• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

USA Politics Thunderdome

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
I can't hardly imply the good General is lacking in courage, but it is a good bit easier, and serves other unrelated purposes, to make a public statement then it is to sit with the president (or whatever highly placed aide you can get to) and speak with him face to face. With this president , a sure way to get automatic push back regardless of the soundness of your points is to go public and make him look bad. Everyone should know that by now. You want to advise and hope to influence Mr Trump, make your argument in private. But if you have other motives, by all means go ahead and sound off.
I know right!? I for one am very grateful that then private citizen (celeb billionaire) Trump asked for time to sit with previous presidents IOT shit on them in private.

I am amused by those (some here) who think McChrystal should STFU, but didn’t have any issues with Flynn beclowning himself at the convention.

As was pointed out, these are cases of should vs shall, but maybe try to apply some consistency...

Also, can an apologist try to decipher his Soviet Union/Russia/Afghanistan history lesson from yesterday. The rest of the western world wonders.

And Chuck.....
Along the lines of this thread, Mr. Bolsonaro's inaugural speech (newly elected Preseident of Brazil) is a good read... a guarantee to private property and the right to self defense was a key theme.

Godspeed to the anti-Communist Brazilians.

https://gatesofvienna.net/2019/01/jair-bolsonaro-guarantee-the-right-to-property-and-self-defense/
Another really good read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/americas/brazil-president-jair-bolsonaro-quotes.html
 
Last edited:

Hair Warrior

JO 1835
Contributor
What do you see as the political problem?
Our president puts a premium on loyalty, rightly or wrongly. He uses the word loyalty more than any other president I can remember. Webb is from the opposing political party. Webb brings his own values, mores, and record of past votes & quotes. His political career is far from over. Naturally, Webb has strong working relationships with his own party, formed over his many years in office. Any poli sci 101 professor can tell you how that automatically creates subtle (or visible) competing interests on day one. It’s an obvious conflict waiting to be exposed.
 
Last edited:

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Our president puts a premium on loyalty, rightly or wrongly. He uses the word loyalty more than any other president I can remember. Webb is from the opposing political party. Webb brings his own values, mores, and record of past votes & quotes. His political career is far from over. Naturally, Webb has strong working relationships with his own party, formed over his many years in office. Any poli sci 101 professor can tell you how that automatically creates subtle (or visible) competing interests on day one. It’s an obvious conflict waiting to be exposed.
It isn't uncommon to choose a SecDef from the opposing party. Webb was not in office as a DEM for many years. One term. He was a Republican for a long time for all the right reasons. On defense he is an old school Scoop Jackson DEM, which isn't a bad fit for Trump. He is as out of step with today's DEMs as Trump is out of step with the GOP. I see no political risk.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I know right!? I for one am very grateful that then private citizen (celeb billionaire) Trump asked for time to sit with previous presidents IOT shit on them in private.

I am amused by those (some here) who think McChrystal should STFU, but didn’t have any issues with Flynn beclowning himself at the convention.

As was pointed out, these are cases of should vs shall, but maybe try to apply some consistency...

Also, can an apologist try to decipher his Soviet Union/Russia/Afghanistan history lesson from yesterday. The rest of the western world wonders.

And Chuck.....

Another really good read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/americas/brazil-president-jair-bolsonaro-quotes.html
Your sarcasm misses the mark. I can stand by my post with no inconsistency. Apparently you still do not grasp my position on Mr Trump
 

Hair Warrior

JO 1835
Contributor
It isn't uncommon to choose a SecDef from the opposing party. Webb was not in office as a DEM for many years. One term. He was a Republican for a long time for all the right reasons. On defense he is an old school Scoop Jackson DEM, which isn't a bad fit for Trump. He is as out of step with today's DEMs as Trump is out of step with the GOP. I see no political risk.
You say that, but you have to realize Webb (like any politician) has run for office, given speeches at Rotary clubs, made Senate floor speeches, voted on countless leg items, etc. When (not if) he is faced with toeing the line on an administration policy or adhering to his own past record (so as to not be labeled a flip flopper), those are tough decisions - and they do not get made in a vacuum. Webb’s former elected colleagues and staff members will almost certainly apply direct and indirect pressure in subtle and not-so-subtle ways throughout any SECDEF tenure. Webb has a decade of accepting Dem campaign money and asking for vote help on legislation from fellow Dems. That doesn’t just go away. There is a lot of inertia behind Washington politics that makes it hard to walk away from past decisions/actions (and this is precisely why many people have liked outsiders Teddy R., Perot, Paul x2, Bernie, and of course our current POTUS). It doesn’t have to be a major decision on war & peace; it could be a trivial matter as small as whether or not to offer a third-gender-only bathroom in the Pentagon. But the Dems are highly incentivized to apply public pressure and stir up media attention in anything that creates a (real or perceived) rift between POTUS and his Cabinet. Even if it’s, say, a throwaway issue that distracts from the troops and national defense. That’s just how politics works.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You say that, but you have to realize Webb (like any politician) has run for office, given speeches at Rotary clubs, made Senate floor speeches, voted on countless leg items, etc. When (not if) he is faced with toeing the line on an administration policy or adhering to his own past record (so as to not be labeled a flip flopper), those are tough decisions - and they do not get made in a vacuum. Webb’s former elected colleagues and staff members will almost certainly apply direct and indirect pressure in subtle and not-so-subtle ways throughout any SECDEF tenure. Webb has a decade of accepting Dem campaign money and asking for vote help on legislation from fellow Dems. That doesn’t just go away. There is a lot of inertia behind Washington politics that makes it hard to walk away from past decisions/actions (and this is precisely why many people have liked outsiders Teddy R., Perot, Paul x2, Bernie, and of course our current POTUS). It doesn’t have to be a major decision on war & peace; it could be a trivial matter as small as whether or not to offer a third-gender-only bathroom in the Pentagon. But the Dems are highly incentivized to apply public pressure and stir up media attention in anything that creates a (real or perceived) rift between POTUS and his Cabinet. Even if it’s, say, a throwaway issue that distracts from the troops and national defense. That’s just how politics works.
Highly disagree! Then where was the former party money and boss influance on past SecDef's of opposite party?

Not likely Web will ever be a candidate again. Just taking the job from Trump would make him untouchable in terms of DEM endorsements and contributions. He was an also ran in the last Presidential primary. There is no elective future for him in either party. He doesn't need establishment money. He owes nothing to those who gave him money in the past. That is not only for practical reasons but Webb's principles. I don't believe you know enough about the guy and are underestimating the change in the political climate.

You are applying stereotypical conventional wisdon. Does not apply to Webb or the current situation. Nothing much conventional about this Administration. Or perhaps, wise.😉
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
You say that, but you have to realize Webb (like any politician) has run for office, given speeches at Rotary clubs, made Senate floor speeches, voted on countless leg items, etc. When (not if) he is faced with toeing the line on an administration policy or adhering to his own past record (so as to not be labeled a flip flopper), those are tough decisions - and they do not get made in a vacuum. Webb’s former elected colleagues and staff members will almost certainly apply direct and indirect pressure in subtle and not-so-subtle ways throughout any SECDEF tenure.
Presidential cabinet members have been from opposing parties since Washington was President. Everything will work out just fine, and in some ways it can be better for the country overall to have a dissenting opinion close to the President.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
I am amused by those (some here) who think McChrystal should STFU, but didn’t have any issues with Flynn beclowning himself at the convention.
I don't know if this is directed at me, but I'm not even sure what you're referring to. If Flynn publicly lambasted the President, then he shouldn't have done that. My omission of talking about old news is not an endorsement of the behavior. What I know about Flynn is he will probably do jail time for lying to the FBI, as he should.
 

Recovering LSO

Suck Less
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
I don't know if this is directed at me, but I'm not even sure what you're referring to. If Flynn publicly lambasted the President, then he shouldn't have done that. My omission of talking about old news is not an endorsement of the behavior. What I know about Flynn is he will probably do jail time for lying to the FBI, as he should.
It refers to your criticism of McChrystal.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Top