What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Clown said:
Without knowing Kepler's reasons, I'll just reply with this: Since when does the military like a president who keeps suggesting their programs consist of a lot of bloat? The officers aren't stupid, they can see that this line of thought will lead to overall budget cuts for them.
Click to expand...
They kicked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs off the National Security Council. The military isn't playing ball with Trump.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

FlagDUDE08 said:
You're mistaking the military for the military industrial complex. Try again.
Click to expand...

Officers want the tools to do the job - tools that work. That means more money for R&D. So while the MIC has an obvious interest in Trump's actions, the officers want their tools to work correctly and keep their soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors coming home alive, because it can often mean the officers' own lives or careers if they don't.

Add to that, the more R&D performed, the more military personnel needed to work with the civilian contractors. Do you personally know any military personnel beyond the E-5 grade? I come from a military family with a number of active personnel, and used to hear about these concerns often enough until the higher ranking members who were stationed stateside retired.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The Sicatoka said:
President Obama himself barred large groups of immigrants from entering the U.S. at least six times out of national security concerns, according to a review last June by the Washington Examiner. In 2011, the administration suspended refugee processing from Iraq for six months to make sure terrorists weren't exploiting the program.
Click to expand...


About that...
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

FlagDUDE08 said:
You're mistaking the military for the military industrial complex. Try again.
Click to expand...

You have it exactly backwards. The MIC loves Trump. They're going to fleece the taxpayer for trillions under him.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

St. Clown said:
Officers want the tools to do the job - tools that work. That means more money for R&D. So while the MIC has an obvious interest in Trump's actions, the officers want their tools to work correctly and keep their soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors coming home alive, because it can often mean the officers' own lives or careers if they don't.

Add to that, the more R&D performed, the more military personnel needed to work with the civilian contractors. Do you personally know any military personnel beyond the E-5 grade? I come from a military family with a number of active personnel, and used to hear about these concerns often enough until the higher ranking members who were stationed stateside retired.
Click to expand...

Having worked in the MIC for 5 years, I know the waste that actually occurs with these projects. Not to mention, one little once-in-a-million thing happens, usually along the lines of throwing a TV set off a balcony, so a whole bunch of cockamamie requirements are added to bloat the project for something that probably won't happen in at least the next three lifetimes, and because there's an effective "blank check" from the Pentagon involved, it ends up happening, taking away from beneficial R&D you're arguing for. The ask is clearly for resourcefulness.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

FlagDUDE08 said:
Getting back to what we were talking about before, though, something tells me the Office of SoS and SoHS will be quite busy over the next couple of months reviewing visas for exceptions to the order, which are allowed as such in there. The protesters would be much more productive if they called the aforementioned offices on behalf of the friends looking to enter instead of receiving a few bucks from George Soros to rabble. Also, I find it funny that people are stating it has nothing to do with any law signed by Obama, when the law is very clearly referenced in the order.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...refugees/index.html?client=ms-android-verizon
Click to expand...

You know, the more posts of yours I see, the more I become astounded by your inability to process information and comprehend what that information is saying.

Nobody is saying this has nothing to do with any law Obama signed. What we are saying is that the law Obama signed did not ban peoples from those countries from entering the United States. That law only said that these people could not avail themselves of the Visa Waiver Program(where people from some countries can enter the US without needing a Visa.) Obama's law required those people visiting from these countries to go through the Visa approval process, ie, vetting.

Can it be possible that you really are this thick, or are you just pretending? You and Drew need to form a support group.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

FlagDUDE08 said:
Oh, and the person who did the shooting? The person yelled "Allahu Akbar". So much for your narrative.

http://www.infowars.com/quebec-mosque-shooting-a-devastating-blow-to-leftist-narrative/
Click to expand...
The kid is whiter than Wonder Bread and supported a far right nationalist political group in France that was against refugees and immigration. He's not Muslim...

edited: because the guy who yelled that was almost certainly the witness and not the shooter and even the article you linked to says that
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
20%?
Click to expand...
What percentage of our military is located stateside vs. on foreign soil. What percentage of that military is within effective striking distance of DC vs. Texas or California, etc.? It's going to come down to the placement of the troops involved, and the resources available, before the coup's forces can entrench and prepare.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

trixR4kids said:
The kid is whiter than Wonder Bread and supported a far right nationalist political group in France that was against refugees and immigration. He's not Muslim...

edited: because the guy who yelled that was almost certainly the witness and not the shooter and even the article you linked to says that
Click to expand...

Seems to be a theme today of not reading the articles linked to prove points.

Speaking of which, how can anyone read that? I'm dizzy from the spin put into each and every sentence.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

St. Clown said:
What percentage of our military is located stateside vs. on foreign soil. What percentage of that military is within effective striking distance of DC vs. Texas or California, etc.? It's going to come down to the placement of the troops involved, and the resources available, before the coup's forces can entrench and prepare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but where is this all coming from? I read the article and didn't find anything about 20% or anything about the military.



*For the record, I think this is conspiracy theory hogwash, I'm just interested in the logistics.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

rufus said:
You know, the more posts of yours I see, the more I become astounded by your inability to process information and comprehend what that information is saying.

Nobody is saying this has nothing to do with any law Obama signed. What we are saying is that the law Obama signed did not ban peoples from those countries from entering the United States. That law only said that these people could not avail themselves of the Visa Waiver Program(where people from some countries can enter the US without needing a Visa.) Obama's law required those people visiting from these countries to go through the Visa approval process, ie, vetting.

Can it be possible that you really are this thick, or are you just pretending? You and Drew need to form a support group.
Click to expand...

It's been very interesting reading these threads the last few months. I had never read them much before that and don't remember ever posting. I think where most arguments go astray is that people are talking about two different elements of the same story and both are correct. For example if one person said today was the 30th and the other person said it was Monday they would both be right.

This is a generalization, and the people who post here are a very small sample size, but it seems like you are much more intent on defending Obama and other democrats than Republicans are in defending other Republicans. I realize that Trump and the Republican party are far from perfect and am completely comfortable with it.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Spartanforlife4 said:
Seems to be a theme today of not reading the articles linked to prove points.

Speaking of which, how can anyone read that? I'm dizzy from the spin put into each and every sentence.
Click to expand...

I hear you, I skimmed because it's mostly just trash but at least they updated that part.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

trixR4kids said:
I'm sure people said that in Germany back in the 40's too...
Click to expand...

I believe Scooby has a line for this.

To humor you though, what do you think the plan for Trump & Co is? Are they looking for money, power, something else?
 
Drew S. said:
This is a generalization, and the people who post here are a very small sample size, but it seems like you are much more intent on defending Obama and other democrats than Republicans are in defending other Republicans. I realize that Trump and the Republican party are far from perfect and am completely comfortable with it.
Click to expand...
We're not "intent on defending Obama and other Democrats" (that D is capitalized), we're debunking you're stupid false equivalencies that you guys come up with to rationalize your affinity for Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top