Trump is telling Florida to ignore military ballots. Happy Veterans Day.

[OlNate]

I'm not gay. You got a problem with that?

I do. I just want you to be happy. Happy and gay.

 

[smallvoice]

So you believe whatever Trump says? Not based on your previous responses.

Trump's tweet.

“An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected. Must go with Election Night!”​

Absentee ballots including military are still coming in. That's how. Right there in the link I put in the OP. Imagine that. Reading ftw!

 

[poweRob]

So you believe whatever Trump says? Not based on your previous responses.

Your defense of the president is saying that its not fair if we use his own words...

okay...?

 

[Tangmo]

Don't you know it. 2000 all over again. I think if Trump or the GOP for that matter knew these ballots were from veterans they would be the first to want them counted. The military and veterans have a long history of voting Republican over Democrats since Vietnam.

Ballot stuffing or finding ballots is something that has been happening ever since I can remember. Probably one of the most famous outside of Chicago and Mayor Richard J. Daley is LBJ's first senate run. So finding ballots isn't new.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/go-ask-alice/

We're talking about losing ballots, i.e., not counting postal ballots from overseas. More than losing ballots however. We're talking about discarding intentionally postal ballots. We're talking about illegally stopping the election in Florida which does not conclude legally until November 16th. So once again we have the strongman in the WH making up rules, regs, laws as he goes along. It's government by will and the triumph of the will all over again, this time with an American twist. Government by whim.

No matter. The direct poll in the Military Times recorded 89% of you against the Trump Jong Un parade that got shot down by Pentagon. So now it's payback time for Potus against the armed forces. Trump's called already for a $33 billion cut in the military budget.




BREAKING: Trump Orders DoD To Take Surprise $33B Budget Cut

The Pentagon has been ordered to slash its 2020 budget request by $33 billion, about five percent, the military’s No. 2 official said Friday. The surprise cut comes at a critical time for the department, which has enjoyed two years of budget growth under the Trump administration, and raises questions over key modernization programs.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10...639.407795672.1540247104-663069794.1517870628

 

[JoanDavis]

the problem is the dems are so used to lying that they don't know how to tell the truth.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[JoanDavis]

Trump didn't talk of any deadline. He said the results should be whatever results were on election night. Do you agree with that? Keep in mind that requires ditching military absentee ballots.

trump's tweet definitely suggested that only votes received on election night should be counted. Military ballots usually arrive after the election night because they come from all over the world. This might take a few days. trump definitely doesn't want the military votes to be counted. Given the majority of military personnel vote republican you have to wonder why he is afraid of these votes being counted.

 

[jnug]

These issues with the Military are simply more evidence of Trump's short dynastic rule crumbling around his ears all at once. If your go to strategy is always to keep drawing to an inside straight, even with a stacked deck ultimately it just ain't gonna' work and you are going to run into a bad streak. Worse, Trump hates to be wrong about anything and suddenly he finds himself being wrong about almost everything and having it all thrown in his face at once. A political strategy that is falling apart, shrinking support anywhere, a lost election actually accounted for in lost White voters. How does that taste Donald?

Here he has stationed troops on the border for purely political brinksmanship of the worst kind. These are troops that have been deployed time and time again, have missed holiday after holiday and now they are stuck down their on the border eating cold rations and sleeping in tents for a President that would not complete the WW1 services in France and then came home to simply take a pass on Veterans Day.

In baseball, they call that Strike 1, Strike 2 and Strike 3. Oh and ordering $33B cut from the defense budget is simply Strike 4. Since Trump specializes in making up the rules as he goes along, I guess we will just have to deal with 4 strikes to an out until it works its way through either the Congress or the Courts.

 

[Anarchon]

I don't think we have ever had a president who is more disrespectful to our military and veterans than Trump.

Any president that sent folks to die outside of the U.S. was worse. Herbert Hoover having the Army threaten to kill many thousands of veterans protesting in DC was up there. Abe Lincoln was probably the worst, though.

 

[Perotista]

We're talking about losing ballots, i.e., not counting postal ballots from overseas. More than losing ballots however. We're talking about discarding intentionally postal ballots. We're talking about illegally stopping the election in Florida which does not conclude legally until November 16th. So once again we have the strongman in the WH making up rules, regs, laws as he goes along. It's government by will and the triumph of the will all over again, this time with an American twist. Government by whim.

No matter. The direct poll in the Military Times recorded 89% of you against the Trump Jong Un parade that got shot down by Pentagon. So now it's payback time for Potus against the armed forces. Trump's called already for a $33 billion cut in the military budget.




BREAKING: Trump Orders DoD To Take Surprise $33B Budget Cut

The Pentagon has been ordered to slash its 2020 budget request by $33 billion, about five percent, the military’s No. 2 official said Friday. The surprise cut comes at a critical time for the department, which has enjoyed two years of budget growth under the Trump administration, and raises questions over key modernization programs.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10...639.407795672.1540247104-663069794.1517870628

Trump may suck when it comes veterans, but in a lot of veterans minds, even if Trump is as bad as you portray him he is still better than any democrat. In 2016 veterans or those who served in the military voted for Trump 60-34 over Hillary Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Then in the house races for 2018, veterans or those who served in the military voted for Republican congressional candidates by at 58-41 margin. Non veterans or those who never served voted for the Democrats 56-43.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls

Selling those who served to vote Democratic is a very hard sell. Ever since Vietnam when the Democratic Party became known as the peace dove party, Veterans has for the most part voted Republican. Back then the Democratic Party had Jane Fonda and McGovern as their face along with all the anti-war protesters. Then Carter downsized the military, made it a hollow force. Reagan rebuilt it. Follow that up with Bill Clinton downsizing the military again. Going from being able to fight a two front war down to being able to fight only a single front war. Add to that, it is always the democrats who call for slicing the military's budget for social programs, you'll find it very hard to convince veterans or those who served to switch parties. There is a very long history there.

You're correct that a lot of veterans don't care for Trump, but voted for him anyway in 2016 because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. They voted Republican in 2018 mainly because they perceive the democratic party as being anti-military. That perception has been there since Vietnam as I stated. It won't change anytime soon.

 

[Kreton]

Any president that sent folks to die outside of the U.S. was worse. Herbert Hoover having the Army threaten to kill many thousands of veterans protesting in DC was up there. Abe Lincoln was probably the worst, though.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Xelor]

You, I and Trump all know damn well that if he's of a mind to get somewhere, he'll get there.

​

For Henry McMaster, Trump won't cancel his trip due to rain, but for fallen veterans he dam sure will.


After Trump's stunt last weekend whereby he shunned our veterans on account of rain -- not a hurricane, merely rain -- he had better hope actively serving troops don't overnight mail in their ballots in opposition to him. I mean, really. While may a layman may not know well military 'copters' capabilities, the men and women overseas in the military damn sure do, be they Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.

I'm sure hearing Trump's rain excuse rang to their ears as utter BS.

• The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is manned 24/7/365, rain, snow, or otherwise. Soldiers there maintained their guard through Superstorm Sandy. They do so during blizzards.
  
  
  
  
  Yet Trump couldn't take an armored limo or comfy 'copter to a cemetery and stand there with an umbrella.
  
  
  
  
  The two versions of Marine One
  
  
  
  
  
  Inside a VH-3 Sea King "White Top"
  
  
  
  
  
  Inside a VH-60 "White Top"
  
  
  
  
  
  Soldiers work in the rain (and in conditions far worse than those pictured above), yet Trump won't so much as walk in it....That's the kind of pansy we have as Commander in Chief.
  
  
  Of course, we recently observed that Trump's is "umbrella-challenged."
  
  

Maybe our soldiers serving abroad won't, after seeing Trump's be irked enough to overnight mail in votes against candidates who've aligned themselves with Trump. I sure would, and it wouldn't be for partisan purposes. I would do so re: anyone who backed a POTUS who won't, rain or shine and when other heads of state do, so much as spend a moment paying homage to fallen veterans.


References:

• DLA Official Mail Program
• DOD Postal Manual

 

[Anarchon]

WTF are you talking about?

You said Trump was the worst at disrespecting troops. I think sending troops to die needlessly, or worse, for non-defensive agendas is worse disrespect than anything Trump has done. Many presidents have done that. Worse still, is having troops threaten veterans in the Bonus Army on your own soil. Worse still, was having troops die fighting and kill what Lincoln proclaimed were his own people.

 

[Tangmo]

Trump may suck when it comes veterans, but in a lot of veterans minds, even if Trump is as bad as you portray him he is still better than any democrat. In 2016 veterans or those who served in the military voted for Trump 60-34 over Hillary Clinton.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Then in the house races for 2018, veterans or those who served in the military voted for Republican congressional candidates by at 58-41 margin. Non veterans or those who never served voted for the Democrats 56-43.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls

Selling those who served to vote Democratic is a very hard sell. Ever since Vietnam when the Democratic Party became known as the peace dove party, Veterans has for the most part voted Republican. Back then the Democratic Party had Jane Fonda and McGovern as their face along with all the anti-war protesters. Then Carter downsized the military, made it a hollow force. Reagan rebuilt it. Follow that up with Bill Clinton downsizing the military again. Going from being able to fight a two front war down to being able to fight only a single front war. Add to that, it is always the democrats who call for slicing the military's budget for social programs, you'll find it very hard to convince veterans or those who served to switch parties. There is a very long history there.

You're correct that a lot of veterans don't care for Trump, but voted for him anyway in 2016 because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. They voted Republican in 2018 mainly because they perceive the democratic party as being anti-military. That perception has been there since Vietnam as I stated. It won't change anytime soon.

Nixon and Kissinger terminated the war in Vietnam when they were ready to do exactly that. When the two decided the time was right to end the VN war, they ended it no matter how or what. You see, Nixon was not going to end the war before the 1972 election. Nixon did not want to be accused of being the first Potus/CinC to lose a war. So Nixon and Kissinger dragged the war past the reelection and into 1973 and 1974 when Nixon was forced from office. 58,220 Americans died in the war in Vietnam.


General John Shalikashvili on the Vietnam War


Blunt admission by General John Shalikashvili that the Vietnam War was a death sentence for US soldiers.


Gen. John Shalikashvili was a United States Army general who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 1992 to 1993 and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. He served in the Vietnam War in Quang Tri Province with Advisory Team 4, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), as a senior district advisor from 1968 to 1969. He was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with "V" for heroism during his Vietnam tour. Immediately after his Vietnam service, he was assigned to attend the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

https://web.archive.org/web/20111015040634/http://www.ndu.edu/press/general-john-shalikashvili.html

 

[Perotista]

Nixon and Kissinger terminated the war in Vietnam when they were ready to do exactly that. When the two decided the time was right to end the VN war, they ended it no matter how or what. You see, Nixon was not going to end the war before the 1972 election. Nixon did not want to be accused of being the first Potus/CinC to lose a war. So Nixon and Kissinger dragged the war past the reelection and into 1973 and 1974 when Nixon was forced from office. 58,220 Americans died in the war in Vietnam.


General John Shalikashvili on the Vietnam War


Blunt admission by General John Shalikashvili that the Vietnam War was a death sentence for US soldiers.


Gen. John Shalikashvili was a United States Army general who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 1992 to 1993 and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. He served in the Vietnam War in Quang Tri Province with Advisory Team 4, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), as a senior district advisor from 1968 to 1969. He was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with "V" for heroism during his Vietnam tour. Immediately after his Vietnam service, he was assigned to attend the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

https://web.archive.org/web/20111015040634/http://www.ndu.edu/press/general-john-shalikashvili.html

I just gave you in my estimation why most military, both active, retired, veterans tend to vote Republican in over whelming numbers. A lot of us who served in Vietnam tend to look at congress when they failed to give South Vietnam the proper aid and did nothing to stop the North Vietnamese back in 1975 as running up the white flag of surrender. then you go through all the draw downs and all the cuts to the military when Democrats were in charge, it's not hard to see vets having a hard one on for the Democrats.

If you looked at the voting habits of the military, veterans from FDR through LBJ, you'd find most were voting Democratic. Of course in that time period the Democrats were more or less the war hawks, republicans isolationist. Then Vietnam, the Democrats became peace doves while the GOP became the war hawks. Those phrases may not be the best to be used, but they'll suffice.

In other words, FDR through LBJ, the democrats were seen as being pro-defense, Republicans isolationists, anti defense. From Nixon forward, the democrats are seen as being anti defense, the GOP pro defense.

I don't view Trump as a friend of the military. But he is the beneficiary of all that has happened before him when it comes to the military vote. I don't know what it would take for the Democratic Party to win back the military vote. I do know as long as the democrats are seen as pushing social programs over the military, it won't.

 

[Tangmo]

I just gave you in my estimation why most military, both active, retired, veterans tend to vote Republican in over whelming numbers. A lot of us who served in Vietnam tend to look at congress when they failed to give South Vietnam the proper aid and did nothing to stop the North Vietnamese back in 1975 as running up the white flag of surrender. then you go through all the draw downs and all the cuts to the military when Democrats were in charge, it's not hard to see vets having a hard one on for the Democrats.

If you looked at the voting habits of the military, veterans from FDR through LBJ, you'd find most were voting Democratic. Of course in that time period the Democrats were more or less the war hawks, republicans isolationist. Then Vietnam, the Democrats became peace doves while the GOP became the war hawks. Those phrases may not be the best to be used, but they'll suffice.

In other words, FDR through LBJ, the democrats were seen as being pro-defense, Republicans isolationists, anti defense. From Nixon forward, the democrats are seen as being anti defense, the GOP pro defense.

I don't view Trump as a friend of the military. But he is the beneficiary of all that has happened before him when it comes to the military vote. I don't know what it would take for the Democratic Party to win back the military vote. I do know as long as the democrats are seen as pushing social programs over the military, it won't.

Q: What is the AVF in Afghanistan?

A: Republicans in trucks.

During conscription active duty personnel and vets voted Democratic. Since the AVF active duty personnel and vets have voted Republican. The Vietnam War was the pivot point because it ended conscription and initiated the AVF.

Pentagon had considered two quickie names for the non-conscripted armed force. The one it decided on was All Volunteer Force which we all know of course as AVF.

The short name Pentagon and Congress gave a pass to was the All Recruited Force, ARF. Aside from it sounding strange ARF left itself open to variations, one in particular is accurate politically, i.e., All Republican Force.

It's who comprises the force, not who funds it that makes the difference. AVF attracts conservatives predominantly, Republicans for the most part. Many military commanders have expressed concern that we have an armed force that is separated from the society in general, to include citizens of all walks of life, politics, social and cultural values and so on. Civilians who focus on civil-military relations have long expressed the same concerns.

Nixon and Kissinger kept the war going from taking office in January 1969 until after the 1972 reelection because Nixon did not want to be accused during the campaign of being the first Potus to lose a war. The two dragged the war out further after reelection in '72 to get the conditions from Hanoi most favorable to themselves politically. Congress meanwhile funded the war until American troops were out, at which point Congress voted to terminate all funding of it.

Gen. Shalakashvili made the point many military chiefs and commanders knew to be fact. The former chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke for many flag officers and for many officers indeed. The general exposed that Nixon and Kissinger sent American young men to Vietnam for several years knowing the war could not be won and that the troops would suffer in numerous ways, to include ultimately. So the bottom line is that Republicans and other Conservatives are in home in the post Vietnam ARF which we know by its common name, AVF.


Q: What was the AVF in Iraq?

A: Republicans on wheels.

"We pulled our troops out of Iraq so we could do it again in Afghanistan."


Your statements of rationale and apologia are those of a Conservative and nothing but.

 

[Perotista]

Q: What is the AVF in Afghanistan?

A: Republicans in trucks.

During conscription active duty personnel and vets voted Democratic. Since the AVF active duty personnel and vets have voted Republican. The Vietnam War was the pivot point because it ended conscription and initiated the AVF.

Pentagon had considered two quickie names for the non-conscripted armed force. The one it decided on was All Volunteer Force which we all know of course as AVF.

The short name Pentagon and Congress gave a pass to was the All Recruited Force, ARF. Aside from it sounding strange ARF left itself open to variations, one in particular is accurate politically, i.e., All Republican Force.

It's who comprises the force, not who funds it that makes the difference. AVF attracts conservatives predominantly, Republicans for the most part. Many military commanders have expressed concern that we have an armed force that is separated from the society in general, to include citizens of all walks of life, politics, social and cultural values and so on. Civilians who focus on civil-military relations have long expressed the same concerns.

Nixon and Kissinger kept the war going from taking office in January 1969 until after the 1972 reelection because Nixon did not want to be accused during the campaign of being the first Potus to lose a war. The two dragged the war out further after reelection in '72 to get the conditions from Hanoi most favorable to themselves politically. Congress meanwhile funded the war until American troops were out, at which point Congress voted to terminate all funding of it.

Gen. Shalakashvili made the point many military chiefs and commanders knew to be fact. The former chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke for many flag officers and for many officers indeed. The general exposed that Nixon and Kissinger sent American young men to Vietnam for several years knowing the war could not be won and that the troops would suffer in numerous ways, to include ultimately. So the bottom line is that Republicans and other Conservatives are in home in the post Vietnam ARF which we know by its common name, AVF.


Q: What was the AVF in Iraq?

A: Republicans on wheels.

"We pulled our troops out of Iraq so we could do it again in Afghanistan."


Your statements of rationale and apologia are those of a Conservative and nothing but.

You have a point, being around 40% of all volunteers come from the south, a Republican region it stands to reason the military would vote Republican. Then there is this: "Veterans are voting Republican. And that’s not likely to change."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-not-likely-to-change/?utm_term=.076fc166ac40

This is also a good article from Pew Research.

U.S. veterans are generally supportive of Trump


Personally, personal experience, when Trump made his comment about our POW's not being good soldiers because they got caught. Some akin to that. I noticed going to my VFW and American Legion meetings that was the topic of the day in the first couple of months after Trump said that. There wasn't many good feeling towards him. I actually thought the Democrats could win the military vote because of Trump. I said so on this site. But that all changed when the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton. If there was one person the military in general really, really disliked, it was Hillary Clinton. Trump's statement was forgotten, it was like he never made it. Trump's attack on a gold star family was totally ignored, it never took place due to Hillary's nomination. The tone changed among those attendees from being disgusted with Trump to jumping on this so called Trump train. With Hillary, it was almost like the Democrats had nominated Jane Fonda.

I will always wonder if the Democrats had gone with a different candidate, a Biden or Jim Webb, my first choice. If they could have won the military vote for the first time LBJ. It didn't happen, so we will never know.

 

[Tangmo]

You have a point, being around 40% of all volunteers come from the south, a Republican region it stands to reason the military would vote Republican. Then there is this: "Veterans are voting Republican. And that’s not likely to change."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-not-likely-to-change/?utm_term=.076fc166ac40

This is also a good article from Pew Research.

U.S. veterans are generally supportive of Trump


Personally, personal experience, when Trump made his comment about our POW's not being good soldiers because they got caught. Some akin to that. I noticed going to my VFW and American Legion meetings that was the topic of the day in the first couple of months after Trump said that. There wasn't many good feeling towards him. I actually thought the Democrats could win the military vote because of Trump. I said so on this site. But that all changed when the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton. If there was one person the military in general really, really disliked, it was Hillary Clinton. Trump's statement was forgotten, it was like he never made it. Trump's attack on a gold star family was totally ignored, it never took place due to Hillary's nomination. The tone changed among those attendees from being disgusted with Trump to jumping on this so called Trump train. With Hillary, it was almost like the Democrats had nominated Jane Fonda.

I will always wonder if the Democrats had gone with a different candidate, a Biden or Jim Webb, my first choice. If they could have won the military vote for the first time LBJ. It didn't happen, so we will never know.

Nobody changed their voting intention when Democrats nominated Clinton, veterans least of all. Veterans are -- as we know and as you have echoed -- conservative and tend strongly to be Republican or so-called Independent who vote Republican in the private dependency of the voting booth. Trying to compare HRC to Jane Fonda falls off the edge of the far right political spectrum. It's a reach with a conscious motive to discredit falsely HRC. Fonda offended virtually everyone btw, and profoundly so. Right whingers who use her name today which is 45 years after are bomb throwers and nothing more.

Gen. Shalakashvili spoke for career officers when he said the civilian political leaders who inherited the Vietnam war knew US was never going to win and dragged it out until after reelection in 1972 for political reasons entirely, regardless of their responsibility to conduct wars prudently, wisely, honorably (my synonymous words). Army purged nco after the war while the junior officers of the war whose names we came to know into the 1990s and 2000 decade -- to include recently in their retirement -- had to shape up a ragtag bunch of cruits into the ARF/AVF who were hauled in for no other purpose than to get some numbers into a bedraggled army.

I've already posted at another thread and forum in response to a puff piece about Jim Webb written by another. No one was going to nominate Webb for anything given his erratic history of being all over the place on issues, party affiliation and due to the fact his extreme temperament was always expected to get the better of him at any time. Webb in these later years cannot hide how consciously he has to work to appear mild mannered and moderate, even in his elder years.

McCain was not the favorite of many veterans because they regarded him as a Rino traitor to the ideological and political cause. If McCain had run against HRC you guys would have written in Stalin's name and done it with gusto. Perhaps Putin instead.

 

[Perotista]

Nobody changed their voting intention when Democrats nominated Clinton, veterans least of all. Veterans are -- as we know and as you have echoed -- conservative and tend strongly to be Republican or so-called Independent who vote Republican in the private dependency of the voting booth. Trying to compare HRC to Jane Fonda falls off the edge of the far right political spectrum. It's a reach with a conscious motive to discredit falsely HRC. Fonda offended virtually everyone btw, and profoundly so. Right whingers who use her name today which is 45 years after are bomb throwers and nothing more.

Gen. Shalakashvili spoke for career officers when he said the civilian political leaders who inherited the Vietnam war knew US was never going to win and dragged it out until after reelection in 1972 for political reasons entirely, regardless of their responsibility to conduct wars prudently, wisely, honorably (my synonymous words). Army purged nco after the war while the junior officers of the war whose names we came to know into the 1990s and 2000 decade -- to include recently in their retirement -- had to shape up a ragtag bunch of cruits into the ARF/AVF who were hauled in for no other purpose than to get some numbers into a bedraggled army.

I've already posted at another thread and forum in response to a puff piece about Jim Webb written by another. No one was going to nominate Webb for anything given his erratic history of being all over the place on issues, party affiliation and due to the fact his extreme temperament was always expected to get the better of him at any time. Webb in these later years cannot hide how consciously he has to work to appear mild mannered and moderate, even in his elder years.

McCain was not the favorite of many veterans because they regarded him as a Rino traitor to the ideological and political cause. If McCain had run against HRC you guys would have written in Stalin's name and done it with gusto. Perhaps Putin instead.

McCain was down here. At least to those of us who served in Vietnam. You seem to have your mind made up, your right.

 

[Tangmo]

McCain was down here. At least to those of us who served in Vietnam. You seem to have your mind made up, your right.

Your right and your left but we all make typos don't we. Many present experienced the war in Vietnam in one way or another, to include in multiple ways. That's just fact. And we make our arguments, nothing more which is the idea here. Some argue gingerly while others argue forcefully but a hand grenade remains a hand grenade regardless of how it may be tossed. To borrow a line, nobody's right if everybody's wrong. So the point is to argue. There does come a point however.