|
-Blackadder- posted:Looks like we can add DOD to the list. the fact that Trump got soft-couped repeatedly over the course of his presidency probably helped us avert some real horrorshows, but it also taught the DoD that they can tell the President to gently caress off and he has no choice but to meekly accept it that's going to become a serious problem sooner rather than later.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the fact that Trump got soft-couped repeatedly over the course of his presidency probably helped us avert some real horrorshows, but it also taught the DoD that they can tell the President to gently caress off and he has no choice but to meekly accept it Miller and Wolf were both trump lackeys through and through. they were both extremely personally loyal to trump. Miller replaced esper on november 9th of 2020 and Wolf operated DHS under the concept that it was Trump's personal army. idk as much about the other two, but those are trump's own people covering something up, not the dod covering up ignoring trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the fact that Trump got soft-couped repeatedly over the course of his presidency probably helped us avert some real horrorshows, “Soft-couped” Horseshit. The President isn’t a dictator and individuals saying no, most often at the cost of their jobs isn’t illegal. Nor is a dumb impatient narcissist’s inability to force a rigid bureaucracy (and the military is included here) to take illegal actions a coup. A dumb man used to running sole proprietorships not running a government well or not functioning at the top of a bureaucracy well isn’t a “soft coup.” The presumption that he can just order and have things happen, is pretty naive of the actual functioning of these organizations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:“Soft-couped” what is the word we use to describe what happens when the military no longer obeys the orders of civilian government. starts with a C. it's a matter of record, they did so repeatedly. probably a good call on their parts! quite a few of trump's orders were psychotic nonsense that would have spiralled horribly out of control! it just also set an unbelievably dangerous precedent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:what is the word we use to describe what happens when the military no longer obeys the orders of civilian government. starts with a C. Kinda funny given how much fretting and handwringing over 'precedent' and 'norms' liberals have been doing to excuse their own complete inaction and yet we have actual examples of dangerous precedent here all done with things that were done to stop Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Arguably he got soft 25th'd if anything because he wasn't doing and wasn't willing to do the duties of the president after 1/6, but that's really about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:“Soft-couped” The reality is the Democrats are probably not going to win every presidential election for the foreseeable future and Republican voters have proven that they are dead rear end willing to put Greg Stillson in the white house without blinking an eye. So I'm cool with JCS telling the next GOP El Jefe and whatever dead-eyed psycho they get to replace Stephen Miller as Dr. Strangelove, to go gently caress themselves when the need arises. EDIT: Edited for clarification. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Aug 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Kinda funny given how much fretting and handwringing over 'precedent' and 'norms' liberals have been doing to excuse their own complete inaction and yet we have actual examples of dangerous precedent here all done with things that were done to stop Trump. yeah, as quite a few Mexican two-year-olds who Joe Biden's Border Control insist told them that they came to this country for work can attest, all that talk about the importance of norms evaporates in a real loving hurry once they're between Dems and something they actually want to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:what is the word we use to describe what happens when the military no longer obeys the orders of civilian government. starts with a C. My man illegal orders don’t have to be obeyed. Barking words over the phone at somebody ain’t orders either. You are naïve and don’t know what these things actually are or how they work Ya know at the Academy we even got taught procedures for what to do if we received illegal orders. The heads of most organizations cannot merely just say what they want and it happens. They have to do it properly and often rather formally in the context of the organizations rules. Seems like you are just upset we don’t have authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Aside from this jan 6 text issue, and as far as the future goes I'd trust JCS more than whomever sits in the oval. They're not elected so they usually have a solid amount of experience and domain expertise, which means they know the job, take it seriously, and will be less partisan about it. That is a terrible idea and anti-democratic. The JCS (and anyone in the military) are supposed to ignore illegal orders. They aren't supposed to pick and choose what orders to ignore. Trump basically "ordered" a bunch of stuff informally and then forgot about it, so since he never actually officially gave the order or followed up on it, it didn't matter. Some of his illegal orders were also (correctly) not followed. But, just letting the JCS make decisions on an individual basis is the first step to creating a Turkish situation where the military acts as a political group and pseudo fourth branch of government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:My man illegal orders don’t have to be obeyed. Barking words over the phone at somebody ain’t orders either. You are naïve and don’t know what these things actually are or how they work civilian control of the military is not authoritarianism, and you know this. it is entirely legal for the President of the United States to order the military to bomb a foreign country. several administrations have gone to great lengths to prove this, up to and including murdering American citizens who are children extrajudicially. and you know this. when the President orders this, and the generals immediately turn to their aides and say "we will not be doing that," what has happened is, in fact, a crime. on the grounds that when the military ceases to obey civilian authority, civilian authority can no longer refer to itself as such. and you know this. there is a term for what happens when the generals decide to unilaterally overrule their commander in chief's orders, on the twin grounds they think his order is stupid, and that he wouldn't have either the will to call them on it or the support to make it matter if he did. that you find its connotations uncomfortable does not make it inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Why is Pelosi going to Taiwan? Why wouldn't she? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dEJoH1NARg
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:civilian control of the military is not authoritarianism, and you know this. Lots of hypotheticals there unconnected to reality. What actual specific orders were ignored? Be specific please what orders were ignored that you think constitutes a “coup”. I see a lotta wild gesturing there and very little substance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Lots of hypotheticals there unconnected to reality. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516443-trump-says-he-wanted-to-take-out-syrias-assad-but-mattis-opposed-it/ Trump ordered Mattis to put together a plan to kill Assad. Mattis, per Bob Woodward in his 2018 book "Fear," immediately following setting down the phone, informed his subordinates "We're not doing that." good call on Mattis' part, all things considered; the precedent is something you worry about later, from the comfort of not having kicked off a configuration of war with Russia where the EU tells you 'lol you're on your own buddy.' but later has arrived, and we do have to worry about the precedent set by Mattis and company in establishing that if the military does not like the President's orders, the President will be told to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is a terrible idea and anti-democratic. The JCS (and anyone in the military) are supposed to ignore illegal orders. They aren't supposed to pick and choose what orders to ignore. Clarified this in my edit, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516443-trump-says-he-wanted-to-take-out-syrias-assad-but-mattis-opposed-it/ Trump says in the article that Mattis convinced him not to do it during the planning phase. Not that he ordered it and it was never carried out. quote:“I would’ve rather taken him out. I had him all set. Mattis didn’t want to do it. Mattis was a highly overrated general,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516443-trump-says-he-wanted-to-take-out-syrias-assad-but-mattis-opposed-it/ SecDef is part of the civilian government. That’s a cabinet position. That’s not the military ignoring an order. Again do you know how this stuff works? And try again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Trump says in the article that Mattis convinced him not to do it during the planning phase. Not that he ordered it and it was never carried out. we are faced with the serious intellectual task of determining which of Bob Woodward and Donald Trump is more credible, regarding an incident where Donald Trump came out on the losing end of a deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:SecDef is part of the civilian government. That’s a cabinet position. That’s not the military ignoring an order. and when the head of the military, a former general, informs the military that no, the President's fully legal orders are not to be obeyed, that is what. sorry, man. it happened. the norms were violated, in the most dangerous way it is possible to violate them. the world probably came out ahead on the deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
The Kansas anti-abortion constitutional amendment appears to have failed. https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1554639811595669505?s=21&t=ywPcJi002rKm0Mk_mTunbA
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:we are faced with the serious intellectual task of determining which of Bob Woodward and Donald Trump is more credible, regarding an incident where Donald Trump came out on the losing end of a deal. Cabinet secretary of defense is not military, it's civilian leadership of the military. If a general disobeyed Mattis, that's a disruption of civilian authority. I hear you on the "soft coup" portion of cabinet just not doing poo poo the executive asks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516443-trump-says-he-wanted-to-take-out-syrias-assad-but-mattis-opposed-it/ Your argument is nonsense for like a half-dozen different reasons First, Mattis, in his role as Secretary of Defense, was a civilian. Mattis is not "the military," he's its administrative head. Him refusing to carry out an order from the President is perfectly legal, and the President would likewise have the authority to fire him and find a new SecDef. Second, even if Mattis was still in uniform, he would have been well within his rights to refuse to carry out what he believed to be an illegal order, and targeting a foreign head of state for assassination is, technically, illegal, per EO 12333. Third, even if the order was unquestionably lawful, and a uniformed general refused to go through with it, that would technically be illegal, but that is not a coup. Trump would still retain the authority to fire and replace said general, and to subject said general to a court-martial for refusing a legal order. That categorically did not happen. There was no coup. No power was taken from Trump. He had all the authority in the world to order the military to do what he wanted (Within the bounds of legality), he just didn't actually bother wielding it out of laziness and ignorance. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Aug 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:and when the head of the military, a former general, informs the military that no, the President's fully legal orders are not to be obeyed, that is what. The Woodward book also says it was in the planning phase and Trump was supportive but it was abandoned after Mattis made it clear he opposed it and it was a bad idea. This: quote:Journalist Bob Woodward reported in his 2018 book, “Fear,” that Trump urged Mattis that the U.S. should “f—— kill” Assad following an April 2017 chemical attack on civilians in Syria.“Let’s loving kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the loving lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward. is not an actual order to execute an assassination. Woodward says that Mattis presented a plan to Trump "for a limited air strike that did not threaten Assad personally" and he agreed to that instead. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Aug 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:and when the head of the military, a former general, informs the military that no, the President's fully legal orders are not to be obeyed, that is what. I should hope every secretary of defense be so independent. The president can accept their secdef's resignation at any time. I think your read on the situation is incorrectly skewed by the fact that Mattis was a general. It's still the military obeying the civilian leadership this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:what is the word we use to describe what happens when the military no longer obeys the orders of civilian government. starts with a C. You do know members of the military pledge allegiance to the constitution and not the commander in chief right? They absolutely can and should ignore illegal orders. You seem to think America is supposed to operate like Russia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:and when the head of the military, a former general, informs the military that no, the President's fully legal orders are not to be obeyed, that is what. That is a part of the civilian government saying it. They print orders my man. Like they got reference numbers and a whole format. Sometimes they do memoranda which aren’t orders but might be restating orders or emphasizing parts. So which order are you talking about my dude? Again I’d like you be specific and not evasive or to drive off on some other tangent you want to write half a substance-less page about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Woodward book also says it was in the planning phase and Trump was supportive but it was abandoned after Mattis made it clear he oppossed it and it was a bad idea. and, between those events, in the segment you carefully elided, Mattis set down the phone, and informed his subordinates that Trump's orders were not going to be followed. there's a word we use, for when the military has decided that they don't have to follow the President's orders. they made the right call to do so. the order was incredibly foolish. if ever a president deserved to be soft-couped, it was Andrew Johnson, but Trump's probably not far behind him on the list. unfortunately, genie's out of the bottle now, and you've got DoD people saying "whoopsie, don't have any phone records, what are you gonna do about it." are there any answers to the question in the offering?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:and, between those events, in the segment you carefully elided, Mattis set down the phone, and informed his subordinates that Trump's orders were not going to be followed. DoD is civilian leadership of the military, not the military. If you're talking soft coup, you're talking his cabinet disobeying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:You do know members of the military pledge allegiance to the constitution and not the commander in chief right? They absolutely can and should ignore illegal orders. You seem to think America is supposed to operate like Russia. the military deciding civilian leadership is no longer to be obeyed on grounds they know better than the civilian leadership is a far more Russian tradition than an American one, I'm afraid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!" You are continuing to make an assertion you can’t support. Please support it instead of merely repeating it.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Aug 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the military deciding civilian leadership is no longer to be obeyed on grounds they know better than the civilian leadership is a far more Russian tradition than an American one, I'm afraid. It's been pointed out a few times, but: A) Mattis is civilian leadership. and B) Mattis deciding that he will oppose it, telling Trump it is a bad idea, presenting him with a different option, and Trump agreeing to it is not countermanding any order or a coup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's been pointed out a few times, but: A. has some force to it. it's still a general saying the president isn't to be obeyed, but it's a general operating in a civilian capacity while instructing the military to disobey the President's orders is marginally better than the alternative. B. is the characterization of one Donald J. Trump ex post facto, and contradicts the version of someone considerably less incentivized to lie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:A. has some force to it. it's still a general saying the president isn't to be obeyed, but it's a general operating in a civilian capacity while instructing the military to disobey the President's orders is marginally better than the alternative. B is what Woodward wrote. Trump initially denied it was ever being considering it at all. He eventually confirmed what Woodward wrote later. Advising Trump to do something else and him agreeing isn't a coup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:B is what Woodward wrote. skipping the bit where Woodward wrote Mattis' response to the instruction was, after setting down the phone, telling his subordinates "We will not be doing that," yes. it was a good call, by General Mattis, to say that the military should not obey the President's order in this matter. good coup, imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
It seems much more likely and plausible that rather than refusing a direct and actionable order, he recognized that Trump was just saying dumb poo poo like he always does, and Mattis knew that he'd either be able to change Trump's mind, or he'd just kind of forget about it after he got on Twitter and calmed back down, and saying "yeah we're not doing that" is just recognizing Trump is fickle and capricious
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:skipping the bit where Woodward wrote Mattis' response to the instruction was, after setting down the phone, telling his subordinates "We will not be doing that," yes. it was a good call, by General Mattis, to say that the military should not obey the President's order in this matter. Jesus loving Christ can you just shut up after being told you're wrong ten different times instead of posting the same goddamn wrong argument? please (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It seems much more likely and plausible that rather than refusing a direct and actionable order, he recognized that Trump was just saying dumb poo poo like he always does, and Mattis knew that he'd either be able to change Trump's mind, or he'd just kind of forget about it after he got on Twitter and calmed back down, and saying "yeah we're not doing that" is just recognizing Trump is fickle and capricious completely! recognizing that an order from Trump could be safely disregarded didn't require a ton of brains on Mattis' part, but it did require a certain degree of boldness. it was a smart, sudden, and totally successful move, allowing him to circumvent the at-that-moment-dubious authority of the head of state he theoretically reported to. since the French term for this has proven divisive, I'm open to alternative suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Can we, please, stop discussion of whether coup is the correct term? There's more interesting stuff being talked about, including by the very people squabbling about this particular terminology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:completely! recognizing that an order from Trump could be safely disregarded didn't require a ton of brains on Mattis' part, but it did require a certain degree of boldness. it was a smart, sudden, and totally successful move, allowing him to circumvent the at-that-moment-dubious authority of the head of state he theoretically reported to. Why are you saying "completely" when I clearly disagreed with you that it was a direct, actionable order? That's not even close to what I said. I made it very obvious that Mattis did not consider it an order, and there's nothing from Trump indicating he considered it an order, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:19 |
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:The Kansas anti-abortion constitutional amendment appears to have failed. So what's it say that an abortion ban went down in flames in loving Kansas when put to a popular vote?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2022 03:57
|
|