiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
CoH, Tuberville is right about the Hyde Amendment.

Heaven only knows where a healthy Reagan would stand today in respect to Trump's policies or the way Trump deals with both his friends and foes.

Have a hard time figuring out how abortion and the military assisting in it plays a roll in recruiting.
Is Tuberville correct? The amendment clearly says the federal government cannot pay for an abortion. The military is not paying for abortions. They are paying for travel. There are other laws that discuss not paying for or to facilitate an abortion. The Hyde Amendment does not use that language, "to facilitate" is not present.

 
This isn’t a news story. It’s simply a Kelly CNN rehash of what Kelly said months ago. He offers nothing new in support of his alleged confirmation. Confirmation means new material.
You're wrong, CoH. Again. It is a major news story. It was covered by many major outlets (I've linked some below). It wasn't simply a "rehash." John Kelly, for the first time, confirmed that Trump actually said the disgraceful things that had been attributed to him in a piece The Atlantic ran in 2020.

I can't keep cleaning up your messes, CoH. I've got work to do. Here's a tip, though. Read your posts before you hit "post reply." It gives you a chance to reconsider whether you really want to proceed with nonsense and repeatedly embarrass yourself.


 
Is Tuberville correct? The amendment clearly says the federal government cannot pay for an abortion. The military is not paying for abortions. They are paying for travel. There are other laws that discuss not paying for or to facilitate an abortion. The Hyde Amendment does not use that language, "to facilitate" is not present.


MtM, thanks for the clarification.

Was under the impression the military budget was paying for both the transportation (indirect expenses) and the abortion.
 
MtM, thanks for the clarification.

Was under the impression the military budget was paying for both the transportation (indirect expenses) and the abortion.
Whether the Hyde Amendment covers travel and leave expenses for abortion purposes is an open question and not settled. Of corse the Biden Administration took the view most consistent with its politics. Tubervill wants to fix it with legislation which the Democrats refuse.
 
Whether the Hyde Amendment covers travel and leave expenses for abortion purposes is an open question and not settled. Of corse the Biden Administration took the view most consistent with its politics. Tubervill wants to fix it with legislation which the Democrats refuse.

Do you blame dems for refusing? You don't think Pubs would refuse if the roles were reversed?

I'm sure Tuberville wants it to align with his views (which is only "fixing it" if you agree with him).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Whether the Hyde Amendment covers travel and leave expenses for abortion purposes is an open question and not settled. Of corse the Biden Administration took the view most consistent with its politics. Tubervill wants to fix it with legislation which the Democrats refuse.
[/QUOTE.

CoH, starting with Mitch McConnell the Congressional Pubs haven't been jumping on the Tuberville bandwagon in mass on the subject of the military budget paying for abortions.

Could it be the mid term elections following the Supreme Court decision on abortion has them a bit nervous about openly supporting Tuberville ?
 
Whether the Hyde Amendment covers travel and leave expenses for abortion purposes is an open question and not settled. Of corse the Biden Administration took the view most consistent with its politics. Tubervill wants to fix it with legislation which the Democrats refuse.
Does the military typically cover travel and leave expenses for elective procedures? If not, why only abortion?
 
mcm is talking about the people that believe the president is solely responsible for inflation.

The people buying that propaganda probably aren't the people that really care about anything other than their side winning.
And you believe he's totally responsible if the president happens to be a Republican. I've never and never will believe that a president is totally responsible for inflation. Only a fool would believe that because the economy is complex BUT a president (with the help of congress) can influence the economy some. Printing trillions of dollars is gonna have an effect on inflation.
 
Seems like an issue the Feds would want to side step then if there is no consensus among states. Not dive head first into, especially through extra-legislative action.
It's above my pay grade, I can see both points. Often times feds are immune to state laws, there was a time until feds changed the law that bases had an 18 drinking age even though states had 21.
 
Who knows. I mean none of us supposedly really wants either of these geriatric crooks but it increasingly looks like that is what we are going to get again.

I would take any Republican over a Democrat right now and I would take almost anyone currently in the primary over Trump (there are a few exceptions there) but by the time I get a say in Indiana these things are usually long over.

Neither of these parties appear to be super serious to me at this point. That is part of the reason I think we are a nation in decline. The question is whether that decline is permanent or do we get things figured out? I grow more pessimistic on that question the older I get.
Thanks for the reply.

I figured that you'd never vote for a Democrat, so that's why I'm focused on you supporting a candidate in the Republican Party who advances your goals without the baggage and negatives of Trump.

I hear so many conservatives say that they don't like Trump, but I don't see them strongly advocating for another candidate (and even though I disagree with them politically, I think there are some very strong candidates in the mix for conservatives that are getting buried currently.) Do you feel like you have strong candidates?

I think you are mistaken in saying that you have no impact because you are in Indiana. While actual votes are important, we live in a social media era where entire campaigns are heavily influenced and sometimes decided prior to a vote ever being cast. I encourage you to loudly support your preferred candidate.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I figured that you'd never vote for a Democrat, so that's why I'm focused on you supporting a candidate in the Republican Party who advances your goals without the baggage and negatives of Trump.

I hear so many conservatives say that they don't like Trump, but I don't see them strongly advocating for another candidate (and even though I disagree with them politically, I think there are some very strong candidates in the mix for conservatives that are getting buried currently.) Do you feel like you have strong candidates?

I think you are mistaken in saying that you have no impact because you are in Indiana. While actual votes are important, we live in a social media era where entire campaigns are heavily influenced and sometimes decided prior to a vote ever being cast. I encourage you to loudly support your preferred candidate.
I think DeSantis would still be my preferred pick out of the available candidates. He checks some of the boxes I want checked culturally but even more than that I think he is competent at governing. Just the way he has handled some of the hurricanes, I believe that he is a guy that would make things work.

I thought Haley had a good first debate and not so great on the second. The guy from North Dakota (Burgum?) doesn't sound bad and he had a few good ideas in the debates but I think he has zero chance. Scott would be an interesting candidate but I think he needs more polish...maybe in a cycle or two. Not a big fan of Christie or Ramswamy. DeSantis/Haley would probably be the two I would like to see run together.

I have pretty loudly supported my preferred candidate here. I don't generally have these conversations with too many people in "real life". We kind of choose these topics by being here and I think most people aren't as weird as we are and don't want to talk about it as much. Which is fine by me.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT