The Trump Presidency (Act V - The One Where Everybody Dies)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shalamar said:
She's a female, liberal democrat. Thus, unqualified.
Click to expand...

The status of her legs certainly doesn't provide any indication of knowledge or qualifications.

Also, I hear her parents were not Americans....I think they said they were ducks.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Duckwork also has a B.A. in political science and an M.A. in international affairs from George Washington University, and she graduated from the Army Officers' Reserve Training Corp. So yes, she has infinitely more insight than a draft-dodging failed real estate tycoon and former game show host.
Click to expand...

My dad has an M.A. in political science. He's woefully unqualified to lecture on military affairs.

The ROTC program is an entry-level training program intended to qualify cadets for the most junior of officer ranks. If you're going to go that route, you should probably stick with "she got promoted to Lieutenant Colonel". That at least would include not only her "undergraduate" work, but also her service experience and professional development accrued since then.

I don't doubt that she's more qualified than others to lecture on certain aspects of the military. Not everybody can say what it's like to be shot down. Not everybody is in a position to offer feedback about how the military treats its wounded, and cares for them through the recovery and discharge process.

But the whole premise behind having a civilian commander in chief, and having civilian legislative oversight of the military, is that military service or training is not necessary to be qualified to reason and have opinions about military matters.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. You have to make a correct argument first.

Also, that has to be the lamest excuse for making bad arguments.
Click to expand...

You people argue in bad faith. That's what you do. Don't get all whiney when you run into someone tired of playing that game.
 
NoahFence said:
You people argue in bad faith. That's what you do. Don't get all whiney when you run into someone tired of playing that game.
Click to expand...

In post about qualifications, bob001 included losing her legs. That is absurd. It isn't bad faith to point that out.
 
theprestige said:
Getting injured in combat is not a qualification to discuss military affairs. Combat injuries do not impart knowledge of recruitment and retention, training and doctrine, procurement and supply, etc.
Click to expand...
Being injured in and of itself does not impart knowledge, but the fact that she was injured in combat is significant, because as a solder who was under fire, she should have a window on the types of stresses soldiers would be under while deployed; plus, she would have experience dealing with veterans affairs once she returned home.

The fact that she was injured, yet continues to serve the public through politics is something that should be respected.
But her claim is that Trump is less qualified than her.
Click to expand...
Which would be an accurate claim. Even if serving/getting injured doesn't give her complete, 100% perfect knowledge of the entire military structure, that's not what that statement is saying. Its saying, all things considered, "does some knowledge/experience outweigh absolutely no knowledge/experience". The answer to that question is yes.

But the whole premise behind having a civilian commander in chief, and having civilian legislative oversight of the military, is that military service or training is not necessary to be qualified to reason and have opinions about military matters.
Click to expand...
True, its not mandatory for the president to have a military background. But if a president is lacking such a background, it would be expected for him to rely on advisors to "fill in the gaps".

Trump is such an ignorant buffoon, and we have seen no evidence that he has taken such steps to be properly educated in any matters of national security.
 
NoahFence said:
That makes her more qualified to talk about military matters than someone who has 5 deferments. That's not even a real debate, is it?
Click to expand...

Nothing about the actual act of losing her legs says anything about her being more qualified. If her legs remained in tact, her knowledge would be the same, possibly even better.
 
theprestige said:
My dad has an M.A. in political science. He's woefully unqualified to lecture on military affairs.

The ROTC program is an entry-level training program intended to qualify cadets for the most junior of officer ranks. If you're going to go that route, you should probably stick with "she got promoted to Lieutenant Colonel". That at least would include not only her "undergraduate" work, but also her service experience and professional development accrued since then.

I don't doubt that she's more qualified than others to lecture on certain aspects of the military. Not everybody can say what it's like to be shot down. Not everybody is in a position to offer feedback about how the military treats its wounded, and cares for them through the recovery and discharge process.

But the whole premise behind having a civilian commander in chief, and having civilian legislative oversight of the military, is that military service or training is not necessary to be qualified to reason and have opinions about military matters.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the Republicans have now produced two Presidents that actively worked to dodge the draft. This doesn't bode well for their views on potential military action. The term 'Armchair Warriors' Springs to mind.

I was just down in the 101st Airborne Museum in Bastogne at the weekend. There was a very appropriate quote from Patton:

“No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.”
 
NoahFence said:
Wrong, for very good reasons detailed in the post prior to yours by Segnosaur.
Click to expand...

I addressed that

but the fact that she was injured in combat is significant, because as a solder who was under fire, she should have a window on the types of stresses soldiers would be under while deployed;
Click to expand...

Injury is completely separate from stress under fire. It doesn't enhance that experience. "Being under fire" is the relevant detail.

And of course, experiencing something and studying something are two different things. The former is a waste as humans are incredibly terrible at contextualizing their own experience.
 
theprestige said:
There's been a bit of news recently about naval officers who got promoted to high rank, who have now been made to resign, and face criminal charges, due to their actions as military officers. Promotion alone does not always signify qualification or fitness for duty.
Click to expand...
And the irony just keeps building ...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Injury is completely separate from stress under fire. It doesn't enhance that experience. "Being under fire" is the relevant detail.
Click to expand...
I already highlighted the fact that she was "under fire" as a key point in my post.

What her injury does is give her first hand knowledge in how the U.S. deals with injured servicemen, both on the battlefield and after they have been discharged from the military.
And of course, experiencing something and studying something are two different things.
Click to expand...
Yes they are, but all things considered, a solder who has experienced something (but not studied) military conflict will still be better informed than a racist orangutan who has never experienced, nor studied military conflict.
 
Upchurch said:
And he did go to military school. That's like being in the military, right?
Click to expand...


Probably worse. Aside from all the getting shot at stuff, of course.

Kidding aside, being the smarmy, supercilious ass-hole that he is, I suspect his career in a military school was probably less than pleasant for him. At least if it was anything like the one I went to (SMA). The kids tend to be less tolerant of that sort of attitude, and having wealthy parents really doesn't help all that much.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I addressed that



Injury is completely separate from stress under fire. It doesn't enhance that experience. "Being under fire" is the relevant detail.

And of course, experiencing something and studying something are two different things. The former is a waste as humans are incredibly terrible at contextualizing their own experience.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp
 
Segnosaur said:
I already highlighted the fact that she was "under fire" as a key point in my post.

What her injury does is give her first hand knowledge in how the U.S. deals with injured servicemen, both on the battlefield and after they have been discharged from the military.

Yes they are, but all things considered, a solder who has experienced something (but not studied) military conflict will still be better informed than a racist orangutan who has never experienced, nor studied military conflict.
Click to expand...

But bob001 did not say it. I have little issue with you making that argument. If bob001 made that argument, results would have been different.

And I'm not sure about that last one, either. After every new study adds a new element into how badly humans judge their own personal experiences, we are approaching a point where we can just waive personal experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom