This is exactly why we need Trump
- Thread starter robEERt
- Start date
It would almost be worth seeing him be elected so all of the followers can see and deal with the fraud they so strongly believe is a savior.
Well I guess to be fair, it would probably be like what we see with the Obamanots now. A refusal to acknowledge a trend of failure marked with minor victories yet celebrated as grand triumphs.
It comes down to his philosophy and who he puts in charge of the different parts of govt that carry out his wishes. I would think the military will be supported better under his presidency than Obama or clinton's. Not to mention Sanders.
Honestly I think he would be a giant ***** for some specific companies. Not much different than anyone else elected to office to be honest.
What in his past or his platform makes you believe he would support the military better than any other candidate? Clinton has a history of being hawkish. I can see your point with Sanders to some degree. I will add that I think Sanders would take better care of our veterans than some though. Trump probably likes soldiers who don't get wounded better.
My opinion but I don't think that he wopuld hamper them with stupid rules of engagement that puts our men in danger and makes our military risk adverse to some operations. Sanders is unelectable and rightlly so. We already have enough problems with socialism without speeding up the process.
As opposed to giving 550 mill to a company that went immediately into bankruptcy. A big Obama supporter who was turned down by the bush admin and recommended not giiving them the money.
Not sure what Solyndra has to do with my comment. I was more talking Halleburton and Kellog Brown and Root
You don't think that Obama giving 550 mil to Solyndra who immediately went into bankruptcy was whoring? The CEO for Soyndra was a big bundler for Obama and was turned down by the bush admin who recommended to Obama that they not give them the money either due to bad business outlook? I don't know what the answer is when it comes to independent contractors but usually the govt is worse at that sort of think than private contractors. Come to think of it, the govt is worse at everything, other than war, than any business.
I get the connection you tried to make and I'm not trying to defend Obozo. My point was for actual contracts, not loans or subsidies. Solyndra didn't win anything, well, other than the liberal lottery, but it wasn't like they won a big contract. I think if Trump were elected, there would be a lot of people he surrounded himself with which would make a lot of financially based decisions. Meaning, the policy would be shaped to benefit some of the key and close members.
I'm shocked that there is wasteful spending in Congress directed towards some friends.
Legitimately, it's not really wasteful. It's just spending, directed strategically, to benefit some specific people/companies.
The president doesn't establish rules of engagement. In fact, Trump obviously knows very little about the treaties and protocols of the Geneva Convention.
The President CAN as the CIC establish rules of engagement for our military.
The Geneva Convention doesn't drive the ROE either, and yes, the President can have an affect on the ROE.
The CIC adopts a military strategy after advisement from military leaders. The president does NOT establish rules of engagement.
He doesn't "establish" it, but he does have an effect on it. Depending on the operation, changes to the ROE "may" require that office's approval. In this case, I believe everyone is saying the same thing in a different way.
Doesn't the Geneva Convention cover people wearing the uniform of a specific country? if you are out of uniform, you are considered a spy?
I know you're aware that literally billions have been wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that millions supposedly awarded to other companies is just plain missing.
The President has the final say. I know you are smart enough to know that EVERY President does not always agree with military or any other advisors. If you still think that the President does not influence the ROE for our military you are not living in reality. And in reality......influence equals establish.
Great. In theory, he is not so endowed. Who overrules him? What if he issues rule and gets no objection, has he not actually set ROE? Can he not overrule the military advisors with whom he disagrees? Can he fire anyone who is in opposition? How is he actually restricted? Just thinking out loud of what could happen.
I think we are talking past one another. Certain rules of engagement have been established. A few examples are; you cannot shoot paratroopers while parachuting, you can't use chemical and biological weapons, you can't target specific individuals for assassination of a uniformed Army representing another country, etc. The President has nothing to do with these rules of engagement.
Those are the Geneva Convention ROE's. We have are own ROE's, in addition to those, that apply when we have engagements. The President has influence over our ROE's.