Jump to content
protester

We CAN'T impeach Trump!

Recommended Posts

As much as most of the world hates Trump, impeaching him would result in President Nazi Pence taking power.

We would never recover from the abuses and treason Pence would inflict on us.   Just look at his record - he isn't hiding much.

Even worse, he has a functioning brain, and with his experience, he knows how to manipulate people.    In addition, he's had years to line up his people and know who'd obey him without question - just what every dictator dreams of.

Pence wouldn't need the GOP to secretly govern, telling him what to say and do, so he wouldn't look like a horse's ass all the time.

So, again, Nancy Pelosi knows what she's doing.   She deserves our trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, protester.  There is wisdom in what you say.  It's true Pence has the potential be far more effective at advancing his agenda than Trump, who has been laughably incompetent.  Pence might be able to do a lot more damage in just a short time. 

 

But there are strong arguments to be made either way.  By failing to impeach Trump, we allow justice to go undone;  Sending an implicit message that flouting the Constitution and running a grossly corrupt administration is okay.  Allowing Trump to serve out his watch without the official censure of impeachment sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, protester said:

As much as most of the world hates Trump, impeaching him would result in President Nazi Pence taking power.

We would never recover from the abuses and treason Pence would inflict on us.   Just look at his record - he isn't hiding much.

Even worse, he has a functioning brain, and with his experience, he knows how to manipulate people.    In addition, he's had years to line up his people and know who'd obey him without question - just what every dictator dreams of.

Pence wouldn't need the GOP to secretly govern, telling him what to say and do, so he wouldn't look like a horse's ass all the time.

So, again, Nancy Pelosi knows what she's doing.   She deserves our trust.

 

First of all, Pence may not be clean himself, and it may be that an impeachment would simultaneously target both Trump and Pence, leaving Pelosi as president, since she is next in line as Speaker of the House. But I'd say this was unlikely.

 

Still, impeaching Trump would leave Pence in roughly the same position as Gerald Ford, an ineffectual president who would lose the next election.

 

Also, Pence is not any smarter than most Republicans like him. Nevertheless he's not as impulsive and unpredictable as Trump. He's less likely to start a nuclear war.

 

I'm in favor of laying out the whole sordid mess that adheres to Trump and impeaching him.  Make the Republicans openly vote in favor of their corruption, and then stick that label of corruption on them for the next 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pence may well be advising the Rump aka direct ALEC connection. ALEC has a number of people within the Rump admin == it shows in the actions Rump puts forward.

I feel sure Pence is definitely an ALEC insider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 3:19 PM, laripu said:

 

First of all, Pence may not be clean himself, and it may be that an impeachment would simultaneously target both Trump and Pence, leaving Pelosi as president, since she is next in line as Speaker of the House. But I'd say this was unlikely.

 

Still, impeaching Trump would leave Pence in roughly the same position as Gerald Ford, an ineffectual president who would lose the next election.

 

Also, Pence is not any smarter than most Republicans like him. Nevertheless he's not as impulsive and unpredictable as Trump. He's less likely to start a nuclear war.

 

I'm in favor of laying out the whole sordid mess that adheres to Trump and impeaching him.  Make the Republicans openly vote in favor of their corruption, and then stick that label of corruption on them for the next 20 years.

Pence is not the sharpest in the Republican Tool box, yes that's true. And yes, he may not be clean himself. 

This article is from 2017. I've always thought Pence was a cheap suit. He really did dial into the Trump presidency for a chance to be VP, typical Pence!

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/12/trump-russia-pence-staying-clean-241545

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:21 PM, bludog said:

Welcome to the forum, protester.  There is wisdom in what you say.  It's true Pence has the potential be far more effective at advancing his agenda than Trump, who has been laughably incompetent.  Pence might be able to do a lot more damage in just a short time. 

 

But there are strong arguments to be made either way.  By failing to impeach Trump, we allow justice to go undone;  Sending an implicit message that flouting the Constitution and running a grossly corrupt administration is okay.  Allowing Trump to serve out his watch without the official censure of impeachment sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Thank you for your comments.

One fear I had is that Pence could try to act like a good President for a short time, which could get him elected for the next full term.   That would give him a lot more time to do his damage, assuming most voters would be fooled by him.

It probably infuriates most people that Trump can serve out his four years, but hopefully that would make enough Americans so irate that they'd demand his prosecution, and actually get him put in prison, along with as many others as possible.  They should just charge him with one crime at a time, so if Barr pardons him, they can both go to prison for longer terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 3:19 PM, laripu said:

 

First of all, Pence may not be clean himself, and it may be that an impeachment would simultaneously target both Trump and Pence, leaving Pelosi as president, since she is next in line as Speaker of the House. But I'd say this was unlikely.

 

Still, impeaching Trump would leave Pence in roughly the same position as Gerald Ford, an ineffectual president who would lose the next election.

 

Also, Pence is not any smarter than most Republicans like him. Nevertheless he's not as impulsive and unpredictable as Trump. He's less likely to start a nuclear war.

 

I'm in favor of laying out the whole sordid mess that adheres to Trump and impeaching him.  Make the Republicans openly vote in favor of their corruption, and then stick that label of corruption on them for the next 20 years.

I'd love to see Pelosi in the White House, even if just for a short time, but I really don't think we can get Pence prosecuted, and even if we could, his term would run out.

I don't see him committing treason with Russia, but he would be more likely to make our lives Hell on earth.

One good Trump, in spite of himself, is that he exposed Right Wingers for what they really are, hate-filled, vengeful, simple-minded, etc.     He also helped expose the fact that they've declared war on the rest of the U.S.    I've been trying for decades to make that common knowledge, so I'm shocked to see Trump get so much ass-kissing from the media.   Some of them deal with this as a disagreement between conservatives and liberals.   No!   It's conservatives attacking liberals for decades, and liberals letting them get away with it.    I want the American people to face reality that it's a civil war, and they have to fight back, or let this country slide farther into the gutter, as it becomes more and more a third world country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, protester said:

becomes more and more a third world country.

 

Becomes? Except for the country's current hold on wealth and power, we're just about there. On the other hand, Trump has been doing everything he can to erode America's wealth, power, and influence in the world. (He's bad on trade, he treats the military top brass with disrespect, and he's extremely unreliable with respect to allies and treaties. It's as though he was doing it for another country's interests, not ours. A country that wants to be taller by making us shorter. Russia.)

 

Checklist:

  • Official at the top of government is authoritarian? Check.
  • Widespread government corruption? Check.
  • Top official blames minorities? Check.
  • Huge difference in wealth between richest and working class? Check.
  • Middle class shrinkage? Check.
  • Top official erodes societal norms for his own temporary benefit? Check.
  • Suggests he might become President for Life? Check.

Some other hallmarks of our tumble:

 

https://www.alternet.org/2018/11/here-are-5-ways-president-trump-behaves-leader-corrupt-banana-republic/

 

https://indyweek.com/news/archives/donald-trump-banana-republicans/

 

Here's an analysis from 2013. We were getting there even before Trump; but he has really put the twit in Twitter.

https://www.salon.com/2013/09/11/10_ways_america_has_come_to_resemble_a_banana_republic/

 

trump-banana-republic-president-192x300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 4:59 AM, laripu said:

On the other hand, Trump has been doing everything he can to erode America's wealth, power, and influence in the world. (He's bad on trade, he treats the military top brass with disrespect, and he's extremely unreliable with respect to allies and treaties. It's as though he was doing it for another country's interests, not ours. A country that wants to be taller by making us shorter. Russia.)

 

 

trump-banana-republic-president-192x300.

Trump has nothing to do with America's wealth and influence on the world. That has all been mucked up prior.

Regardless, this trade stuff has all been decided behind closed doors for generations now. It's done by corporations who are ruled by rich shareholders.

The Yuan is low because China holds excess foreign currency / it's no secret.

You want tariffs to succeed in securing intellectual properties, then what you get is more corporations going to China to make the cost of production cheaper so the rich can have more profit.

What about pharmaceuticals? If you share intellectual property then you have a real market where all people win. We know China eventually will have more R&D, not less. 

Trump is a liar, a lot of folks who run this world are too. A lot of them are morally bankrupt as well. But most people are not. Eddie Vedder likes to look out at the Sea from which to see a troubled ocean speak. I just made that bit up.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Trump has nothing to do with America's wealth and influence on the world. That has all been mucked up prior.

 

Whatever it was, Trump is making it worse. And the only way that makes sense is if:

1. It increases his personal power, and/or,

2. He's doing it at the behest of Russia for reasons we don't yet know.

 

He must be impeached, even if the Senate will not convict. He must be impeached even if McConnell will not accept the impeachment for trial. (That could happen, and I cite his refusal to debate the judgeship of Merrick Garland as a proof of the erosion of norms.)

 

He must be impeached to show that at least one party is playing by the rules. If the electorate votes against that in 2020, then they want a dictatorship. If the election is rigged for Trump, we'll get a dictatorship. If either of those two events happens, then this is the last chance to impeach Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2019 at 4:53 PM, laripu said:

 

Whatever it was, Trump is making it worse. And the only way that makes sense is if:

1. It increases his personal power, and/or,

2. He's doing it at the behest of Russia for reasons we don't yet know.

 

He must be impeached, even if the Senate will not convict. He must be impeached even if McConnell will not accept the impeachment for trial. (That could happen, and I cite his refusal to debate the judgeship of Merrick Garland as a proof of the erosion of norms.)

 

He must be impeached to show that at least one party is playing by the rules. If the electorate votes against that in 2020, then they want a dictatorship. If the election is rigged for Trump, we'll get a dictatorship. If either of those two events happens, then this is the last chance to impeach Trump.

well, that is hard to do actually. I mean the West and the ME, surely seems to rely on the hegemonic big thumb that the US constructs, 

but in truth by all accords, it has sucked for a long long time.

 

We have been a colonial power of sorts that has backed junta's who kill the innocent in South and Central Americans going back more than a century. We have backed tyrants all over the globe, we have 

sold military arms to the worst, and even when the place falls apart, we offer more tanks, we make great tanks, buy our tanks, and our second hand fighter jets, or else...

 

So overtime this creates chaos, the unsolvable debacle. The big US thumbprint all around the globe/ with a US thumbprint to leave a thumb mark.

 

Anyway, last time I checked, the political leaders in the US don't know how to fix our infrastructure, they only seem to support big corporations who build all the tanks and planes.

The military train, the train the train of thought. 

 

A fabulous train that can build its own tracks and go over water, it can lift itself up, this train can fly, and then selectively drop pin point bombs any place it likes..

Yeah, I'm talking about train drones, operated by young adults who are good at playing video games. Or do they call them drone trains?

I'm not sure.

 

drones of a public transportation nature, instead of the deadly flying car with the turret, or the sunroof, completely encased unlike the convertible.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

Any movement towards an impeachment will only show the desperation from the dems. 

It will do nothing but harm their party.. and secure the 2020 presidency for trump. 

MAGA 

that's true only if the people in the US are ignorant as heck, I mean how Trump ever made it through the right-wing primary filled with idiots, baffles most. 

The Russians had something to do with him squeaking past the electoral with something like 70K votes over 3 important mid-western states.

My dog Russell should be able to beat Trump, because Russell doesn't have this mental deficiency, namely Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

And also, Russell is a lot smarter.

Trumps a MAGAT!

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is only this big jerk who thinks he's important in some multi universe because he can bang some unlucky gal because he's rich from his old mans money

 

But not this one, not in the past, present, or future of this one.

In this universe, he's only a big fat jerk.

 

He's a liar, a racist, and an imbecile In this universe.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 5:32 AM, TheOldBarn said:

well, that is hard to do actually. I mean the West and the ME, surely seems to rely on the hegemonic big thumb that the US constructs, 

but in truth by all accords, it has sucked for a long long time.

 

We have been a colonial power of sorts that has backed junta's who kill the innocent in South and Central Americans going back more than a century. We have backed tyrants all over the globe, we have 

sold military arms to the worst, and even when the place falls apart, we offer more tanks, we make great tanks, buy our tanks, and our second hand fighter jets, or else...

 

So overtime this creates chaos, the unsolvable debacle. The big US thumbprint all around the globe/ with a US thumbprint to leave a thumb mark.

 

You can't try to solve all the problems at once. You just get overwhelmed and paralyzed. A government can work on more than one problem at once, but still not everything all at once.

 

I think this is what we need:

  1. Elect a Democratic Congress and presidency.
  2. Fix infrastructure. Make sure bridges are solid, and water resources are safe.
  3. Big effort on climate change through laws, rather than regulations. But also: put into effect the social structures we will need when climate ruins global agriculture and safety. Because we're very very late and it's coming.
  4. Work on fairness in elections:  reduce gerrymandering, make it easier to vote, ensure no foreign hacking by using paper ballots and no machines.
  5. Work to rebuild the trust of our allies, and global free trade, because we'll need both.  (See #3 above.)
  6. We may need to bring back the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 12:41 PM, laripu said:

We may need to bring back the draft.

 

23 hours ago, Renegade said:

Why?

 

The draft does a few things:

  • It gives low-skilled, undisciplined people skills and discipline.
  • It makes people of different backgrounds work together, thereby increasing tolerance.
  • It provides an inexpensive labor force, which we'll need: climate change is going to make a lot of places uninhabitable in the next 10 to 20 years.
  • It provides a big picture to people about how organizations work.
  • It takes youth away from gang culture.

Also, it's a way to sucker conservatives into providing job training. (By calling it national defense.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, laripu said:

 

 

The draft does a few things:

  • It gives low-skilled, undisciplined people skills and discipline.
  • It makes people of different backgrounds work together, thereby increasing tolerance.
  • It provides an inexpensive labor force, which we'll need: climate change is going to make a lot of places uninhabitable in the next 10 to 20 years.
  • It provides a big picture to people about how organizations work.
  • It takes youth away from gang culture.

Also, it's a way to sucker conservatives into providing job training. (By calling it national defense.)

 

I'm numbering my responses to your bullet points...

 

1.  The military gives people a taste of, and shows the value of, imposed discipline.  Many (maybe even 'most') take the lesson to heart and embrace self-discipline for the rest of their lives.   Although certainly not perfect, the military also gives more than lip service to values like integrity, service, and honor.   So, I agree with your first point.

 

2.  Different backgrounds working together?  Absolutely.  Liberals and conservatives (men/women, Muslim/Jew, black/white, etc.) from different parts of the country work side by side, with common goals, depending on each other.  This is your strongest point.  We absolutely need more of that.  We have too much insularity today.

 

3.  Inexpensive labor force?  This is where my thoughts diverge from yours.  The military is neither inexpensive nor a labor force.  If we need a labor force, let's bring back the CCC or WPA (these could also impart most of your other benefits).   Does this meet your purpose?

 

As for expense, it costs significantly more to employ a uniformed military member than it does a federal civilian employee with comparable skills and background, especially at the junior levels that could be filled with a draft.  That is, unless you're going to lower their pay and benefits.  This point also makes it sound like you want to draft people so you don't have to pay them market wages.  Surely that's not what you intend.

 

4.   The military certainly provides good instruction on how a hierarchical organization works.  Why is that of significant value?

 

5.  Are you only going to draft suspected gang members?  Surely you're not going to draft everyone?   How does this work?  A random draft will only get a small percentage of gang members.

 

6.  Yes, the military certainly provides some very good training, and I'm not just talking about specific job skills.  From very early on, they get professional military education (PME), most of which is easily transferable to civilian life.  

 

 

Overall, I oppose the draft, mostly because it would significantly degrade the effectiveness of our military as a fighting force, but also because the benefits you seek are almost impossible to force-feed in a short enlistment.  

 

A)  Draftees would not be well motivated, either by patriotism or pay (otherwise, they would have already enlisted).  Many would be resentful, foot-dragging, troublemakers.  They would consume the time of career NCO's just to bring them up to minimum standards...and then they'd leave.  NCO's already have more than enough to do.

 

In the old days, a TI could inflict all manner of punishment on an undisciplined recruit.  Today...not so much.  The single biggest threat every recruit faces is the threat of being sent home.  If you don't meet standards, you can be cut from the team.  That works great in an all-volunteer service, but what are you going to threaten a draftee with?  

 

B ) Very few of the jobs in today's military can be filled by someone 'off the street'.  It takes years to learn how to maintain modern military equipment.  The Army and Marines still have a few 'grunts' but not nearly as many as you might think and they don't need more.  So, I guess you're going to have them doing disaster cleanup instead of military duties?  The National Guard does some of that.  But, I still think the CCC would be a better choice.

 

C) A draft would create a division in the military between careerists and draftees.  Draftees would not be treated the same.  Why mentor and develop them when they'll be gone in 18 to 24 months anyway?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Renegade said:

Draftees would not be well motivated, either by patriotism or pay (otherwise, they would have already enlisted).  Many would be resentful, foot-dragging, troublemakers.  They would consume the time of career NCO's just to bring them up to minimum standards...and then they'd leave.  NCO's already have more than enough to do.

 

In the old days, a TI could inflict all manner of punishment on an undisciplined recruit.  Today...not so much.  The single biggest threat every recruit faces is the threat of being sent home.  If you don't meet standards, you can be cut from the team.  That works great in an all-volunteer service, but what are you going to threaten a draftee with? 

 

 I served 3 years in the Army prior to the end of the draft in 1973.  Approx 3 months in Fort Dix, NJ ...  6 months in Fort Benning GA ... and 27 months, stationed in Coleman Barracks, West Germany.  From what I observed, the vast majority of conscripts were hard working and conscientious.  More so as a group, than the career NCOs.

 

In fact, more career NCOs exhibited disciplinary problems, drunkenness and the like than draftees.  Most of these NCOs probably wouldn't be able to get away with the same behavior in civilian jobs.  In any unit, there were a noticeable number of NCOs who had been busted down from higher rank because of some kind of irresponsible behavior. (There are 13 enlisted Army ranks.   7 grades of sergeant).

 

Back then, as now, it was extremely rare to find someone who didn't shun being dishonorably discharged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not old enough to have firsthand knowledge of military conditions in 1973, but from what I've read, Vietnam almost broke the Army.  

 

I don't share this online, because I don't like for people to have my background lest they use it to discount my opinions.  But, what the heck.  My experience was with the Air Force.  I enlisted in 1982 and retired as a Lt. Col. in 2013 (30 years active).  When I first went in, there were no conscripts, but still a few Vietnam vets.  Thinking back, they did tell stories like yours.  When I went in, the AF was finally coming out of the post-war slump...the 'hollow force' as it was called.  

 

Times change.  In the Air Force, almost no one has been busted.  If you do something to warrant reduction in grade, you aren't allowed to re-enlist.    Get a DUI?  You're out immediately.  You don't even get to serve out your term.  Fail a drug test?  You're out, regardless of your rank with no retest and no second chance.  If you get an Article 15 for just about any reason at all (even repeatedly late to work), you're going to have an uphill battle trying to convince your commander you should be allowed to reenlist.  There are too many good people who stay out of trouble trying for those reenlistment quotas.

 

Going back to the draft would absolutely ruin the Air Force, even if you believe conscripts would be happy to give their best.  The most common jobs in the Air Force are in aircraft maintenance (hydraulics, engines, avionics, armaments, etc.).  You can't learn to repair one of those planes in a year.  It's just not that simple.  The fastest growing jobs are in electronics...not something you can pick up quickly.  Even if your job is personnel or admin (jobs with the shortest tech school), you don't learn the ins and outs of government laws, policies, and procedures overnight.  Every office could use a couple junior admin assistants, but I just don't see any way to put a significant number of draftees to useful work in a reasonable amount of time.   They'd spend their first year in formal training and their second year in OJT.  Then, they'd be civilians again.  

 

One of my jobs was leading a team of programmers modifying and maintaining software that ran on a weapons system.  Most of my airmen were junior enlisted.  Even though we had them for about 3 years, that was barely enough time to get them trained on how to write computer code and familiarize them with the system.  Then, they were gone.  Their tech school taught them a different computer language, so we had to start from scratch.  My 5 civilians accomplished more than the 40 airmen, because they had experience.  They had been with the program for over a decade.  They knew the code inside and out.  So, that function was converted to civilians who would be around long enough to learn the job.  Trying to run the Air Force with draftees would replicate that problem everywhere.

 

When I first went in, we airmen maintained the base.  We mowed the grass, cooked the food, painted the buildings...everything you can think of.  But, while I was in, all that was taken over by non-uniformed workers, most of them contractors, because it saved money.  Today, an airman does his primary war-fighting job and that's about it.  If your job doesn't deploy overseas in wartime, then it's almost certainly being considered for conversion to civilian.  Uniformed personnel are just too expensive (at least, the bean counters swore to me that's the case).

 

I can't speak with firsthand knowledge when it comes to the Army and Marines.  But, I have discussed it with them.  There are not many who served in the all volunteer force that want to go back to the draft. 

 

Why not draft people into the CCC?  Why does it need to be military?

 

btw, completely unrelated...  I took your suggestion and tried to start a sane discussion in NHB.  I started a thread in favor of free college tuition expecting a lot of conservative pushback. Would you believe I got not one single response of any kind?  I give up on NHB (again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Renegade said:

The military certainly provides good instruction on how a hierarchical organization works.  Why is that of significant value?

 

It helps people understand how to fit into a corporate structure after they've done their service.

 

17 hours ago, Renegade said:

Are you only going to draft suspected gang members?  Surely you're not going to draft everyone?   How does this work?  A random draft will only get a small percentage of gang members.

 

The draft would be random. I imagine gang members would soon get a dishonorable discharge. But it might save some people that would have otherwise become gang members.

 

Ok, I agree this was a weak point, and I happily withdraw it.

 

17 hours ago, Renegade said:

Inexpensive labor force?  This is where my thoughts diverge from yours.  The military is neither inexpensive nor a labor force.  If we need a labor force, let's bring back the CCC or WPA (these could also impart most of your other benefits).   Does this meet your purpose?

 

The CCC and WPA haven't existed for a long time, but I suppose you could and should create some sort of alternate service organization. I'd favor both paths, military and civilian. There problem with the civilian path is that there isn't the imposition by force that makes the military effective at getting compliance.

 

The military also has a physical fitness requirement that civilian organizations wouldn't.

 

But something is certainly needed for conscientious objectors.

 

17 hours ago, Renegade said:

As for expense, it costs significantly more to employ a uniformed military member than it does a federal civilian employee with comparable skills and background, especially at the junior levels that could be filled with a draft That is, unless you're going to lower their pay and benefits.  This point also makes it sound like you want to draft people so you don't have to pay them market wages.  Surely that's not what you intend.

 

That's about right. They get food and housing and medical benefits, an apprenticeship appropriate to their skills and intelligence, and low pay. Even with low pay most come out ahead. Some will stay in and get a career. I could agree to raised in pay as people get promoted after completing their mandatory service. Some, perhaps many, will not merit promotion and will return to civilian life. Some will return despite promotion.

 

The ones that benefit the least are the ones who already have good discipline, skills and abilities, and who could have started a civilian job more expeditiously. But even those benefit from getting exposed to a variety of Americans.

 

I could have used the imposed discipline at age 18. Lacking it, it took me a few years to develop it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've made some good points and I can't deny that I've often thought it would be helpful if everyone could have at least a taste of military life.

 

1 hour ago, laripu said:

There problem with the civilian path is that there isn't the imposition by force that makes the military effective at getting compliance.

 

What do you mean by "imposition by force"?    I'm pretty sure it could be implemented into the CCC, along with a fitness requirement.

 

1 hour ago, laripu said:

I could have used the imposed discipline at age 18. Lacking it, it took me a few years to develop it myself.

 

Me too, and I don't know if I would have ever developed it by myself.  I was 22 by the time I enlisted and still completely lacking discipline.  I wasn't a bad person, but I wasn't good for much either.   I desperately needed the imposed discipline.  If there's some way to give that to more people without wrecking our military capabilities, it would be a good thing.

 

Even so, not everyone is like that.  There are many highly motivated, focused, and disciplined young men and women.  They get top grades, excel at sports and other activities, and secure admission to selective universities.  Drafting these young adults into basic training alongside the gang members....that would be a waste of their time.  Maybe you should allow for an education exemption for those making good progress toward a degree?  Others may be working on the family farm or in a business.  Could there be a work exemption?  I can see how the threat of being drafted might give young people more incentive to work, study, and stay out of trouble.  That would allow your plan to affect more than just the ones who are drafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Renegade said:

I don't share this online, because I don't like for people to have my background lest they use it to discount my opinions. 

 

That's why I stuck to generalities and didn't reveal much detail about myself.  It's usually best to avoid providing personal background because trolls tend to use personal information of ANY type as an excuse to make knee-jerk accusations of stolen valor or fake expressions of disapproval and disbelief.   And everyone can read what's written here.  But I suppose it probably won't do much harm to reveal on the internet, that I served from '62 to '65.

 

22 hours ago, Renegade said:

btw, completely unrelated...  I took your suggestion and tried to start a sane discussion in NHB.  I started a thread in favor of free college tuition expecting a lot of conservative pushback. Would you believe I got not one single response of any kind?  I give up on NHB (again).

 

I'm not surprised.  Your OP was too thoughtful and non-provocative for NHB.  In fact, it was super-reasonable.  NHB is basically a food fight and your OP didn't throw eggs in anyone's face.  Golfboy posted a similar,  thread but his is largely disinformation.  Still it provides a hint of the kind of answers your thread might have received had cons responded to it:     https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/268111-how-does-germanys-free-university-work/

 

I noticed also, that you gave some good answers to a few other threads in NHB and although the reactions might not have made perfect sense, you escaped being trolled. 😁

 

22 hours ago, Renegade said:

I enlisted in 1982 and retired as a Lt. Col. in 2013 (30 years active).

 

We were in different services, separated by 17 years, so it's hard to make comparisons, based on experience.  I have little idea how the army's policies and practices might have changed after I left.

 

22 hours ago, Renegade said:

One of my jobs was leading a team of programmers modifying and maintaining software that ran on a weapons system.  Most of my airmen were junior enlisted.  Even though we had them for about 3 years, that was barely enough time to get them trained on how to write computer code and familiarize them with the system.  Then, they were gone.  Their tech school taught them a different computer language, so we had to start from scratch.  My 5 civilians accomplished more than the 40 airmen, because they had experience.  They had been with the program for over a decade.  They knew the code inside and out.  So, that function was converted to civilians who would be around long enough to learn the job.  Trying to run the Air Force with draftees would replicate that problem everywhere.

 

I can say this:  In the early 60s, the Army used well-paid Warrant Officers for certain skilled jobs, such as helicopter pilot.  Like civilians, it was the only job they did.  But like enlisted personnel and officers, they could be assigned anywhere.  Warrant Officers tended to make the service a career and there was a low rate of turnover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2019 at 8:09 AM, bludog said:

 

That's why I stuck to generalities and didn't reveal much detail about myself.  It's usually best to avoid providing personal background because trolls tend to use personal information of ANY type as an excuse to make knee-jerk accusations of stolen valor or fake expressions of disapproval and disbelief.   And everyone can read what's written here.  But I suppose it probably won't do much harm to reveal on the internet, that I served from '62 to '65.

 

 

I'm not surprised.  Your OP was too thoughtful and non-provocative for NHB.  In fact, it was super-reasonable.  NHB is basically a food fight and your OP didn't throw eggs in anyone's face.  Golfboy posted a similar,  thread but his is largely disinformation.  Still it provides a hint of the kind of answers your thread might have received had cons responded to it:     https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/268111-how-does-germanys-free-university-work/

 

I noticed also, that you gave some good answers to a few other threads in NHB and although the reactions might not have made perfect sense, you escaped being trolled. 😁

 

 

We were in different services, separated by 17 years, so it's hard to make comparisons, based on experience.  I have little idea how the army's policies and practices might have changed after I left.

 

 

I can say this:  In the early 60s, the Army used well-paid Warrant Officers for certain skilled jobs, such as helicopter pilot.  Like civilians, it was the only job they did.  But like enlisted personnel and officers, they could be assigned anywhere.  Warrant Officers tended to make the service a career and there was a low rate of turnover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is a great discussion, serving and learning and then telling the truth. What war, who was involved. What is it like to serve in the US military. 

My nephew was this cute little kid, he was so lovable. He joined the Army and went to Germany and then to Bosnia, and then to Iraq. He told me they put this paste like ketchup on dough in Mosul and called it a pizza. It is hot there. You drink liquids all day and still never seem to have to take a piss because it's so darn hot. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, made of men and women all doing the best they can. Mostly it's nice to get out. Some folks stay in longer, and the service likes that because they are specialist then. If you aren't a specialist they just don't really need you, other than being a warm and able body. 

 

I've been around the armed forces since I was a kid. It's tough as nails for young married couples - not a good life / not in anyway.

Vietnam was strange as hell. All those guys that went through boot camp and then sent out quick. They had the draft back then. And still somehow some folks easily evaded it quite easily. 

The USS Enterprise, the big carrier, the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Don't think other countries it visited didn't raise a hoot about it in the late 1970's.

People just do what they are supposed to do for most part. And then they go off and try as best they can to get a decent job.

 

 

Peace!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MMC, a boatsmen, in 1977 on the USS Enterprise. That's me. The OldBarn.

The old covered bridge like in Iowa. They covered the bridge to make it easier for the horses to go through.

The old covered bridges that hold you in them. So you'd never forget to remember the landscape that was once.

Or so they said.

We cannot impeach Trump? I find that reasoning very hard to understand!

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...