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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Real world experience is extremely faulty compared to evidence based approaches.
Click to expand...
And once again, since you and theprestige seem to have trouble understanding....

While evidence-based approaches may be better than real-world experience, the trouble is Trump does not have either of those going for him. He never served, and he constantly illustrates his ignorance of the military.

If Trump were actually illustrated an ability to learn about the military, then perhaps your argument would be irrelevant. But as long as he continues to be a buffoon, then we'll have to go with the experienced individual.

List of Trump's military gaffs...

- Claimed that the U.S. once defeated islamic terrorists using bullets coated in pigs blood (uhhh... no, Trump, that didn't happen.)

- Claimed that the F35 was "invisible" (i.e. couldn't "see" it at all, not just with radar)

- Gave the wrong location for a Carrier group supposedly headed to Korea

- Seems to not understand how NATO funding works
 
Segnosaur said:
If Trump were actually illustrated an ability to learn about the military, then perhaps your argument would be irrelevant. But as long as he continues to be a buffoon, then we'll have to go with the experienced individual.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I would have to see the studies on decision making under those scenarios.
 
Segnosaur said:
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.

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.


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.
Click to expand...

He's already stated he knows more than the Generals.
 
Mikemcc said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Not a good example Patton was a lunatic. I wouldn't have given him command of anything.
 
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...

Yes, I understand: You're defending someone who isn't much "qualified to reason and have opinions about" much of anything -- apparently because of a complete lack of interest -- by denigrating the general notion of "qualifications" and then pointing out that it's "not necessary" to be commander in chief. Yes, it a demonstrated fact now that the only thing that's necessary is to win the Electoral College. You win.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If I supported anything Trump did, that would be quite the rejoinder.
Click to expand...

By trying to completely and utterly downplay Duckwork's comments you appear, by default, defending the target of those comments. That would be Trump. If you are not defending Trump from these comments, then what point are you trying to make? Duckworth is merely noting that our President, who has made many ridiculous claims about his direct military knowledge, is actually defficient in that department. She is not bothering to compare her skillset by the arbitray standards that you suddenly decided upon, she's comparing them to Trumps bankruptcy in that department. So why are you so determined to undermine her comments at all costs such that you end up resembling the remaining Trump hyperpartisans in this thread?
 
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

The worst thing is, now he has the power to really mess those guys up if he wants to.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Military affairs. Not the meaning of military service. I stand by my characterization of the comment.
Click to expand...

Until we have an army of expendable robots, then the "meaning of military service" will be a part of my definition of "military affairs" thank you, so I'll leave you standing by your comment.
 
kookbreaker said:
By trying to completely and utterly downplay Duckwork's comments you appear, by default, defending the target of those comments. That would be Trump. If you are not defending Trump from these comments, then what point are you trying to make? Duckworth is merely noting that our President, who has made many ridiculous claims about his direct military knowledge, is actually defficient in that department. She is not bothering to compare her skillset by the arbitray standards that you suddenly decided upon, she's comparing them to Trumps bankruptcy in that department. So why are you so determined to undermine her comments at all costs such that you end up resembling the remaining Trump hyperpartisans in this thread?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to make a point any bigger than the surface point I am making.
 
NoahFence said:
It most certainly does. She was in the military, from a military family, who went through what most soldiers hope not to. She has experience in more than just combat.

She CERTAINLY has more real-world experience in the military than your orange faced hero does that's for damn sure.
Click to expand...

I, too, have served. I, too, have more military experience than Trump. That doesn't necessarily make me qualified to lecture on military affairs. I can tell you some stories, though.

A Purple Heart is not magic.

Conversely, I give you Norman Polmar. He's a world renowned expert in naval affairs. He is supremely qualified to lecture on such topics, and he didn't need to serve, let alone get wounded in the line of duty, to earn that qualification.

Again, this is a fundamental principle of our form of government: That civilians are qualified to oversee the military. Having more experiences of military life doesn't automatically grant more qualification to discuss military policy. Indeed, my experience is that perhaps except at the very highest levels, personal military experience doesn't give you much insight at all into larger questions of military policy. Your personal experiences are just anecdotes. Policy discussions require data.

Everybody defending the Senator here on the basis of her injuries or her service record, are appealing to her anecdotes. In reality, whatever qualifies her more than Trump is going to be data that she has analyzed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom