Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty

[Dill]

(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.