Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty

[Dill]

(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."