Trump Seeks Sharp Increases In Military Spending, "Drastic Cuts" To State Department, EPA

[LonestarDream]

THIS people wants MAGA!

Winning @don-o

So now we are to hate Trump for fixing the military and gutting two bastions of liberalism because ...why? I sure do remember people complaining when Barry gutted the military and empowered those other bastions of liberalism mentioned above. So what is it you people want exactly? Other than to be an embarrassment to conservatism I mean? Surely you want something. Just check your DNC talking point memos. I'm sure they typed you a rebuttal unless the mindless drooling obscured it's legibility.

[endicom]

Most of us do that.  Shame you don't see it.

I see what's there.

[DCPatriot]

Her ass.

I don't know what the point is to inventing problems to blame Trump for. All the crying wolf isn't helping matters. When the guy screws up or goes left, he damn well should be called on it. Loudly But this running around like chickens with heads cut off every single time he does or even DOESN'T do something is freaking pathetic. If/when he screws up, no one will be left to listen.

And I say that as someone who spent the campaign pointing out the Liberalism Trump is actually guilty of.

Wow!   Impressive!!

....for somebody who was extremely vocal and critical of Candidate/Nominee Trump.   

[endicom]

Or to be more precise, what most here SAID they wanted done when there was no chance of it actually happening...when there was no cost in doing so.

This is OT but that's just what I saw with libertarian writers. It's easy to play Captain Liberty with what won't happen in their lifetimes but really hard when having to make best choices.

[bilo]

I wonder if these are real cuts or just a cut in the rate of growth?

[DCPatriot]

Most of us do that.  Shame you don't see it.

      

Uh-huh.......

[Smokin Joe]

Most of us do that.  Shame you don't see it.

@endicom It wasn't a bandwagon in the first place, but a well deliberated decision based on the behaviour of the candidate at the time, and in his past.

Considering the mountains of crap some of us have put up with on other sites, and occasionally on this one, and knowing that would be there, up to and including exile from sites we enjoyed in the past, "jumping on a bandwagon" simply debases the deliberation involved and the principles to which we stick, including being fair

That last morally requires us to agree when he does well, but also requires us to speak up when he does not.

[skeeter]

I don't know what the point is to inventing problems to blame Trump for. All the crying wolf isn't helping matters. When the guy screws up or goes left, he damn well should be called on it. Loudly But this running around like chickens with heads cut off every single time he does or even DOESN'T do something is freaking pathetic. If/when he screws up, no one will be left to listen.

And I say that as someone who spent the campaign pointing out the Liberalism Trump is actually guilty of.

Thank you.

[txradioguy]

A Strong Military IS Diplomacy.

It's one piece to the puzzle.

[Rivergirl]

All ambassadors were instructed to leave their embassies on Day One of the DT occupation of the throne.
All new ambassadors must be confirmed by the senate if I am not mistaken.

[Wingnut]

All new ambassadors must be confirmed by the senate if I am not mistaken.

Ambassadors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.[2] An ambassador can be appointed during a recess, but he or she can only serve as ambassador until the end of the next session of Congress unless subsequently confirmed.[3] Ambassadors serve "at the pleasure of the President", meaning they can be dismissed at any time.

An ambassador may be a career Foreign Service Officer or a political appointee. In most cases, career foreign service officers serve a tour of approximately three years per ambassadorship whereas political appointees customarily tender their resignations upon the inauguration of a new president. As embassies fall under the State Department's jurisdiction, ambassadors answer directly to the Secretary of State.

[txradioguy]

Ambassadors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.[2] An ambassador can be appointed during a recess, but he or she can only serve as ambassador until the end of the next session of Congress unless subsequently confirmed.[3] Ambassadors serve "at the pleasure of the President", meaning they can be dismissed at any time.

An ambassador may be a career Foreign Service Officer or a political appointee. In most cases, career foreign service officers serve a tour of approximately three years per ambassadorship whereas political appointees customarily tender their resignations upon the inauguration of a new president. As embassies fall under the State Department's jurisdiction, ambassadors answer directly to the Secretary of State.

Obama used Ambassadorships to reward money bundlers and other assorted people who had no business or qualifications for being his representative in a foreign country other than their ability to kiss his @ss.

I'm hoping beyond hope that Trump actually puts real FSO types into the Embassies and not more ring kissers like his predecessor in order to rebuild some damaged relationships with our allies.

[truth_seeker]

Obama used Ambassadorships to reward money bundlers and other assorted people who had no business or qualifications for being his representative in a foreign country other than their ability to kiss his @ss.

As have Presidents done before, from BOTH parties. But you knew that.

I know, that isn't a great justification. But in order to get folks who know which fork to use with the salad, you need some screening criteria.

[geronl]

If you're referring to the military budget...no...not really.    There's not a lot of money to spend these days.

DoD counting pennies?, poor thing.

We have deployments in about 150 countries, I think we can reduce that by a lot. That would save some.

$583 billion is hardly a pittance.

[geronl]

As have Presidents done before, from BOTH parties. But you knew that.

I know, that isn't a great justification. But in order to get folks who know which fork to use with the salad, you need some screening criteria.

Not going to get that with Trump.

[geronl]

Great!  I am very glad to hear it and  I have absolutely no qualms about expanding and increasing our military and I am confident that President Trump will look into slashing unnecessary military expenses such as outrageous contracts with defense contractors.

Trump will have them buying their parts and equipment from the Dollar Tree instead

[geronl]

So now we are to hate Trump for fixing the military

he fixed the military? since yesterday?

[txradioguy]

DoD counting pennies?, poor thing.

We have deployments in about 150 countries, I think we can reduce that by a lot. That would save some.

$583 billion is hardly a pittance.

150 countries?  I'd seriously like to see where you get that from.

Never said their budget is a "pittance'...but it's not enough to cover operations...maintenance...and acquisitions much less anything else.

[txradioguy]

Trump will have them buying their parts and equipment from the Dollar Tree instead

Dude seriously...I normally agree with your posts on here...but this incessant whinging over nothing...and posts like this aren't necessary.

[LonestarDream]

As have Presidents done before, from BOTH parties. But you knew that.

I know, that isn't a great justification. But in order to get folks who know which fork to use with the salad, you need some screening criteria.

Very true.  But the Chinese , Russians and Iranians and ISIS means we need to rebuild.

[truth_seeker]

Very true.  But the Chinese , Russians and Iranians and ISIS means we need to rebuild.

I am all in for rebuilding. The more the better, after anti-military Obama has run the forces and their equipment into the ground, while handing out more and more food stamps, welfare, benefits for illegal aliens, dangerous muslim "refugees," etc.

And wasted money to various "feel good" bloated bureaucracies, for climate changes, blocking fracking, sanctuary cities, etc.

[Wingnut]

Dude seriously...I normally agree with your posts on here...but this incessant whinging over nothing...and posts like this aren't necessary.

He must have you on ignore.  He has like 36 people on it.

When he pulls up a thread it has 47 or so lines that say:
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
and two that he can see without clicking  "Show me the post".

[txradioguy]

Very true.  But the Chinese , Russians and Iranians and ISIS means we need to rebuild.

Which is why this whinging about supposedly spending too  much is nonsense.

It's a vicious cycle we've been in since the Carter years...it goes like this:

Lib President gets elected...guts the military...Lib gets voted out or is replaced by Republican President who...after either 4 or 8 years...sees the sorry shape the military is in...realizes what has to be done and spends the $$$ necessary to rebuild us to a point where we can meet our two war op plan....democrats spend mid terms and re-election cycle bashing Republicans and the Republican President for out of control military spending.

Wash...rinse...repeat.

Just once when these Lib Congress critters start up with this crap...I'd like to see someone like the SecDef...Chairman of the House or Senate defense committee or even better the President...respond and point out exactly why and who is the reason for the uptick in defense spending.

[Suppressed]

150 countries?  I'd seriously like to see where you get that from.

@txradioguy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments has it.

Specifically "Total Military Personnel and Dependent End Strength By Service, Regional Area, and Country". Defense Manpower Data Center. November 7, 2016:
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/rest/download?fileName=DMDC_Website_Location_Report_1609.xlsx&groupName=milRegionCountry

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments has it.

Specifically "Total Military Personnel and Dependent End Strength By Service, Regional Area, and Country". Defense Manpower Data Center. November 7, 2016:
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/rest/download?fileName=DMDC_Website_Location_Report_1609.xlsx&groupName=milRegionCountry

37 countries total.  That still 113 shy of the claim made.  And not all of them are soldiers that are "deployed".