Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-15-2020, 01:13 AM)Benton Wrote: It's kind of irrelevant.

Trump's term ends on Jan. 20. If there's no federal election, the line of succession falls to Chuck Grassely. Even though he's a Republican,  the GOP doesn't want that as it would give the Dems a majority in Congress. If there is an election and Trump doesn't win... his term still ends. He can claim to be POTUS all he wants, but at that point, he's subject to local eviction codes from the White House and has no real authority over the federal branch.

Which, personally, would be $%@&ing hilarious if the land developer/king of bankruptcy got evicted.

Agreed and thank you.  This was growing tiresome, so I appreciate you putting a bow on it.

[Dill]

(08-15-2020, 01:13 AM)Benton Wrote: It's kind of irrelevant.

Trump's term ends on Jan. 20. If there's no federal election, the line of succession falls to Chuck Grassely. Even though he's a Republican,  the GOP doesn't want that as it would give the Dems a majority in Congress. If there is an election and Trump doesn't win... his term still ends. He can claim to be POTUS all he wants, but at that point, he's subject to local eviction codes from the White House and has no real authority over the federal branch.

Which, personally, would be $%@&ing hilarious if the land developer/king of bankruptcy got evicted.

I'm still curious as to what would happen if there is no federal election. Even if the presidency fell to Grassley, that would at best be temporary. Would states have to appoint electors and just let them vote?

I get that Trump is subject to eviction and has "no real authority" after Jan 20. Bur earlier this year I also got that whistleblowers are protected and Trump cannot use the military against US citizens.

My question is, what do you make of all the energy Trump is currently devoting to fouling the election before it takes place, creating pretexts for disavowing it and apparently weaponizing institutions like the Post Office, convincing his followers that the deep state coup is still ongoing. 

Do you see this energy simply dissipating as we near the election. Will some millions who believe Donald lost because of a coup grumble a lot and protest a little and then accept the election results and go home? 

[Benton]

(08-15-2020, 03:07 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm still curious as to what would happen if there is no federal election. Even if the presidency fell to Grassley, that would at best be temporary. Would states have to appoint electors and just let them vote?

I get that Trump is subject to eviction and has "no real authority" after Jan 20. Bur earlier this year I also got that whistleblowers are protected and Trump cannot use the military against US citizens.

My question is, what do you make of all the energy Trump is currently devoting to fouling the election before it takes place, creating pretexts for disavowing it and apparently weaponizing institutions like the Post Office, convincing his followers that the deep state coup is still ongoing. 

Do you see this energy simply dissipating as we near the election. Will some millions who believe Donald lost because of a coup grumble a lot and protest a little and then accept the election results and go home? 

Trump didn't exactly break new ground to the bolded. 

As to the questions, yeah, that's par for the GOP course. They rally the base saying 1- the Dems are coming for their guns but they'll save them; 2- they (the GOP) will end abortion; 3- they (the GOP) will lower everybody's taxes); 4- they (the GOP) would've done 1-3 last time they were thwarted by the deep state government.

So they get control of at least one side and the POTUS, don't do 1-3 and lose to Democrats. Then everything goes back to "normal" for 4-8 years and then they do the 1-4 rally again.

We're at the stage where the GOP has paid back their donors at the cost and ire of voters, and will likely be moving back out of majority.  And the core supporters will say it wasn't because the majority of Americans realized they got screwed again (and, really, they're gonna get screwed by the Dems, just in a different way) but because of the deep state government. Why? Because that's easier than accepting they were wrong and got used... again.

And until there's a third party, it's going to ping pong between one side using people and the other side using another group of people, with both sets of people falling for something so they don't have to accept the reality that they were really no options.

[*michaelsean*]

Oh shit is this another he won’t leave office things? It was Bush, then Obama, and now Trump. They have no mechanism to stay in office. His authority is over. Nothing he does after the oath is taken counts.

“Open letters” might as well open with “look at me!”. Two random military vets make up a scenario and we are supposed to discuss it because they wrote it down?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-17-2020, 10:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh shit is this another he won’t leave office things?  It was Bush, then Obama, and now Trump. They have no mechanism to stay in office.  “Open letters” might as well open with “look at me!”.  Two random military vets make up a scenario and we are supposed to discuss it because they wrote it down?

[Dill]

(08-17-2020, 10:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh shit is this another he won’t leave office things?  It was Bush, then Obama, and now Trump. They have no mechanism to stay in office. His authority is over. Nothing he does after the oath is taken counts.
“Open letters” might as well open with “look at me!”.  Two random military vets make up a scenario and we are supposed to discuss it because they wrote it down?

Actually, Trump does have a mechanism for staying in office. More about that below.

I don't remember an ongoing public discussion about whether Bush would leave office. Might have been, but it was a fringe discussion if so. 

I do remember Limbaugh suggesting that could be a problem with Obama, given Obama's contempt for the Constitution.
http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/the-new-prediction-obama-wont-leave

Also, the Burrad Street Journal published a spoof of Right Wing paranoia, a supposed interview in which Obama stated unconditionally that he would not step down if Trump won. https://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/obama-refusing-to-leave-if-trump-elected/. For the right groups, that quickly circulated as an actual Obama quote. People probably filed that in the folder with the video where admitted he was really a Muslim.

Newsmax apparently published some letters and links on this, warning of the "terrifying socialist policies" which would follow the usurpation.https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/right-wing-conspiracy-theory-barack-obama-third-term/

So yes there were a number of people worried that Obama would stay in office, mostly people already sure he was a dictator and the most corrupt president ever. In other words, a segment of right wing media followers, probably greatly overlapping with the people who thought Obama was really born in Kenya. Not serious.

But now "not serious" has captured the Republican party and the White House. That means two things are different this time around:

1. It's not just a couple of vets publishing a letter in a venue not known for its conspiratorial tendency, but for its dependable reporting. Rather, Trump's abuse of power is the subject of mainstream news articles and commentary as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/13/tracking-trumps-effort-stay-office-by-any-means-necessary/
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2019/how-trump-could-lose-the-election-and-remain-president/
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/17/could-trump-use-the-virus-to-stay-in-power-192883
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-02/trump-plans-emergency-to-stay-in-office-top-democrat-says
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-could-happen-if-donald-trump-rejects-electoral-defeat
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-2020-election-lose-emergency-powers-biden-polls-a9651041.html
https://www.justsecurity.org/69996/the-looming-crisis-of-emergency-powers-and-holding-the-2020-presidential-election/

2. We have all this this legitimate buzz because, unlike Bush and Obama, Trump is actually taking active steps to challenge/"rig"/disrupt the upcoming election. We see other threads on this subject in this forum, especially the one on the USPS. So far as I am aware, Neither Bush nor Obama committed any action on the level of appointing a new head of the Post Office in hopes CREATING a problem with mail in ballots, a mode of voting likely to increase voter turn out, something not in Trump's favor. Add to this his floating the idea of postponing the election because of the Coronavirus.

This disturbs people because Trump has already gotten away with a number of things presidents aren't supposed to do, let alone get away with, ranging from firing people investigating him to openly seeking to profit from office to abusing his foreign policy powers for partisan ends to firing whistleblowers and their families to appointing an AG who dismisses prosecutors investigating the president.

And finally, Trump does have the (wholly legitimate) power to declare a state of emergency at election time, e.g., claiming that the election was fraudulent. And it could be a REAL emergency, with an ACTUALLY BROKEN ELECTION.  Not fake at all, in the sense that it might be genuinely impossible to really tell who won, impossible to get a valid recount. People saying his powers end at noon on Jan. 20 and the Secret Service will march him out of the WH, etc. appear to assume that he has not declared a state of emergency, which would be a power to override "normal" procedures, to cut/control national communications, including the internet, and deploy the military. And hope the SC can decide in his favor. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

If there IS a big election mess because the PS can't handle mail in ballots and we have not protected ourselves from Russian interference, then it is entirely possible that the Republican Party will follow Trump on this, along with tens of millions of followers who already utterly believe there has been a four-year coup attempt against his presidency. Why wouldn't they believe Trump over the NYT and WaPO and Nancy Pelosi, considering Trump's assumption of emergency control wholly legitimate, and efforts to block it wholly illegitimate--part of the coup. Who here trusts Trump's DOJ to refuse all orders were he to declare a state of emergency?

I personally do not think there is a serious chance that Trump could finagle his way to a second term unelected. He cannot "trick" the majority of Americans who know who he is. A majority of military officers, from mid-level up, would likely refuse orders. But he can trick a significant plurality. So I do think it well within his power to cause one final, tremendous Constitutional/social crisis before he is levered out of there. Pretty sure the Joint Chiefs were not seriously thinking about what to do if Bush or Obama refused to step down, but they are now thinking about Trump.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-17-2020, 09:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Pretty sure the Joint Chiefs were not seriously thinking about to do if Bush or Obama refused to step down, but they are now thinking about Trump.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you have a finger on the pulse of the JCoS.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-17-2020, 10:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh shit is this another he won’t leave office things? It was Bush, then Obama, and now Trump. They have no mechanism to stay in office. His authority is over. Nothing he does after the oath is taken counts.

“Open letters” might as well open with “look at me!”. Two random military vets make up a scenario and we are supposed to discuss it because they wrote it down?

While I am normally one who would agree with you about the histrionics we are seeing, can we at least agree that this time around it is a little bit different given Trump's statements about the uncertainty of accepting the election results and his active attempts to undermine the election?

Edit: My bad. I don't know if we can call it an uncertainty that he won't accept the election results, anymore: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/08/17/trump_the_only_way_we_lose_the_election_is_if_the_election_is_rigged.html

[Dill]

(08-17-2020, 11:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Pretty sure the Joint Chiefs were not seriously thinking about to do if Bush or Obama refused to step down, but they are now thinking about Trump.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you have a finger on the pulse of the JCoS.  

LOL Sure. THAT'S the issue.

Those Joint Chiefs under Obama and Bush could very well have been reading Newsmax.  Flynn was a General and HE was. 
Can I PROVE they were not?  Um no. Got me there.:whiteflag:  

Just like I can't prove that today they are actually concerned about the president who used one of them and Secretary of Defense in a campaign photo op crossing that political line barring politicization of the military. The president currently claiming the election will be "rigged" and reducing USPS capacity ahead of millions of mail in ballots. Can't get THERE without a finger on their pulse.

Readers of this thread should not be considering for themselves what public evidence there might be for an impending Constitutional crisis that wasn't there for either Bush or Obama;

they should be considering whether dill has the "pulse" of the JCoS.  

And then if you think he doesn't you should not read that Letter which SSF hasn't read either.

That's how you should approach this issue. Don't discuss arguments and evidence and historical precdent. Don't even read them.

That's not how you put a finger on anyone's "pulse."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2020, 10:59 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL Sure. THAT'S the issue.

I'll ignore the condescension and simply respond.

Quote:Those Joint Chiefs under Obama and Bush could very well have been reading Newsmax.  Flynn was a General and HE was. 
Can I PROVE they were not?  Um no. Got me there.:whiteflag:  

The second Iraq war aside, what exactly are you referencing here?

Quote:Just like I can't prove that today they are actually concerned about the president who used one of them and Secretary of Defense in a campaign photo op crossing that political line barring politicization of the military. The president currently claiming the election will be "rigged" reducing USPS capacity ahead of an election likely to involve millions of mail in ballots. Can't get THERE with a finger on their pulse.

How exactly are they supposed to prove this to you?  Since you seem wholly ignorant of how the military works I'll clue you in to a little secret.  In the military you never, ever, criticize your superiors in public.  The captain of the USS Roosevelt was not relieved because of his complaints, he was relieved because he made his complaints public.

Quote:Readers of this thread should not be considering for themselves what public evidence there might be for an impending Constitutional crisis that wasn't there for either Bush or Obama;

they should be considering whether dill has the "pulse" of the JCoS.  

Why not do both?  You started this thread and demand we all interpret it as you dictate.  Why, then, would we not consider whether your opinion on the subject of the JCoS is grounded in any firm knowledge or logic?  Don't set yourself up as the authority on a subject and then kvetch when you're questioned.

Quote:And then if you think he doesn't you should not be reading that Letter which SSF isn't reading either.

Why would you think I didn't read it?

Quote:That's how you would evaluate existing sources and evidence.

I think you've adequately demonstrated your purpose for starting this thread and it wasn't toe evaluate "existing sources and evidence".  

[Dill]

(08-17-2020, 12:56 AM)Benton Wrote: Trump didn't exactly break new ground to the bolded. 

As to the questions, yeah, that's par for the GOP course. They rally the base saying 1- the Dems are coming for their guns but they'll save them; 2- they (the GOP) will end abortion; 3- they (the GOP) will lower everybody's taxes); 4- they (the GOP) would've done 1-3 last time they were thwarted by the deep state government.

So they get control of at least one side and the POTUS, don't do 1-3 and lose to Democrats. Then everything goes back to "normal" for 4-8 years and then they do the 1-4 rally again.

We're at the stage where the GOP has paid back their donors at the cost and ire of voters, and will likely be moving back out of majority.  And the core supporters will say it wasn't because the majority of Americans realized they got screwed again (and, really, they're gonna get screwed by the Dems, just in a different way) but because of the deep state government. Why? Because that's easier than accepting they were wrong and got used... again.

And until there's a third party, it's going to ping pong between one side using people and the other side using another group of people, with both sets of people falling for something so they don't have to accept the reality that they were really no options.

Concise analysis. I understand your position much better from this.  I think this "cycle" was valid until Trump. And I think you are right that they will be no self recognition the base was fooled. . . again.

But I suspect Trump may have broken the cycle, in part because it was already spiraling out of control. I don't think the "deep state" played as strong a role in it during previous elections, when the Republican establishment was still seen as "anti-government" and fighting the deep state.  Now they are not seen that way by Trump's base.

More importantly, the "deep state" has become a much larger, more intricate, malevolent and "guided" entity, with faces and names, than it was in the past--one specifically targeting Trump, who is its greatest enemy. It has organized an ongoing coup against their man. And the evidence is plainly there for them, every time his abuse of power activates what looks to everyone else like a valid constitutional check.

PS I don't think voters are gonna get screwed by the Dems in a different way if they come back into power. E.g., I think Dems have worked pretty hard at trying to create a better health care system. They'll continue to do that. They actually want to govern; the parties are not somehow equal in that respect. They may govern badly and disappoint that way. But they don't just want to cut taxes and break things.

[Dill]

(08-18-2020, 11:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll ignore the condescension and simply respond.

The second Iraq war aside, what exactly are you referencing here?

How exactly are they supposed to prove this to you?  Since you seem wholly ignorant of how the military works I'll clue you in to a little secret.  In the military you never, ever, criticize your superiors in public.  The captain of the USS Roosevelt was not relieved because of his complaints, he was relieved because he made his complaints public.

Routinely announcing you are going to ignore my supposed condescension is not ignoring my supposed condescension. And wholly moot anyway, from someone about to teach me "how the military works." 

"Newsmax" references a source used in post #26. 

The Joint Chiefs are supposed to "prove" something to me? Or I was inviting them to publicly criticize Trump?  No idea why you are assuming/addressing any of this. That's why we need to source and quote statements and points we are addressing, to help avoid introducing unstated/unacknowledged premises.

(08-18-2020, 11:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why not do both?  You started this thread and demand we all interpret it as you dictate.  Why, then, would we not consider whether your opinion on the subject of the JCoS is grounded in any firm knowledge or logic?  Don't set yourself up as the authority on a subject and then kvetch when you're questioned.

Why would you think I didn't read it?

I think you've adequately demonstrated your purpose for starting this thread and it wasn't toe evaluate "existing sources and evidence".  

Well I "demand" that people focus on issues and arguments, and "dictate" that they not center criticism on other posters' persons. That's why, in post # 14, I asked you not to "patter around my posts with little quips and unsupported accusations/objections." I have no authority or power to enforce such requests, but may "kvetch" or ignore when people deviate.  I certainly haven't demanded that people interpret the proffered Letter as I do, nor the issue of Trump's threats regarding the coming election. My disagreeing with others' arguments is "demanding we all intrepret as I dictate" only for people who don't understand how civil debates work.

The way to consider whether my "opinion" is grounded in "firm knowledge or logic" is first to identify whatever conclusions I may be offering, then to consider what evidence is offered in support of them and whether it actually supports them.   As I have been telling you for years. Asserting that I don't "have my finger on the JCs" pulse" doesn't really reach that bar.

People don't set themselves up as authorities on a message board by simply starting a thread and inviting people to discuss it. In all my years on the Bengals Message Board I have never announced I was an expert on something, and asserted others had "zero knowledge. ZERO."  There are many people on this board who do have expert/insider knowledge of things ranging from the military to the COVID virus to computers to law to insurance to US history to public schools to government. But this is usually DEMONSTRATED in their posts, not merely asserted. "Expertise" is no requisite for participation, no argument in itself.  

I don't think you read the "Letter" above for two reasons. 1) you never actually refer to its argument/points to explain and critique them; only launched a red herring/straw man about the authors' "expertise," then mine. And 2) you have yourself explained why you don't have to read the "Letter"--for the same reason you don't engage with Alex Jones or an Antivaxer (badly chosen examples to support non-engagement with opposing views).  Thus avoiding the tedious work of knowing what you are talking about.

So here, as in so many previous threads, it's just you complaining when I challenge your god-given right to deploy unsupported assertions about other posters' integrity--instead of addressing actual arguments and issues put up for discussion. That's the "dictatorship" you are complaining about. You want that freedom to reference some unspecified "posting history" or "solipsism," or toss off non-sequiturs about my comfort with abuse of power, without question or accountability. The freedom to substitute quips for arguments, without someone constantly calling attention to the difference.

As I have noted before, it is entirely possible that you don't know what an argument is, other than arguments from authority. That's why you are always diverting to these credibility issues. It's personal authority which you do or do not see, not that structure of identifiable premises/evidence linked via inference to a conclusion to which I directed you in posts # 14-15. That would explain your claim the "Letter" is supposed to rest on expertise and that I have "set myself up as an authority." For you that's where the "argument" is, not in the actual argument. Or you could very well know where the actual argument is, but want to stay away from it. Either way, the avoidance continues.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2020, 01:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Routinely announcing you are going to ignore my supposed condescension is not ignoring my supposed condescension.

It is ignoring it.  It doesn't mean I'm going to pretend you're not doing it.

Quote:And wholly moot anyway, from someone about to teach me "how the military works." 

"Newsmax" references a source used in post #26. 

That wasn't my question.

Quote:The Joint Chiefs are supposed to "prove" something to me? Or I was inviting them to publicly criticize Trump?  No idea why you are assuming/addressing any of this. That's why we need to source and quote statements and points we are addressing, to help avoid introducing unstated/unacknowledged premises.

Wow, now we're talking in circles, which is boring.

Quote:Well I "demand" that people focus on issues and arguments, and "dictate" that they not center criticism on other posters' persons. That's why, in post # 14, I asked you not to "patter around my posts with little quips and unsupported accusations/objections." I have no authority or power to enforce such requests, but may "kvetch" or ignore when people deviate.  I certainly haven't demanded that people interpret the proffered Letter as I do, nor the issue of Trump's threats regarding the coming election. My disagreeing with others' arguments is "demanding we all intrepret as I dictate" only for people who don't understand how civil debates work.

I have civil debates with people here every day.  Apparently I do know how they work.

Quote:The way to consider whether my "opinion" is grounded in "firm knowledge or logic" is first to identify whatever conclusions I may be offering, then to consider what evidence is offered in support of them and whether it actually supports them.   As I have been telling you for years. Asserting that I don't "have my finger on the JCs" pulse" doesn't really reach that bar.

You offered an opinion piece by two guys, hence my initial challenge in this thread.  A very relevant point.

Quote:People don't set themselves up as authorities on a message board by simply starting a thread and inviting people to discuss it. In all my years on the Bengals Message Board I have never announced I was an expert on something, and asserted others had "zero knowledge. ZERO."  There are many people on this board who do have expert/insider knowledge of things ranging from the military to the COVID virus to computers to law to insurance to US history to public schools to government. But this is usually DEMONSTRATED in their posts, not merely asserted. "Expertise" is no requisite for participation, no argument in itself.  

So, what posts have you made that demonstrated an expertise about the military?

Quote:I don't think you read the "Letter" above for two reasons. 1) you never actually refer to its argument/points to explain and critique them; only launched a red herring/straw man about the authors' "expertise," then mine. And 2) you have yourself explained why you don't have to read the "Letter"--for the same reason you don't engage with Alex Jones or an Antivaxer (badly chosen examples to support non-engagement with opposing views).  Thus avoiding the tedious work of knowing what you are talking about.

I did read the letter, I didn't address the points made due to the reasons I have already stated.  Rather clearly I might add.

Quote:So here, as in so many previous threads, it's just you complaining when I challenge your god-given right to deploy unsupported assertions about other posters' integrity--instead of addressing actual arguments and issues put up for discussion. That's the "dictatorship" you are complaining about. You want that freedom to reference some unspecified "posting history" or "solipsism," or toss off non-sequiturs about my comfort with abuse of power, without question or accountability. The freedom to substitute quips for arguments, without someone constantly calling attention to the difference.

Ugh, this entire response is just about me and you, which, again, is boring.

Quote:As I have noted before, it is entirely possible that you don't know what an argument is, other than arguments from authority.

And yet I seem to have civil, back and forth debates with numerous posters on this board.  Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, eh?

Quote:That's why you are always diverting to these credibility issues. It's personal authority which you do or do not see, not that structure of identifiable premises/evidence linked via inference to a conclusion to which I directed you in posts # 14-15. That would explain your claim the "Letter" is supposed to rest on expertise and that I have "set myself up as an authority." For you that's where the "argument" is, not in the actual argument. Or you could very well know where the actual argument is, but want to stay away from it. Either way, the avoidance continues.

You are avoiding the points made, on this we agree.  But this has degenerated into a personal back and forth, so let's kindly end it in the spirit of the new forum.

[Dill]

(08-18-2020, 10:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is ignoring it.  It doesn't mean I'm going to pretend you're not doing it.
That wasn't my question.
Wow, now we're talking in circles, which is boring.
I have civil debates with people here every day.  Apparently I do know how they work.
You offered an opinion piece by two guys, hence my initial challenge in this thread.  A very relevant point.
So, what posts have you made that demonstrated an expertise about the military?
I did read the letter, I didn't address the points made due to the reasons I have already stated.  Rather clearly I might add.
Ugh, this entire response is just about me and you, which, again, is boring.
And yet I seem to have civil, back and forth debates with numerous posters on this board.  Kind of shoots that theory in the foot, eh?
You are avoiding the points made, on this we agree.  But this has degenerated into a personal back and forth, so let's kindly end it in the spirit of the new forum.

I haven't made a post that "demonstrated" expertise in the military. I've not seen one from you, either. 
I have on occasion mentioned that I lived almost six years on military bases downrange in Qatar and Afghanistan.

In any case, you are still just talking around the "Letter," about persons rather than arguments. That's why "this entire response is just about me and you."
If you could summarize the "Letter" accurately, address or refute its points, you'd be doing that instead of sharing quips and impressions,
and there wouldn't be responses just "about me and you."

But you cannot.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2020, 01:05 AM)Dill Wrote: I haven't made a post that "demonstrated" expertise in the military. I've not seen one from you, either.

Then you clearly haven't been reading the thread.

 

Quote:I have on occasion mentioned that I lived almost six years on military bases downrange in Qatar and Afghanistan.

Are you now "demonstrating" expertise in the military? 

Quote:In any case, you are still just talking around the "Letter," about persons rather than arguments. That's why "this entire response is just about me and you."

No, I'm clearly not.

Quote:If you could summarize the "Letter" accurately, address or refute its points, you'd be doing that instead of sharing quips and impressions,
and there wouldn't be responses just "about me and you."

Wait, are you saying my posts actually prevent you form making posts that aren't about "you and me"?  How odd.

Quote:But you cannot.

No, I clearly can't.  As I've previously stated, this has become a personal issue between us, despite your attempts to frame it otherwise.  Hence I will no longer be responding to your posts in this thread as I am trying to adhere to the spirit of the new P&R.

[Dill]

(08-19-2020, 01:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you clearly haven't been reading the thread.
Are you now "demonstrating" expertise in the military? 
No, I'm clearly not.
Wait, are you saying my posts actually prevent you form making posts that aren't about "you and me"?  How odd.
No, I clearly can't.  As I've previously stated, this has become a personal issue between us, despite your attempts to frame it otherwise.  Hence I will no longer be responding to your posts in this thread as I am trying to adhere to the spirit of the new P&R.

LOL Despite my repeated efforts to get you to actually address Nagl's argument, demonstrate at least that you understand it, 
instead of just quipping trash in post after post.

You're not going there, but it's not some "spirit of the new P&R preventing that. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2020, 01:51 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL Despite my repeated efforts to get you to actually address Nagl's argument, demonstrate at least that you understand it, 
instead of just quipping trash in post after post.

You're not going there, but it's not some "spirit of the new P&R preventing that. 

You've cornered me, Sun Tzu.  Checkmate and all.  

[Dill]

Looks like an update for this thread.

Top generals mobilized on fears Trump wanted military post-election coup, book details
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/top-generals-mobilized-fears-trump-wanted-military-post-election-coup-n1274059

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, worried that then-President Donald Trump would try to use the military to attempt a coup after the 2020 election and vowed to prevent it.

That’s according to a new book by Washington Post reporters Phil Rucker and Carol Leonnig, “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year,” which will be released next week. The book, excerpts of which were obtained by NBC News, attributes the accounts of private conversations between military and government officials to myriad unnamed sources, including aides to those involved.

Trump issued a statement Thursday denying that he had ever considered a coup and criticizing Milley, whom he said he appointed only because people he disliked had in turn disliked the general.

"So ridiculous! Sorry to inform you, but an Election is my form of 'coup,' and if I was going to do a coup, one of the last people I would want to do it with is General Mark Milley," Trump said.

Col. Dave Butler, a spokesperson for Milley, declined to comment on the reporting in the book.

Many of the events surrounding the final weeks of Trump's presidency played out in public, including the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, as supporters of the former president attacked the building in an effort to prevent his defeat from being finalized.

But a recent series of new books have offered details about the behind-the-scenes efforts, including that many who remained inside the administration worried about the stability of the government. ...

“They may try” but won't succeed, Milley told his deputies about a possible coup, according to the book. “You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.”

The authors wrote that Milley and his deputies feared that people close to Trump would advise him to take rash military action such as launching an armed strike, quickly withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan or deploying troops in a way that was related to the election results.

Milley and the heads of each branch of the military began “informally planning how they could block a presidential order to use the military in a way they considered illegal, or dangerous and ill-advised,” the book said.

Worried about potential disruptions, Milley, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo began having regular calls, the authors wrote.

A senior official told the authors the theme of their calls was to ensure there would be a peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden on Jan. 20.

On Jan. 7, the day after the attack on the Capitol, the three spoke, describing Trump as emotional and angry and asserting that they lacked other allies besides Pat Cipollone, then the White House counsel.

[Dill]

This thread might still have some relevance this election year.

Espers new book gives us new insight into the chaos of Trump's White House.

Trump's former Pentagon chief Mark Esper tells Fox News that the ex-president 'threatens our democracy'
https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-former-pentagon-chief-mark-152940160.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Mark Esper told Fox News that Trump "threatens our democracy."

Esper, Trump's former Pentagon chief, cited January 6 and Trump's refusal to accept the 2020 election results.

Esper also said he hopes Trump doesn't run again in 2024 because he's too divisive for the US....

Many democracy watchdogs and top experts have also warned that Trump poses a threat to fundamental democratic norms and have said his behavior mirrors that of authoritarians. Freedom House's annual "Freedom in the World" report in 2021 said that Trump oversaw "unprecedented attacks on one of the world's most visible and influential democracies."...

"I hope he doesn't," Esper said when asked if he believes Trump will run for president again. "I hope the Republican base can figure out that while President Trump pushed a lot of traditional Republican ideas…that there are other candidates out there that could run that could do it without dividing the people, without creating such tension within the country, and do it by growing the base as well."...

The former defense secretary and Army veteran, who wrote a memoir on his time in the Trump administration that was published Tuesday, has sat for a number of interviews with major outlets in recent days.

Trump, for his part, has denied many of the claims in Esper's book. In a statement to "60 Minutes," Trump referred to Esper as a "lightweight."

"Mark Esper was weak and totally ineffective, and because of it, I had to run the military," Trump said.

[Dill]

This article takes Esper to task for not publicly calling out Trump and his administration's shannigans while Esper was still in office.

But I'm wondering if I might has done the same--kept my mouth shut publicly, but worked behind the scenes to stop them from starting wars with Iran and Venezuela, hitting Mexico with rockets, or shooting protestors--knowing I'd be replaced with a yes man.

LOL Stephen Miller, says Esper, wanted to cut off Al-Baghdadi's head and dip it in pigs blood as a public warning to terrorists.

Mark Esper Under Fire for Keeping 'Essential' Trump Information Secret
https://www.newsweek.com/mark-esper-under-fire-keeping-essential-trump-information-secret-1704880

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has come under fire for not previously sharing claims about former President Donald Trump detailed in his new book, A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Defense Secretary in Extraordinary Times.

The memoir will not be officially released until Tuesday, but several of the book's details have been made public ahead of time. For example, Esper alleges in the book that Trump asked about shooting Black Lives Matter protesters during the summer of 2020, as well as mulled the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico to target drug cartels.

Trump fired Esper in 2020, days after news outlets projected that then-candidate Joe Biden would win the contentious presidential race. The allegations in his book, set to be released more than a year after Esper's ousting, offer more insight into the Trump administration's behind-the-scenes dealings and discussions, information some are now saying should have been released sooner.