+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty (/Thread-Challenge-to-Milley-and-Esper-Do-Your-Duty)
Pages:
1
2
Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-13-2020
So John Nagl and Paul Yingling, two retired Iraq vets, have posted an "Open Letter" in Defense One, calling on Gen. Milley, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to uphold his constitutional oath if Trump loses the election.
“. . . All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic”: An Open Letter to Gen. Milley: If the commander in chief attempts to ignore the election’s results, you will face a choice. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/all-enemies-foreign-and-domestic-open-letter-gen-milley/167625/
Dear General Milley:
As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are well aware of your duties in ordinary times: to serve as principal military advisor to the president of the United States, and to transmit the lawful orders of the president and Secretary of Defense to combatant commanders. In ordinary times, these duties are entirely consistent with your oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
We do not live in ordinary times. The president of the United States is actively subverting our electoral system, threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution. In a few months’ time, you may have to choose between defying a lawless president or betraying your Constitutional oath. We write to assist you in thinking clearly about that choice. If Donald Trump refuses to leave office at the expiration of his constitutional term, the United States military must remove him by force, and you must give that order.
Due to a dangerous confluence of circumstances, the once-unthinkable scenario of authoritarian rule in the United States is now a very real possibility. First, as Mr. Trump faces near certain electoral defeat, he is vigorously undermining public confidence in our elections. Second, Mr. Trump’s defeat would result in his facing not merely political ignominy, but also criminal charges. Third, Mr. Trump is assembling a private army capable of thwarting not only the will of the electorate but also the capacities of ordinary law enforcement. When these forces collide on January 20, 2021, the U.S. military will be the only institution capable of upholding our Constitutional order....
Faced with these grim prospects, Mr. Trump has engaged in a systemic disinformation campaign to undermine public confidence in our elections. He has falsely claimed that mail-in voting is “inaccurate and fraudulent.” He is actively sabotaging the U.S. Postal Service in an effort to delay and discredit mail-in votes. He has suggested delaying the 2020 election, despite lacking the authority to do so.
RE: Thwarting Authoritarian Rule--by Appeal? - Dill - 08-13-2020
So my question is--is Nagl and Yingling's appeal premature, over the top, or well timed? By well timed, in mean likely to keep the military alert to abuse of power of the sort we saw at Lafayette Park, and perhaps less susceptible to manipulation, while at the same alerting (or educating) the wider public regarding Constitutional limits to the Exec currently under threat, if less visibly. This thread should complement those on the USPS and Barr's activism in the DOJ, though I hope the focus here will be on what happens if Trump declares a state of emergency because of the "rigged" election he is so badly and openly trying to rig.
Today former Senior intel analyst Kyle Murphy also posted an article in Just Security today entitled "I resigned from the US Government after my Own Leaders began to Act Like the Autocrats I Analyzed. https://www.justsecurity.org/72008/i-resigned-from-u-s-government-after-my-own-leaders-began-to-act-like-the-autocrats-i-analyzed/
I recently resigned as a senior analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency after experiencing firsthand the actions of U.S. government leaders to suppress nonviolent dissent during the recent nationwide protests for racial justice. I was among the thousands of peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters tear-gassed in Lafayette Square and nearly knocked to the ground by the downdraft from a military helicopter hovering over Pennsylvania Avenue. In the course of my work, I have watched autocratic leaders around the world employ similar tactics, actions that often precede broader uses of violence against domestic opposition. Unidentified federal forces in cities across the United States committing abuses against demonstrators is an evolution in the Trump administration’s authoritarian approach to dissent, not an anomaly.
I left government service after more than a decade because I lost faith in the courage of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to refuse unlawful orders from the President. They effectively labeled me and other Americans expressing our views in a peaceful assembly as enemies. They authorized troops to use overwhelming force and set a dangerous precedent by enabling the president to ignore state and local officials’ objections and deploy federal forces in response to popular protests. While the military is, thankfully, out of the spotlight for now, the president has turned to other eager allies — in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice — who believe their components of the federal government can clamp down on dissent with a veneer of legality....
In my years analyzing foreign political and military decision-making for senior policymakers, part of my job was to observe whether foreign governments protected their national security services from politicization and whether they committed abuses against their own populations. These are critical measures of the health of a democracy, and failures not only disqualify countries from U.S. partnership but also can be a warning sign that a country may play a destabilizing role in the world. Our laws enshrine a fundamental belief that a nation’s security forces should defend, not undermine, the core principles of democracy, and that they are not a leader’s personal tool to silence critics and retain power. Respect for this principle is one of the starkest lines dividing democratic and authoritarian leaders, and I see grave similarities between events in our country and the processes by which autocratic leaders have brought their countries to the brink of civil conflict and beyond.
The letter and article indicate, I think, the frictions and moral dilemmas of people currently within the deep state who may not be able to publicly articulate their fears. In addition to other articles concerned with or documenting Trump/Barr's increasing contempt for rule of law, I'd like to hear from people who think, at this point, that Trump isn't really engineering an election crisis, and even if he is he'll still go quietly if he loses. Bring some reasons with you, though.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
So, if Trump can produce more veteran counterpoints to this topic does that mean he's automatically right? Or is this thread just a search for confirmation bias?
Signed,
Genuinely Interested.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 01:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, if Trump can produce more veteran counterpoints to this topic does that mean he's automatically right? Or is this thread just a search for confirmation bias?
Signed,
Genuinely Interested.
LOL Going to tank a thread about abuse of power before it even gets started.
Could still be someone out there interested in the subject from the angle of military duty.
Or has an "open mind" about whether it is occuring.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 08:52 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL Going to tank a thread about abuse of power before it even gets started.
I'll ignore your condescension and simply respond.
Quote:Could still be someone out there interested in the subject from the angle of military duty.
Or has an "open mind" about whether it is occuring.
Whether Trump has violated the Constitution in the ways described is certainly up for debate. They are entitled to their subjective opinion but the fact that they are both veterans does not lend their opinion any extra weight. As seen in the news on a daily basis a far better argument for the violation of their oath of office can be made for the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Portland and Seattle. Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing you post any thread on that subject.
Hence my accusation of confirmation bias and hence it being completely accurate.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - GMDino - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll ignore your condescension and simply respond.
Whether Trump has violated the Constitution in the ways described is certainly up for debate. They are entitled to their subjective opinion but the fact that they are both veterans does not lend their opinion any extra weight. As seen in the news on a daily basis a far better argument for the violation of their oath of office can be made for the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Portland and Seattle. Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing you post any thread on that subject.
Hence my accusation of confirmation bias and hence it being completely accurate.
Weird how that door swings both ways but some just keep pushing it one way.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 12:30 PM)GMDino Wrote:
Weird how that door swings both ways but some just keep pushing it one way.
The obvious hypocrisy of you making that statement aside, feel free to make an argument against the actual point being made.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - NATI BENGALS - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 12:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The obvious hypocrisy of you making that statement aside, feel free to make an argument against the actual point being made.
I don’t live in Chicago Portland or Seattle. I live in America. And most Americans don’t live in one of those cities either. And like most Americans we don’t like voter suppression or dictators.
A mayor in one of those cities has zero impact on my life. A shitbag wanna be dictator prez has a whole lot to do with my life.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll ignore your condescension and simply respond.
Whether Trump has violated the Constitution in the ways described is certainly up for debate. They are entitled to their subjective opinion but the fact that they are both veterans does not lend their opinion any extra weight. As seen in the news on a daily basis a far better argument for the violation of their oath of office can be made for the Democratic mayors of Chicago, Portland and Seattle. Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing you post any thread on that subject.
Hence my accusation of confirmation bias and hence it being completely accurate.
The military experience of Nagl and Yingling does suggest they know something about the relationship between military service and the Constitution. Many will take more note of a career officers view of duty than the the view of someone who has never served, though that experience is not offered as "proof" of anything. I mention that they are veterans so people will have at least some background on the authors of the letter.
I suppose everyone is entitled to an "opinion." The Ex military officers here, though, are seeking to persuade a serving officer, i.e., presenting an "argument." That means they establish grounds Milley should have in common with them, namely an understanding of duties assigned under the Constitution, and then logically deduce what his behavior should be, should certain circumstances arise which conflict the chain of command.
This is different from just guessing or floating an impression. The more "logical" the form of their argument, the less "subjective opinion" involved. That form, the consistency of deduction from grounds, are what give their letter weight. Any challenge or refutation to their letter should then address their grounds and the consistency of their deduction. Not consign them to opinion land, where logic is ignored and every argument is a "tie."
The "Democratic mayors of Chicago, Portland and Seattle" have not taken an oath to the Constitution, nor are they a part of military chain of command, nor do their "violations of oath," if such there be, constitute abuse of power at the highest level with consequences for the entirety of US democracy. So long as we DO have such abuse of power at the highest level, and I see that as a national priority, then you are correct, I'll not be posting any thread on the mayors soon. Maybe after the presidential election. But if you think their "violations" are less up for debate and more consequential than Trump's, then you start a thread on the topic, and if you can articulate a reasonable case, I'll join you.
If you still claim to see "confirmation bias" somewhere in my posts , then now is probably the time to show where, specifically, and how, if you want anyone to take the charge seriously. Another possible contribution would be to establish some abuse of mayorial power corresponding to Trump's, and then argue why discussing that should have priority over discussing presidential abuse. You'll have to be more definitive, though, than just "seeing it in the news."
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 01:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don’t live in Chicago Portland or Seattle. I live in America. And most Americans don’t live in one of those cities either. And like most Americans we don’t like voter suppression or dictators.
A mayor in one of those cities has zero impact on my life. A shitbag wanna be dictator prez has a whole lot to do with my life.
My take is something like that. I think what happens in Chicago or Portland or Seattle MAY have an impact on my life, e.g., if Trump uses civil unrest there to build up a force of unidentifiable federal officers to deploy wherever he claims a threat to federal property.
But that is the case because abuse of power at the federal level has much greater consequence, and should be a priority issue for every voting citizen.
Part of the problem today is that so few see that abuse of power as a problem. Whether Trump can use Chicago, Portland and Seattle to successfully divert attention away from his abuses will be one of the keys to his successful re-election, followed by further abuse with ever weaker checks.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 01:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don’t live in Chicago Portland or Seattle. I live in America. And most Americans don’t live in one of those cities either. And like most Americans we don’t like voter suppression or dictators.
A mayor in one of those cities has zero impact on my life. A shitbag wanna be dictator prez has a whole lot to do with my life.
Cool, you're fine with abuse of power and abdication of responsibility as long as it doesn't affect you. The solipsism is strong.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 02:23 PM)Dill Wrote: The military experience of Nagl and Yingling does suggest they know something about the relationship between military service and the Constitution. Many will take more note of a career officers view of duty than the the view of someone who has never served, though that experience is not offered as "proof" of anything. I mention that they are veterans so people will have at least some background on the authors of the letter.
Got it. So when the presenter of an argument is someone you agree with, their expertise is important and relevant. When the presenter of an argument is someone you don't like or agree with, e.g. me when law enforcement or firearms related topics are discussed, then their expertise is ignored or ridicules. I'll give you this, your inconsistency is certainly consistent.
Quote:I suppose everyone is entitled to an "opinion." The Ex military officers here, though, are seeking to persuade a serving officer, i.e., presenting an "argument." That means they establish grounds Milley should have in common with them, namely an understanding of duties assigned under the Constitution, and then logically deduce what his behavior should be, should certain circumstances arise which conflict the chain of command.
Cool, so my original point stand, if Trump can produce more military personnel who disagree with this assessment does that mean he's "won" this argument?
Quote:This is different from just guessing or floating an impression. The more "logical" the form of their argument, the less "subjective opinion" involved. That form, the consistency of deduction from grounds, are what give their letter weight. Any challenge or refutation to their letter should then address their grounds and the consistency of their deduction. Not consign them to opinion land, where logic is ignored and every argument is a "tie."
I've noticed that "logic" in your arguments tends to be what you agree with. That being the case you'll forgive my skepticism in this regard.
Quote:The "Democratic mayors of Chicago, Portland and Seattle" have not taken an oath to the Constitution
Wait, these office holders do not take an oath of office?
Quote:nor are they a part of military chain of command, nor do their "violations of oath," if such there be, constitute abuse of power at the highest level with consequences for the entirety of US democracy. So long as we DO have such abuse of power at the highest level, and I see that as a national priority, then you are correct, I'll not be posting any thread on the mayors soon. Maybe after the presidential election. But if you think their "violations" are less up for debate and more consequential than Trump's, then you start a thread on the topic, and if you can articulate a reasonable case, I'll join you.
So, like our other friend, you're fine with abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect you. The solipsism is apparently contagious.
Quote:If you still claim to see "confirmation bias" somewhere in my posts , then now is probably the time to show where, specifically, and how, if you want anyone to take the charge seriously. Another possible contribution would be to establish some abuse of mayorial power corresponding to Trump's, and then argue why discussing that should have priority over discussing presidential abuse. You'll have to be more definitive, though, than just "seeing it in the news."
Alternatively, I could correctly point out that your perception of the strength or logic of an argument is directly proportional to how much you agree with it, hence the allegation of confirmation bias.
As stated in my first post, the entire premise of this thread is flawed. You base the argument on expertise, to which I responded that would a larger number of such experts in favor of Trump not therefore negate this argument? Or, possibly, would it not be better to rely on the inherent strength of their argument without putting much reliance on the "expertise?" As stated before your appreciation of expertise seems to fluctuate wildly based on factors already mentioned.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
Here's the actual salient point of this thread. What was the actual intent of this letter to the chairman of the JCoS? Was it to persuade him how to respond during a fictional, predicted, course of events? If so, why would these two particular people be inherently persuasive? Would not the opinions of the advisers surrounding him hold much more weight and significance? Is that not why he chose them for such a position in the first place? Does anyone think in the imaginary scenario posed by the authors the the chairman of the JCoS would be prepared to go along with such an action, except that letter really started giving him nagging doubts and finally convinced him to do the right thing?
Or, just maybe, was the purpose of this letter to put the idea in the minds of others that Trump plans to seize power in autocratic fashion if he should lose the election and we should all be prepared to stand up and stop this? This whole letter, and thread, is propaganda to scare people about an imaginary scenario and persuade them to vote in the manner the authors desire. Read it, agree with it, dislike it, whatever, but don't pretend it's anything but what it is.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: The military experience of Nagl and Yingling does suggest they know something about the relationship between military service and the Constitution. Many will take more note of a career officers view of duty than the the view of someone who has never served, though that experience is not offered as "proof" of anything. I mention that they are veterans so people will have at least some background on the authors of the letter.
Got it. So when the presenter of an argument is someone you agree with, their expertise is important and relevant. When the presenter of an argument is someone you don't like or agree with, e.e. me when law enforcement or firearms related topics are discussed, then their expertise is ignored or ridicules. I'll give you this, your inconsistency is certainly consistent.
?? Why didn't you "get" that I said the authors' military experience "suggests" they are in a position to know something, but added that experience itself is not "proof" of anything? Everything still rests with the quality of the argument. Same for military officers who disagree.
No standard in my argument of "whom I agree with" or not. "Law enforcement or firearms related topics"--sounds like you are really angry about something else here, some "inconsistency" you can accuse but not specify/prove or directly relate to the thread topic but can't forget either.
(08-14-2020, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I suppose everyone is entitled to an "opinion." The Ex military officers here, though, are seeking to persuade a serving officer, i.e., presenting an "argument." That means they establish grounds Milley should have in common with them, namely an understanding of duties assigned under the Constitution, and then logically deduce what his behavior should be, should certain circumstances arise which conflict the chain of command.
Cool, so my original point stand, if Trump can produce more military personnel who disagree with this assessment does that mean he's "won" this argument?
I've noticed that "logic" in your arguments tends to be what you agree with. That being the case you'll forgive my skepticism in this regard.
I don't think you have "noticed" that logic in my arguments tends to be what I agree with, at least not in any demonstrable way. Logic is like mathematics; it isn't "what I agree with" but a means of demonstration which follows rules--the same rules for everyone, rules everyone can grasp.
Whether Trump "wins" depends not on a vote of military personnel, but on the quality of his side's argument. It's only when you confuse arguments with opinions that you don't follow this point. That also when you talk of logic being only "what I agree with." As if just saying it's so, made it so.
(08-14-2020, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The "Democratic mayors of Chicago, Portland and Seattle" have not taken an oath to the Constitution
Wait, these office holders do not take an oath of office?
Well no, they do swear an oath to US and state constitutions; I went a bridge to far there. But their exercise of power is local, restricted to a city.
You've been invited to show why local abuses (which you have not yet established) should be of more concern than national.
(08-14-2020, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:nor are they a part of military chain of command, nor do their "violations of oath," if such there be, constitute abuse of power at the highest level with consequences for the entirety of US democracy. So long as we DO have such abuse of power at the highest level, and I see that as a national priority, then you are correct, I'll not be posting any thread on the mayors soon. Maybe after the presidential election. But if you think their "violations" are less up for debate and more consequential than Trump's, then you start a thread on the topic, and if you can articulate a reasonable case, I'll join you.
So, like our other friend, you're fine with abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect you. The solipsism is apparently contagious.
Well no. Recognizing the priority, and greater danger, of abuse of power at the executive level neither implies nor entails that I am "fine with abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect me." If that logic held, then we could assert that any Californian who thought the COVID pandemic should take national priority over a measles outbreak in Texas was "fine" with the measles outbreak. Not sure you know what "solipsism" means. You have misused the word before. It wouldn't apply in this case even if I and my "other friend" were "fine with the abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect me."
In all of the above, it looks like you just free-associate objections to my points, which cannot actually be deduced from those points. The root of the problem seems to be that you don't see any difference between a conclusion argued from and restricted by premises (evidence), and a "feeling" or impression you get from someone's statement.
In the past I have characterized your arguments as "centrifugal." You spin off unsupported objections and non-sequiturs in many directions, never stopping to secure or demonstrate them individually, as if just saying them at once proved them. From the first claim, that expertise is only relevant from people I agree with, to the one just above, that I'm "fine with abuse of power," that is all you have done here. It's like a dump of negative "impressions," for which you take no further responsibility for once dumped.
And none of this really relates to the thread topic. If you really know the difference between an argument and an opinion, then why not address the reasoning of Nagl, Yingling and Murphy as posted. Identify their premises, then challenge them or the validity of conclusions drawn from them. Don't patter around my posts will little quips and unsupported accusations/objections.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfa Wrote: Quote:If you still claim to see "confirmation bias" somewhere in my posts , then now is probably the time to show where, specifically, and how, if you want anyone to take the charge seriously. Another possible contribution would be to establish some abuse of mayorial power corresponding to Trump's, and then argue why discussing that should have priority over discussing presidential abuse. You'll have to be more definitive, though, than just "seeing it in the news."
As stated in my first post, the entire premise of this thread is flawed. You base the argument on expertise, to which I responded that would a larger number of such experts in favor of Trump not therefore negate this argument? Or, possibly, would it not be better to rely on the inherent strength of their argument without putting much reliance on the "expertise?" As stated before your appreciation of expertise seems to fluctuate wildly based on factors already mentioned.
As stated above, I present no argument here relying on "expertise." I mention in passing the two authors of the letter were Iraq vets. When you claim that means nothing, I explain that the argument does not rest on facts of their biography, stating explicitly that their experience is not offered as proof of anything. Yet you continue to insist "the argument" (theirs? mine?) is based on expertise, as if the argument itself, its premises and conclusions, were invisible to you. Not there. You don't refer to any specific statements or offer any reason for that beyond "just is."
What I do here is present THEIR argument, by way of a link and some selected passages. Their argument is their own, and must stand on its merits as an argument. Then I pose some questions about the timing. Can you show that I have not done that?
(08-14-2020, 05:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the actual salient point of this thread. What was the actual intent of this letter to the chairman of the JCoS? Was it to persuade him how to respond during a fictional, predicted, course of events? If so, why would these two particular people be inherently persuasive? Would not the opinions of the advisers surrounding him hold much more weight and significance? Is that not why he chose them for such a position in the first place? Does anyone think in the imaginary scenario posed by the authors the the chairman of the JCoS would be prepared to go along with such an action, except that letter really started giving him nagging doubts and finally convinced him to do the right thing?
Again, you seem to think it is some inherent credibility in "people" which persuades, not arguments, reasons, evidence. So again you just look at "opinions." then compare biographies or job description. In your scenario job description/status determines "weight and significance," not the quality of reasoning. Even where evidence and reasoning therefrom is present, you are only seeing "credibility" in biography. Perhaps that's why you keep saying my or Nagl/Yinglings is supposed to rest on "expertise." You don't know what you are supposed to be looking for.
What you are assuming, or only recognizing here, is a form of argument from authority. That appears again when you ask why Trump's advisors would not hold more weight and authority. Nevermind that Trump is notorious for ignoring good advice and picking bad (inexperienced and incompetent) advisors.
And your asking whether anyone thinks the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would continue to accept orders from Trump if Trump called the election rigged and declared a state of emergency just repeats my question. The second article from Murphy suggests that many people are taking this question seriously. If you think there is no reason to worry, either that Trump would overstep his bounds or that the Chairman of the JC might not react properly, then you ought to offer some reasons as to why Trump's and Milley's behavior gives us no reason to worry. Something beyond an impression.
If you think that Trump does abdicate responsibility and abuse power, but it doesn't affect us, then explain why we should be fine with that.
(08-14-2020, 05:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Or, just maybe, was the purpose of this letter to put the idea in the minds of others that Trump plans to seize power in autocratic fashion if he should lose the election and we should all be prepared to stand up and stop this? This whole letter, and thread, is propaganda to scare people about an imaginary scenario and persuade them to vote in the manner the authors desire. Read it, agree with it, dislike it, whatever, but don't pretend it's anything but what it is.
Actually, a lot of people already worry that Trump might "seize power" or perform some other skulduggery, like attempting to postpone the election, or declaring the results invalid, calling for recounts, sabotaging transition, and the like.
No one is asked to "pretend" the letter is anything other than an address to Milley to keep him alert and warn him of accountability, given what the authors, along with many others, deem a real possibility.
If you think there is no reason to worry, explain why you think Trump's behavior not especially concerning, why he is not already abusing his power, or why if he is now that won't matter in November. Is this a case of "leftists" driving propaganda? You expect an orderly election and, if Trump loses, an orderly transition to the next president? Trump's transition team will do their duty?
I should add that we are already to your fourth post, and I don't see you identifying the premises of either argument presented above and challenging them. You just keep making claims about credibility, the authors', Trump's advisors, mine yours, without actually touching the points argued. It just sounds like you are trying to scare people away from considering a possible election scenario and the thread discussing it, while judging its content from a distance. Have you even read either of the articles?
Feel free to make an argument against points actually being made.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 10:12 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? Why didn't you "get" that I said the authors' military experience "suggests" they are in a position to know something, but added that experience itself is not "proof" of anything? Everything still rests with the quality of the argument. Same for military officers who disagree.
I got it, it just isn't put into practice,
Quote:No standard in my argument of "whom I agree with" or not. "Law enforcement or firearms related topics"--sounds like you are really angry about something else here, some "inconsistency" you can accuse but not specify/prove or directly relate to the thread topic but can't forget either.
Your posting history suggests otherwise.
Quote:I don't think you have "noticed" that logic in my arguments tends to be what I agree with, at least not in any demonstrable way. Logic is like mathematics; it isn't "what I agree with" but a means of demonstration which follows rules--the same rules for everyone, rules everyone can grasp.
Again, your posting history suggests otherwise.
Quote:Whether Trump "wins" depends not on a vote of military personnel, but on the quality of his side's argument. It's only when you confuse arguments with opinions that you don't follow this point. That also when you talk of logic being only "what I agree with." As if just saying it's so, made it so.
No, it's your posting history that led me to this conclusion.
Quote:Well no, they do swear an oath to US and state constitutions; I went a bridge to far there. But their exercise of power is local, restricted to a city.
Ahh, so they do sweat an oath to the Constitution, but it's ok when they break it because it only affects local people. At least, as stated in this thread, as long as it's not you and Nati.
Quote:You've been invited to show why local abuses (which you have not yet established) should be of more concern than national.
Who said they should be of more concern? I said a far better argument could be made that they violated their oath of office than Trump has. Please restrict yourself to responding to arguments I actually made.
Quote:Well no. Recognizing the priority, and greater danger, of abuse of power at the executive level neither implies nor entails that I am "fine with abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect me."
No, it's your actual statement i this thread that implies that.
Quote: Not sure you know what "solipsism" means. You have misused the word before. It wouldn't apply in this case even if I and my "other friend" were "fine with the abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect me."
No, I'm far too stupid to understand that word. I mean, it's not like your statements that you only care about what affects you, hence inferring that your consciousnesses is the only one that exists or is important constitutes a sollislistic point of view. I suppose I should be thankful you didn't start with LOL.
Quote:In all of the above, it looks like you just free-associate objections to my points, which cannot actually be deduced from those points. The root of the problem seems to be that you don't see any difference between a conclusion argued from and restricted by premises (evidence), and a "feeling" or impression you get from someone's statement.
Nah. For some reason this statement reminds me of Damon Wayans' "street businessman" routine.
Quote:In the past I have characterized your arguments as "centrifugal." You spin off unsupported objections and non-sequiturs in many directions, never stopping to secure or demonstrate them individually, as if just making them at once proved them. From the first claim, that expertise is only relevant from people I agree with, to the one just above, that I'm "fine with abuse of power," that is all you have done here. It's like a dump of negative "impressions," for which take no further responsibility for once dumped.
This is coming from the same person who saw Fred's arguments as compelling and insightful. You'll forgive me for taking a jaundiced view of your opinion in this regard.
Quote:And none of this really relates to the thread topic. If you really know the difference between an argument and an opinion,
Nope, I'm too stupid.
Quote:then why not address the reasoning of Nagl, Yingling and Murphy as posted. Identify their premises, then challenge them or the validity of conclusions drawn from them. Don't patter around my posts will little quips and unsupported accusations/objections.
For the same reason I don't argue with a flat Earther, Alex Jones or an antivaxer. They have their opinions, their opinions are truth to them and I don't care to waste my time. I've already explained what I find objectionable about this "letter" and why. If that doesn't suffice for you then I suppose I'll just have to try and not let it keep me up at night.
Fifth times the charm though, eh?
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: As stated above, I present no argument here relying on "expertise."
(08-14-2020, 02:23 PM)Dill Wrote: The military experience of Nagl and Yingling does suggest they know something about the relationship between military service and the Constitution.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-15-2020
(08-14-2020, 10:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I got it, it just isn't put into practice,
Your posting history suggests otherwise.
Again, your posting history suggests otherwise.
No, it's your posting history that led me to this conclusion.
Ahh, so they do sweat an oath to the Constitution, but it's ok when they break it because it only affects local people. At least, as stated in this thread, as long as it's not you and Nati.
Who said they should be of more concern? I said a far better argument could be made that they violated their oath of office than Trump has. Please restrict yourself to responding to arguments I actually made.
No, it's your actual statement i this thread that implies that.
No, I'm far too stupid to understand that word. I mean, it's not like your statements that you only care about what affects you, hence inferring that your consciousnesses is the only one that exists or is important constitutes a sollislistic point of view. I suppose I should be thankful you didn't start with LOL.
Nah. For some reason this statement reminds me of Damon Wayans' "street businessman" routine.
This is coming from the same person who saw Fred's arguments as compelling and insightful. You'll forgive me for taking a jaundiced view of your opinion in this regard.
Nope, I'm too stupid.
For the same reason I don't argue with a flat Earther, Alex Jones or an antivaxer. They have their opinions, their opinions are truth to them and I don't care to waste my time. I've already explained what I find objectionable about this "letter" and why. If that doesn't suffice for you then I suppose I'll just have to try and not let it keep me up at night.
Fifth times the charm though, eh?
You've explained "what you find objectionable about this letter" in the form of a straw man, without even establishing that you have read it. You don't care to "waste your time," having pre-judged it, but you have time for post after post of superficial quips. And you are clearly not able to go beyond that.
Nagl and Yingling's "opinions" are not their "truth to them." That's actually the standard of someone who reduces all arguments to "opinion," ignoring qualitative differences in support. Your standard. Like the vagary of my "posting history," safely referenced without examples, you keep your proof to yourself, because you don't really have it. (My "posting history" by the way, is just more of what we find in this thread--explanations of what constitutes logical argument and demands you support bald assertions vs quipery, projections and "opinions," and finally your skedaddle.)
,
Nagl and Yingling have presented a public argument, subject to logical and empirical challenge--which they won't defend by calling it "their truth." The kind of argument you refuse to engage as argument. Not because they are flat earthers or resemble Alex Jones, but because you are not up to the work. You are not going to explain why Trump has really NOT abused his power, or if he has why we should not worry he will abuse when election arrives. You are only going to spin up quips disrespecting others and complaining your quipery is disrespected, all the while "not wasting time" actually reading and demonstrating that you understand the danger you warn others about.
So no, of course that doesn't suffice. It makes a page and half of this thread rather a waste.
(08-14-2020, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: I should add that we are already to yourfourthfifth post, and I don't see you identifying the premises of either argument presented above and challenging them. You just keep making claims about credibility, the authors', Trump's advisors, mine yours, without actually touching the points argued. It just sounds like you are trying to scare people away from considering a possible election scenario and the thread discussing it, while judging its content from a distance. Have you even read either of the articles?
Feel free to make an argument against points actually being made.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Dill - 08-15-2020
(08-14-2020, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:Dill Wrote: Wrote:As stated above, I present no argument here relying on "expertise."
(9 hours ago)Dill Wrote: Wrote:The military experience of Nagl and Yingling does suggest they know something about the relationship between military service and the Constitution.
(08-14-2020, 02:23 PM)Dill Wrote: The military experience of Nagl and Yingling does suggest they know something about the relationship between military service and the Constitution. Many will take more note of a career officers view of duty than the the view of someone who has never served, though that experience is not offered as "proof" of anything. I mention that they are veterans so people will have at least some background on the authors of the letter.
(08-14-2020, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Again, you seem to think it is some inherent credibility in "people" which persuades, not arguments, reasons, evidence. So again you just look at "opinions." then compare biographies or job description. In your scenario job description/status determines "weight and significance," not the quality of reasoning. Even where evidence and reasoning therefrom is present, you are only seeing "credibility" in biography. Perhaps that's why you keep saying my or Nagl/Yinglings is supposed to rest on "expertise." You don't know what you are supposed to be looking for.
(08-14-2020, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: I should add that we are already to yourfourthsixth post, and I don't see you identifying the premises of either argument presented above and challenging them. You just keep making claims about credibility, the authors', Trump's advisors, mine yours, without actually touching the points argued. It just sounds like you are trying to scare people away from considering a possible election scenario and the thread discussing it, while judging its content from a distance. Have you even read either of the articles?
Feel free to make an argument against points actually being made.
From this point on I won't respond to posts about me. If you can take apart the arguments of Nagl/Yingling and Murphy, then I invite you to do so.
RE: Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty - Benton - 08-15-2020
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.