• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schumer asks Army to provide Vindman same protections as whistleblower

Excast said:
Has Trump done the usual yet and insinuated Vindman is a spy and traitor who should face execution? That tweet should be coming any time now.
Click to expand...

He called Vindman a Never Trumper and he just said Never Trumpers are "human scum" sooo... there's that.
 
American said:
Wearing of his uniform is definitely theater. I've heard from plenty that his daily dress at the WH would be civilian clothes, and would be part of his orders. Showing up in dress blues is like putting on a bullet-proof vest. Already one Democrat has suggested as much saying this purple heart veteran can't be criticized, so back off!
Click to expand...

Why do you guys care so much about his uniform?
 
year2late said:
Was he in the White House?

Seems like a formal hearing in Congress which is outside of his usual duties would be a decent reason to wear his dress blues.

Hell, given that there have been so vocal accusations of his lack of loyalty and all but calling him the Manchurian Candidate, he was smart to wear his dress blues.

So when Fox calls him out, all the service members who are watching them talk trash about him....have the visual of him having his service to this country denigrated.
Click to expand...
Did you treat Flynn the same way?
 
Excast said:
They generally use Ambassadors or other officials associated with the State Department, not personal lawyers sent on ethically dubious, possibly illegal missions.
Click to expand...
But not always. President have used private citizens before and will in the future. Trump was absolutely in his rights as the President to have Gulliani preform foreign policy tasks for him. Nothing that has not been done by other Presidents. So find something else to complain about. This one is a big nothing burger. Now do you think its OK for Vindman to be conducting foreign policy on his own?
 
SLC said:
President through out history have used private citizens to conduct foreign policy. So yes Trump absolutely has the right to use Gulliani if he wants to.
Click to expand...

Not to enrich himself in competition with official US policy.
 
Rogue Valley said:
What? Military people should not wear their uniforms at the White House?

Are you serious?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with American on this one.

Orange clown paint is much more apropos in Washington these days.
 
SLC said:
Because he is trying to hide from criticisms by wearing his uniform.
Click to expand...

You do know that there is a military policy in place of where you can and cannot wear each specific uniform you have from Class A's down to Cammi's right?
 
year2late said:
What law did he break?
Click to expand...

18USC1924: unauthorized sharing/mishandling classified information.

If he kept notes of the phone call, he removed classified information from it's proper place.

He also failed to utilize his chain of command: a violation of Article 92 of The UCMJ.
 
poweRob said:
You do know that there is a military policy in place of where you can and cannot wear each specific uniform you have from Class A's down to Cammi's right?
Click to expand...
Yes..

I personally do not have a problem with him wearing a uniform but I also do not think his service should shield him from criticism. Keeping personal notes on a Presidential phone call and also the unauthorized discussing foreign policy with the Ukrainians all appear to be illegal. Also any knowledge he has of the phone call is covered under executive privilege.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
You do know that there is a military policy in place of where you can and cannot wear each specific uniform you have from Class A's down to Cammi's right?
Click to expand...

And he chose to wear his dress blues.

The Army Dress Uniform is for formal occassions. It's the Amy's equivelant of a tuxedo. Technically, the Class A uniform would be appropriate for an appearance before Congress.

Not only that, he tied his tie in a half windsor. It's supposed to be tied in a fore-in-hand before retreat, a bow tie after retreat. Retreat is at 1700, except on Thursday, it's at 1500.

He can't do something as simple as wear the correct tie and we're supposed to impeach the president based on his opinion?

So yeah, he's trying to look cool, to shield himself from criticism.

poweRob said:
Which means you are here to profess your butthurt over him following military policy. :lol:
Click to expand...

He didn't follow Army Regulations.
 
Manc Skipper said:
A serving Lt Colonel shouldn't wear uniform? Silly.
Click to expand...

An LTC should wear it correctly. He's a commissioned officer 1) he should set an example and 2) he should know better.
 
poweRob said:
Which means you are here to profess your butthurt over him following military policy. :lol:
Click to expand...
So you know it's specific military policy that he is required to wear his dress uniform at a house intelligence hearing. Interesting can you show me your proof?
 
apdst said:
And he chose to wear his dress blues.

The Army Dress Uniform is for formal occassions. It's the Amy's equivelant of a tuxedo. Technically, the Class A uniform would be appropriate for an appearance before Congress.

Not only that, he tied his tie in a half windsor. It's supposed to be tied in a fore-in-hand before retreat, a bow tie after retreat. Retreat is at 1700, except on Thursday, it's at 1500.

He can't do something as simple as wear the correct tie and we're supposed to impeach the president based on his opinion?

So yeah, he's trying to look cool, to shield himself from criticism.



He didn't follow Army Regulations.
Click to expand...

Load of bull****. I wore my Marine Corp blues several places. I found excuses to wear them. I volunteered for color guard at middle school, high school basketball games and volunteered for 21 gun salute funerals. I wore them to the county fair when representing the Corp. There is no tie for us in blues but in alpha's and others it was a full windsor.

Care to explain AR670-1 I just googled up?

(a) Personnel may wear the tie in a Windsor, half-Windsor, or four-in-hand knot. Use of a conservative tie tack or tie clasp is authorized. The necktie is tied so it is no shorter than 2 inches above the top of the belt buckle, and so it does not extend past the bottom of the belt buckle.​

Here's the PDF from the *.mil website if you prefer it. Just scroll down to page 127.

So full of lies you are.
 
SLC said:
So you know it's specific military policy that he is required to wear his dress uniform at a house intelligence hearing. Interesting can you show me your proof?
Click to expand...

So you know it's specific military policy that he cannot wear his dress uniform to a house intelligence hearing. Interesting can you show me your proof?
 
poweRob said:
Load of bull****. I wore my Marine Corp blues several places. I found excuses to wear them. I volunteered for color guard at middle school, high school basketball games and volunteered for 21 gun salute funerals. I wore them to the county fair when representing the Corp. There is no tie for us in blues but in alpha's and others it was a full windsor.

Care to explain AR670-1 I just googled up?

(a) Personnel may wear the tie in a Windsor, half-Windsor, or four-in-hand knot. Use of a conservative tie tack or tie clasp is authorized. The necktie is tied so it is no shorter than 2 inches above the top of the belt buckle, and so it does not extend past the bottom of the belt buckle.​

So full of lies you are.
Click to expand...

You didn't dig deep enough. You lack attention to detail. The regulation you quoted is referring to the Class A uniform. Vindman is wearing the Dress Uniform AKA "Dress Blues". You best do your homework before you call me a liar.

DA Pam AR670-1: Chapter 11, Section 11-2, Paragraph 3:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20191030-181223.webp
    Screenshot_20191030-181223.webp
    75.8 KB · Views: 30
apdst said:
You didn't dig deep enough. You lack attention to detail. The regulation you quoted is referring to the Class A uniform. Vindman is wearing the Dress Uniform AKA "Dress Blues". You best do your homework before you call me a liar.

DA Pam AR670-1: Chapter 11, Section 11-2, Paragraph 3:
Click to expand...

Huh... so when it says right there in your image, "The Male Class A Army Service Uniform" they actually mean "Dress Uniform AKA 'Dress Blues'"...

And in my link it doesn't even mention the Class A until after the regulation half windsor is mentioned.

Attention to detail indeed.
 
poweRob said:
Huh... so when it says right there in your image, "The Male Class A Army Service Uniform" they actually mean "Dress Uniform AKA 'Dress Blues'"...

And in my link it doesn't even mention the Class A until after the regulation half windsor is mentioned.

Attention to detail indeed.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you lack attention to detail. Section 11-2 specifically states "fore-in-hand knot" and only states "fore-in-hand knot".
 
apdst said:
Like I said, you lack attention to detail. Section 11-2 specifically states "fore-in-hand knot" and only states "fore-in-hand knot".
Click to expand...

For a class A.

But you keep making a hill of beans about tie knots to disparage this active military member with impeccable creds. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom