In 2016 Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college
There may have been a recount, but she conceded the next day. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote but lost Florida due the spoiler Nadar. There probably was a recount, but he did concede.
That's why Cheney should not run as an Independent. She take votes away from the Democrat, so Trump wins again. Check the poles. ( ha ha. That's funny: Czech the Poles.)
Everyone needs to be aware of what Flynn is up to. He’s actively trying to take the cult over. Like trump, he and his brother need to have consequences. He is calling for a holy/race/civil war out loud into microphones. He’s much more dangerous than trump.
Kushner says never apologize because we are in a post-apology world and because it is an “admonition” of guilt. I knew he had no character but apparently the rumors or true about how his Dad bought his admission to Harvard.
Years ago, when our Nation drafted young men for combat in Vietnam the reform talk often centered on establishing a "volunteer" military. This seemed like a good idea at the time, but now nearly 50 years later i'm no longer so sure of this.
Since that time i've read some about the concerns our Founding Fathers had regarding a standing army. I've come to understand that some even saw the 2nd Amendments "right to bear arms" as being part of the alternative to a standing army that being a citizen's organized militia (something 2ndA fanboys just brust aside these days). Now, after 50 years i'm beginning to see what the often otherwise Fallible Fathers were concerned about.
Over these 50 years, yes, volunteerism has played a big role in maintaing troop strength, but along the way we've crept increasingly towards a "professional" military. Let me say i do believe our military is "professional" in many ways such as performance but it is the creation of a class of the population i don't think we've had before at least not in numbers. Just when did we start calling them "warriors" or the more sanitized "warfighters" as a profession? Whose idea was this? These are not the citizen-soldiers of 1776, they aren't the farm boys or city kids of World War II sent to war. These are men, and now women, highly trained in the arts of War, specialists in combat in a technological age.
Even after discharge they exist as, to a degree, a priviliged class. I know that's going to really rile some of them up, but i wonder how many of them know that prior to WW I, their forbears were considered disposable? Only after rioting in the streets of the 1920's did we see political/socially organized efforts by them to secure the beginnings of todays Veterans benefits. No doubt their success was as much about the fear of what a disgruntled class of fighter could do politically as it was good will for a selfless job well done.
Today, on the literal brink of our society slipping into authoritarianism we are seemingly faced with a perfect storm. Highly trained "warriors" in the enlisted and non-commissioned ranks (and more than a few officers) are well indoctrinated and trained in a military tradition, one that now (by virtue of our Iraqi and Afghan occupations) are very knowledgeable about control of civilian populations. Most importantly these same men and women have access to MANY of the tools of the profession of war-fighting. They are also now very likely to be highly politicized ALREADY. Not all but enough to form the corps of shock troops who COULD bring about military driven changes to American governance.
The Joint Chief and Directors of Defense aren't the tip of the spear, and may well be seen as part of the problem by a politicized former military. Add in the cultist personality cult of Trumpism, and the emergence of military trained "units" like Oath Keepers, 3%'ers who are analogous to the SA of the early Fasicst movements in Germany i'd say we have a lot to be thinking about here.
Like the politicans post WW I we should be afraid too, maybe very afraid.
I've been concerned for some time about the potential for a schism within military and law enforcement ranks that could lead to an armed insurrection on a scale far larger than the cluster that was January 6. There's a reason groups like Oath Keepers target these people. The all-volunteer military has cultivated a warrior mentality that is at odds with the notion of average citizens defending their country. Cops are often recruited from the military and the same warrior mentality comes with them. And we have vocal leaders (especially in the law enforcement world) openly disdaining enforcement of laws they disagree with. As we have seen, our fragile democracy is dependent on honorable people doing honorable things. Guardrails are virtually non-existent. The potential for
I don't disagree with your comment, but just want to add that exceptions exist, although they may be ones that "prove the rule" you explain.
To whit: I know of several families who are now multi-generational police officers (at all levels), none of whom have had prior military service. For example, before entering law enforcement my own brother received an MSW, his son majored in Architecture (!) and received his MBA, and his grandson has just entered a police academy after obtaining his BS in Nursing and having worked his first job at a major metropolitan hospital.
Granted, none of my family members fit the stereotype (sadly, too often a true one nowadays) partly because they all live in a Northeast state that pays its various local police forces the highest salaries in the country, and obviously recruits its members wisely. They still see their work as community service, intellectually and socially challenging, and (so far) have never had to confront the right-wing members of "the law enforcement world" that you describe. Are they "honorable people doing honorable things"? You bet they are.
I agree exceptions exist and certainly didn't intend my view to be blanket condemnation. I think that your examples do prove the point that it's often the ex-military who we should be most concerned about...and obviously not all fit the description I have laid out, either. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who serve (as I did) but have grave concerns about how some perceive their profession and their role as peacekeepers.
A little off topic - The search affidavit is now out, and several news organizations are already publishing what it says. Among the highlights, Trump had names of intelligence operatives in his possession. And people don't think he deserves to be tried, convicted and pilloried?
Per Tim's drop of Slenderman's self-own on the Maygen Kelly show, could some give a synopsis. I can't access since I have no need nor interest in tweeting.
Thinking of the GOP ad blitz, I can remember the campaign for Proposition 13 questioning why seniors should be paying for schools when they didn't have children attending them. That side won the argument and students ended up getting loans to replace the money previously provided by the state, where before you could attend a Cal State college for $62 a quarter. It's just a game of tug-o-war and the left side just pulled.
Can’t state how disappointed I am you didn’t call out this statement as total BS: “political leaders, from the right and the left…are eager to politicize the U.S. military”.
“The left” hasn’t once even hinted at politicizing the military. If the guy’s trying to equivocate allowing LGBTQ+ to serve in the military vs openly calling for martial law, he’s far down the “both sides” hole.
Letting that comment slip by without correction is enabling; we expect better from you, Charlie.
I am not particularly concerned about the Democrats politicizing the military. Forcing the military top do things like allowing gays to serve or opening up positions to women or doing sensitivity training are not politicizing the military.
Ordering the military to suppress your political opponents or patrol the border as a PR stunt to get yourself re-elected is politicizing the military.
I served during the 80s. The military has changed a great deal in some respects since then... and not much in other respects. Women can now serve in combat roles, you can be gay, you are supposed to be less racist and sexist (not sure how much that actually plays out given my experience). We also had a clear enemy that was rightly seen as a potentially existential threat... unlike Muslim terrorism or the PRC. We weren't the world's sole superpower.
I AM worried about the GoP doing so... because they are already doing it when they can.
What I am most worried about is what the rank and file of the military (field grade officers and enlisted) will do if ordered to suppress actual political violence in the Capitol or at voting stations or elsewhere. If the people in the military are similar to the people I served with they are mostly male, mostly young, mostly overly macho, and mostly more MAGA than not.
The danger is that a significant number would decide to not act or mutiny.
I come from a working class military family, so I grew up around military culture. Unlike many of my fellow humanities scholars in higher ed, I'm not anti-military. However, if someone asked me how much concern I think we should have about the chain of command breaking down and the military--or some segments thereof--turning against democratic institutions, I'd say that conditions are ripe for whatever worry we can spare.
Anyone else remember the movie "Seven Days in May". Burt Lancaster - egomaniac general plotting the end of the presidency with help from other generals/admirals - vs Kirk Douglas - once friend, lower class (colonel?) who saw the threat and took it on.
"Contested elections?" I only remember one, 2020.
In 2016 Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college
There may have been a recount, but she conceded the next day. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote but lost Florida due the spoiler Nadar. There probably was a recount, but he did concede.
That's why Cheney should not run as an Independent. She take votes away from the Democrat, so Trump wins again. Check the poles. ( ha ha. That's funny: Czech the Poles.)
Sorry. I'll see myself out.
The GOP is hopeless.
The governor of New Hampshire is supposedly one of the reasonable responsible Republican adults in the room.
I just saw him on CNN more concerned about the "transparency" of the FBI raid than the fact the raid was required in the first place.
The place to get the "transparency" they want is in court where everything they want to know will be revealed.
Everyone needs to be aware of what Flynn is up to. He’s actively trying to take the cult over. Like trump, he and his brother need to have consequences. He is calling for a holy/race/civil war out loud into microphones. He’s much more dangerous than trump.
Kushner says never apologize because we are in a post-apology world and because it is an “admonition” of guilt. I knew he had no character but apparently the rumors or true about how his Dad bought his admission to Harvard.
What political leaders on the Left are eager to politicize the US military?
Lol on the Jared Kushner front, did anyone else notice that the idiot doesn't know the difference between the word "admission"" and "admonition"?
He apparently also doesn't know what an "apology" means if he thinks there is a way to issue an apology without admiting any wrongdoing.
It's almost as if someone paid Harvard $2 million dollars to let this trust fund baby into the school ...
Yup, I'm sure the Saudis gave Kushner $1 billion to manage because he's a genius ...
Years ago, when our Nation drafted young men for combat in Vietnam the reform talk often centered on establishing a "volunteer" military. This seemed like a good idea at the time, but now nearly 50 years later i'm no longer so sure of this.
Since that time i've read some about the concerns our Founding Fathers had regarding a standing army. I've come to understand that some even saw the 2nd Amendments "right to bear arms" as being part of the alternative to a standing army that being a citizen's organized militia (something 2ndA fanboys just brust aside these days). Now, after 50 years i'm beginning to see what the often otherwise Fallible Fathers were concerned about.
Over these 50 years, yes, volunteerism has played a big role in maintaing troop strength, but along the way we've crept increasingly towards a "professional" military. Let me say i do believe our military is "professional" in many ways such as performance but it is the creation of a class of the population i don't think we've had before at least not in numbers. Just when did we start calling them "warriors" or the more sanitized "warfighters" as a profession? Whose idea was this? These are not the citizen-soldiers of 1776, they aren't the farm boys or city kids of World War II sent to war. These are men, and now women, highly trained in the arts of War, specialists in combat in a technological age.
Even after discharge they exist as, to a degree, a priviliged class. I know that's going to really rile some of them up, but i wonder how many of them know that prior to WW I, their forbears were considered disposable? Only after rioting in the streets of the 1920's did we see political/socially organized efforts by them to secure the beginnings of todays Veterans benefits. No doubt their success was as much about the fear of what a disgruntled class of fighter could do politically as it was good will for a selfless job well done.
Today, on the literal brink of our society slipping into authoritarianism we are seemingly faced with a perfect storm. Highly trained "warriors" in the enlisted and non-commissioned ranks (and more than a few officers) are well indoctrinated and trained in a military tradition, one that now (by virtue of our Iraqi and Afghan occupations) are very knowledgeable about control of civilian populations. Most importantly these same men and women have access to MANY of the tools of the profession of war-fighting. They are also now very likely to be highly politicized ALREADY. Not all but enough to form the corps of shock troops who COULD bring about military driven changes to American governance.
The Joint Chief and Directors of Defense aren't the tip of the spear, and may well be seen as part of the problem by a politicized former military. Add in the cultist personality cult of Trumpism, and the emergence of military trained "units" like Oath Keepers, 3%'ers who are analogous to the SA of the early Fasicst movements in Germany i'd say we have a lot to be thinking about here.
Like the politicans post WW I we should be afraid too, maybe very afraid.
I've been concerned for some time about the potential for a schism within military and law enforcement ranks that could lead to an armed insurrection on a scale far larger than the cluster that was January 6. There's a reason groups like Oath Keepers target these people. The all-volunteer military has cultivated a warrior mentality that is at odds with the notion of average citizens defending their country. Cops are often recruited from the military and the same warrior mentality comes with them. And we have vocal leaders (especially in the law enforcement world) openly disdaining enforcement of laws they disagree with. As we have seen, our fragile democracy is dependent on honorable people doing honorable things. Guardrails are virtually non-existent. The potential for
catastrophe is great.
I don't disagree with your comment, but just want to add that exceptions exist, although they may be ones that "prove the rule" you explain.
To whit: I know of several families who are now multi-generational police officers (at all levels), none of whom have had prior military service. For example, before entering law enforcement my own brother received an MSW, his son majored in Architecture (!) and received his MBA, and his grandson has just entered a police academy after obtaining his BS in Nursing and having worked his first job at a major metropolitan hospital.
Granted, none of my family members fit the stereotype (sadly, too often a true one nowadays) partly because they all live in a Northeast state that pays its various local police forces the highest salaries in the country, and obviously recruits its members wisely. They still see their work as community service, intellectually and socially challenging, and (so far) have never had to confront the right-wing members of "the law enforcement world" that you describe. Are they "honorable people doing honorable things"? You bet they are.
I agree exceptions exist and certainly didn't intend my view to be blanket condemnation. I think that your examples do prove the point that it's often the ex-military who we should be most concerned about...and obviously not all fit the description I have laid out, either. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who serve (as I did) but have grave concerns about how some perceive their profession and their role as peacekeepers.
“…Republicans are confident that the president's plan will be politically problematic…”
And I remain confident it’ll be forgotten by November if not next Tuesday.
A little off topic - The search affidavit is now out, and several news organizations are already publishing what it says. Among the highlights, Trump had names of intelligence operatives in his possession. And people don't think he deserves to be tried, convicted and pilloried?
The Hill has the entire affidavit available on its website - if you're interested.
Per Tim's drop of Slenderman's self-own on the Maygen Kelly show, could some give a synopsis. I can't access since I have no need nor interest in tweeting.
Thanks, C.
Thinking of the GOP ad blitz, I can remember the campaign for Proposition 13 questioning why seniors should be paying for schools when they didn't have children attending them. That side won the argument and students ended up getting loans to replace the money previously provided by the state, where before you could attend a Cal State college for $62 a quarter. It's just a game of tug-o-war and the left side just pulled.
Can’t state how disappointed I am you didn’t call out this statement as total BS: “political leaders, from the right and the left…are eager to politicize the U.S. military”.
“The left” hasn’t once even hinted at politicizing the military. If the guy’s trying to equivocate allowing LGBTQ+ to serve in the military vs openly calling for martial law, he’s far down the “both sides” hole.
Letting that comment slip by without correction is enabling; we expect better from you, Charlie.
Student loans probably aren't going to be a durable, top-five voting issue in November. Abortion rights definitely will be.
WRT politicization of the military:
I am not particularly concerned about the Democrats politicizing the military. Forcing the military top do things like allowing gays to serve or opening up positions to women or doing sensitivity training are not politicizing the military.
Ordering the military to suppress your political opponents or patrol the border as a PR stunt to get yourself re-elected is politicizing the military.
I served during the 80s. The military has changed a great deal in some respects since then... and not much in other respects. Women can now serve in combat roles, you can be gay, you are supposed to be less racist and sexist (not sure how much that actually plays out given my experience). We also had a clear enemy that was rightly seen as a potentially existential threat... unlike Muslim terrorism or the PRC. We weren't the world's sole superpower.
I AM worried about the GoP doing so... because they are already doing it when they can.
What I am most worried about is what the rank and file of the military (field grade officers and enlisted) will do if ordered to suppress actual political violence in the Capitol or at voting stations or elsewhere. If the people in the military are similar to the people I served with they are mostly male, mostly young, mostly overly macho, and mostly more MAGA than not.
The danger is that a significant number would decide to not act or mutiny.
I come from a working class military family, so I grew up around military culture. Unlike many of my fellow humanities scholars in higher ed, I'm not anti-military. However, if someone asked me how much concern I think we should have about the chain of command breaking down and the military--or some segments thereof--turning against democratic institutions, I'd say that conditions are ripe for whatever worry we can spare.
Anyone else remember the movie "Seven Days in May". Burt Lancaster - egomaniac general plotting the end of the presidency with help from other generals/admirals - vs Kirk Douglas - once friend, lower class (colonel?) who saw the threat and took it on.