What's new

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics


Words can't express how much I despise this grifter. He basically just steals money from his listeners who are so indoctrinated that they can't separate fact from fiction. He thinks rules don't apply to him and he can simply do whatever he wants.

Most of those families will probably only ever see a fraction of that money which is to be expected, but Infowars should 100% be folded. There are consequences to 'free speech'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
I agree that it seems wrong. That General should have been court-martialed and imprisoned. For members of the military there are laws against becoming politically involved, laws which this General has violated. Tucker Carlson and Fox News are protected by the First Amendment but the General is not. The result of this unlawful behavior by the General and those like him serves to alienate a large chunk of the country at a time when the military his finding it hard to recruit soldiers. This General is performing unlawful actions that threaten the nation. He should be not be above the law simply because he is on the political left, but we all know nothing will come of this because there is a two-tiered justice system depending on your political leaning.
 

So basically the GOP is saying that the democrats must cut medicare, medicaid, and social security or the GOP will shut down the government. Why does the GOP want my mom and dad to stop receiving the social security that they paid into their whole lives? Why does the GOP want my parents to go without healthcare?

Top House Republicans are planning to threaten to shut down the U.S. Government by refusing to raise the debt ceiling next year in a scheme to force Democrats to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, should they win the House in November critics warn, pointing to a Bloomberg report.

U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), chair of the Joint Economic Committee Democrats, an advisory committee created by law, blasted House Republicans, warning they “plan to hold the U.S. economy hostage with the threat of a catastrophic default to try to force cuts to Social Security and Medicare.”

Aaron Fritschner, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Rep. Beyer tweeted: “House Republicans saying out loud that holding the debt limit hostage to demands for cuts to Social Security and Medicare is a ‘top priority.'”

“If Republicans regain control of Congress, they are planning to threaten a global financial meltdown if they don’t get their way on cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,” writes Media Matters for America’s senior fellow Matthew Gertz.

“If Republicans regain power, they are coming for your Social Security and Medicare,” he adds.

“Extreme MAGA Republican leaders openly threatening to cause economic catastrophe in order to achieve their dreams of slashing Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security,” is how Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s communications director, Henry Connelly, responds.
How can this be? I thought the GOP was the party of the working class, right? After all, they claim to be that. They campaign against “the elites”, the rich, big tech, and demagogue immigrants and minorities. But as we saw during Trump, he never did anything for the working class. His lone major legislative achievement was a big time tax handout to top donors.
Give them power again? And they’ll kill social safety nets… but At least the richest in America and the GOP’s top donors will probably get another round of tax cuts.

It’s almost like the GOP’s faux populism is to trick the working class into voting against their own interests. Get them to focus on LGBTs, black people, and the brown Southern horde rather than on the rich who control the GOP and you can control a lot of things.

So true:

1665610924035.jpeg

It’s the same playbook all faux populists do. Whether it’s Putin, Orban, Bolsonaro, Trump… they keep people focused on culture war issues so then people can’t unite to root out the corruption that has overtaken their society.
 
That is a straight up lie. There are a minority on the conservative side who are non-interventionist, and that sentiment could play to Russia's favor, but there are not a sizable number of conservatives who favor Russia. That is you talking out your butt.
I was relying on my impression rather than researched numbers, and I was wrong. There is a small, vocal pro-Russian part of the Republican party, but they aren't large enough that DeSantis would consider them to be his base.
 
He should be not be above the law simply because he is on the political left, but we all know nothing will come of this because there is a two-tiered justice system depending on your political leaning.
He's been issued a public reprimand. How many generals have ever been prosecuted for making political comments? How many military members in total? I haven't heard of any.
 
He's been issued a public reprimand. How many generals have ever been prosecuted for making political comments? How many military members in total? I haven't heard of any.
Enlisted military at the very least is absolutely forbidden from making statements to the press that could in any way be construed as representing the military unless you are more or less acting under orders in coordination with your command's PR officer. You are also absolutely forbidden from engaging in political activities, protesting or expressing political positions while in uniform.

It might be a bit different for a general but even then military personnel are not supposed to express political opinions while acting in any official capacity.
 
Enlisted military at the very least is absolutely forbidden from making statements to the press that could in any way be construed as representing the military unless you are more or less acting under orders in coordination with your command's PR officer. You are also absolutely forbidden from engaging in political activities, protesting or expressing political positions while in uniform.

It might be a bit different for a general but even then military personnel are not supposed to express political opinions while acting in any official capacity.
I did not mean to indicate otherwise. I was hoping you would weigh in.

To your knowledge, would someone be prosecuted for violating these standards (as opposed to reprimanded, reassigned, etc.)?
 
Enlisted military at the very least is absolutely forbidden from making statements to the press that could in any way be construed as representing the military unless you are more or less acting under orders in coordination with your command's PR officer. You are also absolutely forbidden from engaging in political activities, protesting or expressing political positions while in uniform.

It might be a bit different for a general but even then military personnel are not supposed to express political opinions while acting in any official capacity.
would saying that women in the military are strong and vital and good for the military be considered to be a political statement?
 
I did not mean to indicate otherwise. I was hoping you would weigh in.

To your knowledge, would someone be prosecuted for violating these standards (as opposed to reprimanded, reassigned, etc.)?
EDIT: I got a little long winded, sorry.

So, the Navy has a system that is less than court martial but more than a reprimand or minor punishment by your immediate superior called "Captain's Mast." It is a formal process that is conducted at the command level where, if on a ship, the ship's captain (ship captains are not necessarily the rank of "captain" which would correlate to a a colonel in the Army. Just a little trivia, but on ships that are captained by an officer of the rank captain, that officer is informally referred to as a "full-bird captain" because the rank insignia for a captain is a silver eagle. Smaller ships like destroyers and frigates are usually captained by lieutenant commanders or commanders) ... where was I? OK. So there is a formal proceeding called "Captain's Mast" where the enlisted offender (officers don't go to Captain's Mast as far as I understand, at least not in the same way enlisted sailors do) is given a punishment that is determined solely by the ship's captain. Punishments can include reduction in rank, confinement to the ship (I've seen up to 90 days), confiscation of pay (I've seen two months pay), and "extra duty." Extra duty means that you have to muster 3 times a day to perform additional duties, usually cleaning, and muster one more time every day to have your uniform inspected. A sailor facing Captain's Mast can request to be court martialed instead where they will receive representation and go through a formal proceeding not conducted by their command leadership. They can also request court martial after Captain's Mast if they don't feel like the punishment was fair. The possible punishment from a court martial is being imprisoned and/or separated from the Navy with a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge.

OK, all that to say that it is very possible that an enlisted person who violated those standards would very likely face Captain's Mast, even for a rather minor violation. The Navy loves reducing the rank and taking the pay of enlisted people, but it's not applied very evenly. I was in a technical field that was in high demand and my division, the Weapons Division (CS7), almost never sent sailors to Captain's Mast, even for things that many other sailors would go to Captain's mast for. We Dealt with things within the Division. The same was true at the department level, where I was in the Combat Systems Department, along with the electronics techs that worked on the ship's radar systems, the ship's interior and exterior communications equipment, the ship's operator consoles for the OPS departments equipment for monitoring radar and doing air traffic control, etc., the IT department who worked on ships local network, and the cryptology division who worked with the classified information traffic. No one from our department went to Captain's Mast unless it was absolutely unavoidable. Deck Department, OPS Department, Service Department, they'd get sent to Captain's Mast at the drop of a hat.
 
would saying that women in the military are strong and vital and good for the military be considered to be a political statement?
That's a really good point. I think the issue was that he was rebutting a political commentator and speaking to the media possibly without clearing it first, but I don't think generals typically have to clear things with anybody.
 
It would if you reference Tucker Carlson to say he's wrong.
What office of politics does tucker carlson hold?

Also i was asking more of hypothetical question. Not specific to this particular issue. Can someone in the military say that women make good soldiers? Like can they say it in a vacuum or is that still a political statement in and of itself?
 
Back
Top