Trump, on O'Reilly, calls America's military 'The gang who couldn't shoot straight'

[sinkspur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf0XcKL1stU

[sinkspur]

Can't have your boy Putin mad at us, huh Trump?

[kartographer]

I can't wait to hear the resident Trumpsters explain this. 

[Night Hides Not]

I can only imagine what his reaction would have been to Operation Tiger...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Tiger

Did Trump sleep through the leadership classes at the military school he attended?

[Night Hides Not]

I can't wait to hear the resident Trumpsters explain this. 

[Silver Pines]

Trump is an unsalvageable pile of garbage.  If he has a single redeeming quality, I haven't seen it.

[Cripplecreek]

I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the military will be better off on his watch than Clinton.

I'm not saying worse, just not better.

A man who can't accept responsibility for even the tiniest things just isn't going to accept responsibility for lives that WILL be lost on his watch. It is effectively the same reason Clinton refuses to accept responsibility for lives lost in Benghazi.

[Silver Pines]

I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the military will be better off on his watch than Clinton.

I'm not saying worse, just not better.

A man who can't accept responsibility for even the tiniest things just isn't going to accept responsibility for lives that WILL be lost on his watch. It is effectively the same reason Clinton refuses to accept responsibility for lives lost in Benghazi.

@Cripplecreek

That's pretty much how I see it.  I think falling into the trap of thinking no one could ever be as bad as Hillary prevents objective examination sometimes.  She's terrible, it's true, but the idea of an amoral reality show host as Commander in Chief is just as bad.

[Cripplecreek]

@Cripplecreek

That's pretty much how I see it.  I think falling into the trap of thinking no one could ever be as bad as Hillary prevents objective examination sometimes.  She's terrible, it's true, but the idea of an amoral reality show host as Commander in Chief is just as bad.

Responsibility is kind of a primary thing in the job description of a president. It doesn't matter if a president is personally picking targets or not, he's still responsible and throwing the military under the bus is irresponsible in the extreme.

While the Syrians aren't our allies, they also aren't our direct enemies but friendly fire accidents happen in every single war. We've accidentally killed British, Canadians, French, and even Americans (Pat Tillman) but you still don't throw the military under the bus. You express confidence in the military to conduct a thourough investigation and that they will do all possible to prevent it in the future. You allow civil proceedings and only step in if there is some reason to believe the military needs to make changes or isn't doing what it needs to do.

I shudder to think how Trump would behave toward a Cindy Sheehan type of mother.

[chae]

@CatherineofAragon

Regarding Trump vs Hilary, I heard Limbaugh say the other day that he was "NeverHilary" and I was thinking honestly, aside from Benghazi (and I don't blame that on her totally, I mean, we still have no clue where Obama was during that mess...I think he was coked out of his gourd with Reggie Love, but that's not the issue here), there's really no difference.  tHey are basically two sides of the same coin.
The only differences is if Betty Lou in Topeka writes a mean letter to Hilary in the White House,  Betty Lou will be found dead in a very suspicious suicide. A mean letter to Trump would result in him nuking Kansas.

[Night Hides Not]

I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the military will be better off on his watch than Clinton.

I'm not saying worse, just not better.

A man who can't accept responsibility for even the tiniest things just isn't going to accept responsibility for lives that WILL be lost on his watch. It is effectively the same reason Clinton refuses to accept responsibility for lives lost in Benghazi.

In that regard, the military will face 4-8 more years with a CinC unable to accept responsibility.

As a green platoon leader, it was drummed into me that everything my platoon did, or failed to do, was my responsibility. That lesson really struck home, when on the first day of being assigned as a platoon leader, they were picked for an ARTEP (tac eval). Thanks largely to my inexperience, we flunked it, and I caught hell for it.

It was one of the best learning experiences of my life. After a couple of weeks of catching crap, I said, "Ok, I get it. If my neck's on the line, then stay out of my way." Over the next 18 months, I would lead three other platoons successfully through ARTEPs, my last one with the youngest platoon in the battery: 3 of 4 squad leaders were "acting jacks", E-4s. In fact, ours was the only platoon to pass in a battery level ARTEP. Those were good times.

That's where I'm coming from.

[Cripplecreek]

In that regard, the military will face 4-8 more years with a CinC unable to accept responsibility.

As a green platoon leader, it was drummed into me that everything my platoon did, or failed to do, was my responsibility. That lesson really struck home, when on the first day of being assigned as a platoon leader, they were picked for an ARTEP (tac eval). Thanks largely to my inexperience, we flunked it, and I caught hell for it.

It was one of the best learning experiences of my life. After a couple of weeks of catching crap, I said, "Ok, I get it. If my neck's on the line, then stay out of my way." Over the next 18 months, I would lead three other platoons successfully through ARTEPs, my last one with the youngest platoon in the battery: 3 of 4 squad leaders were "acting jacks", E-4s. In fact, ours was the only platoon to pass in a battery level ARTEP. Those were good times.

That's where I'm coming from.

I've never been in the military let alone combat but from reading the report on the Pat Tillman death I can definitely see how it could happen in the heat of battle.

The platoon got split up between serial 1 (Tillman's) and serial 2. The trailing serial 2 comes under attack, serial 1 hearing the chatter ascends the hillsides to cover serial 2's exit from the ambush. Serial 2 believing they're still under attack opens fire on serial 1 killing Tillman.

[Silver Pines]

Responsibility is kind of a primary thing in the job description of a president. It doesn't matter if a president is personally picking targets or not, he's still responsible and throwing the military under the bus is irresponsible in the extreme.

While the Syrians aren't our allies, they also aren't our direct enemies but friendly fire accidents happen in every single war. We've accidentally killed British, Canadians, French, and even Americans (Pat Tillman) but you still don't throw the military under the bus. You express confidence in the military to conduct a thourough investigation and that they will do all possible to prevent it in the future. You allow civil proceedings and only step in if there is some reason to believe the military needs to make changes or isn't doing what it needs to do.

I shudder to think how Trump would behave toward a Cindy Sheehan type of mother.

Whatever you're imagining would be pretty close to reality, I expect.

Trump is completely unqualified to command the military.  He clearly has no respect for them; this isn't the first time he's denigrated them.  If he'll target them now, think of how he'd behave in a crisis situation if things went south. 

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon

Regarding Trump vs Hilary, I heard Limbaugh say the other day that he was "NeverHilary" and I was thinking honestly, aside from Benghazi (and I don't blame that on her totally, I mean, we still have no clue where Obama was during that mess...I think he was coked out of his gourd with Reggie Love, but that's not the issue here), there's really no difference.  tHey are basically two sides of the same coin.
The only differences is if Betty Lou in Topeka writes a mean letter to Hilary in the White House,  Betty Lou will be found dead in a very suspicious suicide. A mean letter to Trump would result in him nuking Kansas.

@chae

LOL!  That's tagline material!

[CSM]

@CatherineofAragon
The only differences is if Betty Lou in Topeka writes a mean letter to Hilary in the White House,  Betty Lou will be found dead in a very suspicious suicide. A mean letter to Trump would result in him nuking Kansas.

I don't care who you are, that thar is funny!

 

[CSM]

Trump is completely unqualified to command the military.  He clearly has no respect for them; this isn't the first time he's denigrated them. 

He loves them!  Well, he loves the winners that don't get captured.  Only losers get captured.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Welp figured it was just a matter of time until he opened his yapper.

[Silver Pines]

He loves them!  Well, he loves the winners that don't get captured.  Only losers get captured.

@CSM

Sad!  "But with me in command of our armed forces, we will do so much winning.  We'll get sick of winning, let me tell you."

[HonestJohn]

@Cripplecreek

That's pretty much how I see it.  I think falling into the trap of thinking no one could ever be as bad as Hillary prevents objective examination sometimes.  She's terrible, it's true, but the idea of an amoral reality show host as Commander in Chief is just as bad.

With Hillary, immoral as she may be, you know how she'll react and behave.  You can plan your future around it, using her 'value' system to your advantage.

An amoral person reacts randomly, with no set reaction to similar events.  One day, mass incarcations... the next... flowers and cake.  It depends on the whim of the person. 

And that makes the amoral person *FAR* more dangerous than any other type.  Amon Göth was a perfect example of an amoral, not immoral, person.

Helen Hirsch's description of Amon is *exactly* how we'll all be living if he gets into power.  Never knowing if we'll be next.  And with no way of determining exactly how or what we could do to avoid it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mJ0HSLMba0

[Cripplecreek]

@HonestJohn

The role of Amon Göth was exceptionally well played in Schindler's list.

One minute showing a form of kindness, the next killing Jews for sport without a thought or ounce of humanity.

[XenaLee]

@Cripplecreek

That's pretty much how I see it.  I think falling into the trap of thinking no one could ever be as bad as Hillary prevents objective examination sometimes.  She's terrible, it's true, but the idea of an amoral reality show host as Commander in Chief is just as bad.

Oh, but not just any amoral reality show host.   A fat cat billionaire that is used to getting his way and if/when he doesn't, of going after those that crossed him.  A person that has a very vindictive and petty nature.  And one who has made some very smelly business "deals" and decisions...that amount to fraud. 

And some Americans (not most) actually want that kind of a person in command of the nation?  It's insanity.  When you add up all of the negatives that Trump has, it makes him no better than Hillary Clinton.  And that fact is clear for most of us.  Too bad some have been fooled...to the point that now we are, quite solidly, screwed.

[HonestJohn]

@HonestJohn

The role of Amon Göth was exceptionally well played in Schindler's list.

One minute showing a form of kindness, the next killing Jews for sport without a thought or ounce of humanity.

I think that it's part of the reason for Trump supporters fervor.  They, subconsciously, know that they may be his next target and so, redouble their efforts in hopes he'll go after the less enthused.

Just like how no one wanted to be the first one to stop clapping at every utterance Stalin made.  That person would likely be the first one to the gulags.

[mountaineer]

With the current commander-in-chief and some of those at the very top of the armed forces, I might agree. The Obama administration and some of its willing minions in the military have turned our troops into sitting ducks and worse. We should not  demean the other 99% or so of the military, however, as they're the ones stuck with poor leadership - and having to pay the price. Obama and his allies are the gang who can't shoot straight, except when they're aiming at our Constitution, as it turns out.

Very stupid thing for Trump to say.

[Sanguine]

I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the military will be better off on his watch than Clinton.

I'm not saying worse, just not better.

A man who can't accept responsibility for even the tiniest things just isn't going to accept responsibility for lives that WILL be lost on his watch. It is effectively the same reason Clinton refuses to accept responsibility for lives lost in Benghazi.

I do.  I don't think the man has the attention span or interest to harm and dismantle the military like 0 has done and his Alinsky-acolyte-partner-in-crime will do. 

[HonestJohn]

I do.  I don't think the man has the attention span or interest to harm and dismantle the military like 0 has done and his Alinsky-acolyte-partner-in-crime will do.

Trump is a man who has called for our military to commit war crimes... and who, by his own words, doesn't believe that all Americans are truly American citizens (Judge Curiel).

What's to keep him from turning that military on those Americans he determines to be insufficiently "American"?

He and his are already drawing up lists.

---

It's not a question of how well the military will be treated... but how they'll be used.  Who do you think will use our military less.  And who will have them not act in a manner that will put them on the dock at the Hague.