285
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
285 points (96.1% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3962 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He'll just hold all the spots open in case Trump is reelected. That means this time the insurrection will have military backing. Kind of like the Supreme Court seat.
This is a terrifying scenario, but unlikely and I don't think his scheme.
He isn't holding out for alternate candidates. He just wants the Pentagon to reverse its abortion policy. If he were doing this to get alternative candidates approved, it would require alternate recommendations coming from elsewhere in the military, which isn't occurring, and the Senate democrats wouldn't approve them anyway.
Just because it won't work doesn't mean he isn't trying it.
The President is the Commander in Chief - he could override all those decisions on who to promote, theoretically. At least that's how I understand it.
If they have a smart group that is actually planning this, that group could then vet a bunch of other people that their data suggests would be more amenable to their agenda and present a list of alternate promotions to the Republican president, which he could then order the military to make happen.
Its the department of defense, its in the executive branch, the president can, and trump did many times, make spots open when they want. So this has no bearing on any future presidencies. Its just military spending now for the already most expensive military in the world with a tendency to bomb other countries. What a shame that they cant do that as efficiently right now.
He's only holding up military leadership. Whatever he's saving is a tiny drop in the ocean of military spending. What he's really doing is killing readiness. He's also making sure that these spots can't be filled by anyone who would owe allegiance to the Democrat party (despite the fact that none of them should owe allegiance to either party).
This is laying the groundwork for a coup and hurting our ability to prepare for and participate in conflicts.
I want our ability to participate in conflicts to be hurt. Itll save a lot of lives
How about "our" ability to put down any protests against the Trump administration? Because that's what this is going to lead to. You don't want us to be able to kill people in other countries? Fine. But this is going to get people in this country killed if they have their way.
We don't always get to choose when a conflict is thrust upon us. If an ally or ourselves got attacked and we were unable to respond effectively, that would go very badly for us. It wouldn't keep us out of the conflict, but a lot of people would die without effective leadership.