Top Military Officers Unload on Trump

MTAtech said:

From 2012: Does the Military Vote Really Lean Republican? | TIME.com

Click to expand...

Not as definitive as originally presented. From the article -

But the U.S. military plainly tilts toward the GOP. That’s largely because today’s military is an all-volunteer force increasingly drawn from the Sunbelt, where the Pentagon has focused its recruiting efforts since the draft ended 40 years ago. And traits the military prizes — like aggressiveness and respect for authority — tend to be more pronounced in conservatives.

Click to expand...

and

A Pew survey released last year showed post-9/11 veterans’ political leanings are the reverse of the public they’re serving: 36% describe themselves as Republicans, and 21% as Democrats; 34% of the public said they were Democrats, and 23% Republican. Six in 10 vets say they’re more patriotic than the average American.

Click to expand...

The common perception that the military overall leans to the GOP seems intact, although it is certainly not a monolithic voting block for the R's.

Unless we are willing to have Americans being killed and killing in Syria FOREVER, I WANT Turkey to take over Northern Syria - and ideally all of Syria. The Turks are the ONLY regional force that can keep Iran and Russia out.

I'd like to see Turkey take over Syria and make it part of Turkey and hopefully a growing Turkey combined with the Arabs could hold the Iranian Persians back from taking over the entire region and then onward thru Africa.

Nuber said:

I would like to see that study, if you have it.

Lower ranks tend to also be youthful; who are widely believed to lean Democrat. I see the possibility of your point being correct even without seeing the study...

Click to expand...

The military absentee voting is consistently 2 to 1 Republican over Democratic.

Enlisted outnumber officers by a huge number.

In the 2000 election Bush won Florida by 521 votes of several million votes cast. We're talking about that election outcome enabling further the Bush Family of War by the enlisted military vote abroad.

Fortunately for Trump is is different. The Military Times poll of active duty military personnel across the services found that 43% are favorable toward Trump and 43% are unfavorable toward Trump.

Military Times found that 53 percent of officers across the armed services are unfavorable toward Trump. Only 30% of all officers are favorable toward Trump. Another 16% of officers say they don't give a rat's ass either way...they probably said that in 2000 too.

Marines meanwhile approve of Trump by 65% which is way above the armed forces median of 43% approval. Marines in fact lift wildly the overall approval of armed forces personnel and Trump. Marine Corps enlisted far outnumber USMC officers too of course.

Support for Trump is fading among active-duty troops, new poll shows


US armed forces chiefs and commanders active duty and retired have been critical of Trump since early 2017. Almost all of the 88 generals and admirals of 1 to 4 stars who endorsed Trump during the campaign have gone silent. During the 2016 campaign Trump said he'd "fire the generals" yet all he's done is to work around 'em and as we see by the OP Trump's time on that is running out. Fast.

Eriech said:

It is why we have civilian control of the military. Trump is doing what he said he would do re: the military.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Washington at the Constitutional Convention saw the military as the bulwark against a tyrant leader.

Which brings us to today.

And that means tomorrow will be consistent with Washington's successful advocacy of a military oath to the Constitution and not to a leader or to any one person. The military oath is to "We the People" not to "I the Tyrant." Nothing says military and civilian leaders can't work together to implement their oath to the Constitution above any leader. In fact Washington mandated that it be so.

Tangmo said:

The military absentee voting is consistently 2 to 1 Republican over Democratic.

Enlisted outnumber officers by a huge number.

In the 2000 election Bush won Florida by 521 votes of several million votes cast. We're talking about that election outcome enabling further the Bush Family of War by the enlisted military vote abroad.

Fortunately for Trump is is different. The Military Times poll of active duty military personnel across the services found that 43% are favorable toward Trump and 43% are unfavorable toward Trump.

Military Times found that 53 percent of officers across the armed services are unfavorable toward Trump. Only 30% of all officers are favorable toward Trump. Another 16% of officers say they don't give a rat's ass either way...they probably said that in 2000 too.

Marines meanwhile approve of Trump by 65% which is way above the armed forces median of 43% approval. Marines in fact lift wildly the overall approval of armed forces personnel and Trump. Marine Corps enlisted far outnumber USMC officers too of course.

Support for Trump is fading among active-duty troops, new poll shows


US armed forces chiefs and commanders active duty and retired have been critical of Trump since early 2017. Almost all of the 88 generals and admirals of 1 to 4 stars who endorsed Trump during the campaign have gone silent. During the 2016 campaign Trump said he'd "fire the generals" yet all he's done is to work around 'em and as we see by the OP Trump's time on that is running out. Fast.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you saw the responses from my query, but the original article asked for did not really support the stance that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the military. It in fact stated the opposite, but it was an older article.

Of note, and really the only thing in the original article that supported the claim the D's outnumbered R's in the media was a report that funding for Obama outpaced his political opponent from the military.

So - the conclusion that I reach is as follows.

Generally speaking the military trends GOP when it comes to voting across all branches in total (officers and enlisted). There are nuanced differences to be made with the primary difference being that officers seem to have a smaller gap D to R, and may even have more D's than R's overall.

This now starts to support the OP article about officers being opposed to Trump's policy based on party affiliation.

Tangmo said:

The military absentee voting is consistently 2 to 1 Republican over Democratic.

Enlisted outnumber officers by a huge number.

In the 2000 election Bush won Florida by 521 votes of several million votes cast. We're talking about that election outcome enabling further the Bush Family of War by the enlisted military vote abroad.

Fortunately for Trump is is different. The Military Times poll of active duty military personnel across the services found that 43% are favorable toward Trump and 43% are unfavorable toward Trump.

Military Times found that 53 percent of officers across the armed services are unfavorable toward Trump. Only 30% of all officers are favorable toward Trump. Another 16% of officers say they don't give a rat's ass either way...they probably said that in 2000 too.

Marines meanwhile approve of Trump by 65% which is way above the armed forces median of 43% approval. Marines in fact lift wildly the overall approval of armed forces personnel and Trump. Marine Corps enlisted far outnumber USMC officers too of course.

Support for Trump is fading among active-duty troops, new poll shows


US armed forces chiefs and commanders active duty and retired have been critical of Trump since early 2017. Almost all of the 88 generals and admirals of 1 to 4 stars who endorsed Trump during the campaign have gone silent. During the 2016 campaign Trump said he'd "fire the generals" yet all he's done is to work around 'em and as we see by the OP Trump's time on that is running out. Fast.

Click to expand...

i noticed a lot of marines and the type like them only hated Trump because of his demeanor but didnt seem to mind the cruelty. Something in the training perhaps?

Nuber said:

I don't know if you saw the responses from my query, but the original article asked for did not really support the stance that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the military. It in fact stated the opposite, but it was an older article.


Generally speaking the military trends GOP when it comes to voting across all branches in total (officers and enlisted). There are nuanced differences to be made with the primary difference being that officers seem to have a smaller gap D to R, and may even have more D's than R's overall.

This now starts to support the OP article about officers being opposed to Trump's policy based on party affiliation.

Click to expand...

Your point is well taken yet party affiliation is nominal while one's real politics are what matters.

While members of the AVF vote decidedly Republican, it is against the self ethos of the AVF to be seen as a political partisan. Consequently, while only a small number belong to a political party members of the AVF vote decidedly Republican. The survey chart that follows shows this.

Here are also some core results of a poll of active duty AVF personnel across the armed forces. Indeed, the poll by Military Times and Syracuse University was done in confidence, ie, no one can find out individually who said what:

Almost half of those who responded to the poll said they do not affiliate with either major political party, continuing a trend in Military Times polls from recent years away from close ties to either Republicans or Democrats.

Despite that, roughly 45 percent of troops polled said they intend to back Republican candidates, even though less than a third say they are registered with the party.

Similarly, about 28 percent said they plan to vote for Democrats in the upcoming contests, even though only about one-fifth consider themselves members of that party.



Troops see rising political tension in the ranks, poll shows


The above is a current Military Times confidential poll of active duty personnel -- officers and enlisted -- across the armed forces, in collaboration with Syracuse University.





The following is a research project by two sociology faculty at University of Texas who drew on the resources of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. The research found a 20th century historical shift in the party voting patterns of military personnel that continues into the present, the latest data being from the elections of 2016 and 2018.

During the on and off draft decades that ended in 1972-73 most troops identified with the Democratic Party.

In the All Volunteer Force which began in 1973 most troops vote Republican and by as much as 2 to 1. Given the AVF considers itself an exclusively professional force, it is generally true that identifying openly with a particular political party runs generally against the AVF internal ethos. Yet younger veterans who used to be the younger troops are far more likely to affiliate with the Republican party and to broadcast it.


Younger veterans are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats

In more recent decades, veterans have begun to lean increasingly toward the Grand Old Party, researchers found.

Steven L. Foy and Salvatore J. Restifo, assistant professors of sociology at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, examined shifts in party affiliation among generations of veterans. Among those who came of age before World War II, 55.4 percent identified as Democrats, 38.3 percent identified as Republicans and 6.2 percent considered themselves Independents.

Fast forward several decades and party ties look quite different. About a third of veterans who turned 18 between 1972 and 2016 identified as Democratic. Just more than half said they were Republican, and 16.7 percent were Independent.

“Our results suggest that the historical tendency for veterans to identify as Democrats is reversing course,” Foy and Restifo write.

Younger US veterans more likely to be affiliated with Republican Party



Another Military Times survey found the current view in the AVF of Trump is 43% favorable or very favorable and 43% unfavorable or very unfavorable. Among officers it's 53% unfavorable or very unfavorable against 30% of officers across the armed forces who are favorable toward Trump or very favorable. Among all Marines Trump gets 65% favorable or very favorable which is almost double the general 43% positive Trump gets across all the services on average.

bomberfox said:

i noticed a lot of marines and the type like them only hated Trump because of his demeanor but didnt seem to mind the cruelty. Something in the training perhaps?

Click to expand...

I don't hear ordinary Marines active duty and on their own time or as veterans criticizing Trump's caveman demeanor. This is despite the Corps having a strict code of order, demeanor, discipline, dignity, honor. Indeed, Marines seem to have no problem with a caveman dwelling in the White House and thumping his club from coast to coast. They rather like it in fact.

Neither do Marines active duty but on their own time or as veterans criticize Trump's decisions as potus or c'n c. It seems too that ordinary Marines and the veterans of The Crotch seem never to have heard of Russia or Putin and Nato.

Marines are Marines first and forever which means to look out for the Corps as if it were its own sovereign entity and superior to everything else. It's the same attitude as Trump has about Him Self.

MTAtech said:

I didn't know if this belongs in MSM or non-MSM, so I'm playing it safe.

[h=1]Top Military Officers Unload on Trump[/h]Military officers are sworn to serve whomever voters send to the White House. Cognizant of the special authority they hold, high-level officers epitomize respect for the chain of command, and are extremely reticent about criticizing their civilian overseers. That those I spoke with made an exception in Trump’s case is telling, and much of what they told me is deeply disturbing. In 20 years of writing about the military, I have never heard officers in high positions express such alarm about a president. Trump’s pronouncements and orders have already risked catastrophic and unnecessary wars in the Middle East and Asia, and have created severe problems for field commanders engaged in combat operations. Frequently caught unawares by Trump’s statements, senior military officers have scrambled, in their aftermath, to steer the country away from tragedy. How many times can they successfully do that before faltering?
...

---

Our modern officer corps are trained to have sophistication and intelligence. In case you're wondering, they despise Trump, who has neither.

The article is a good read.

Click to expand...

Military officers are human. It did not surprise me that some top military officers thought Obama was unqualified to be commander in chief and strongly objected to his policies.

marke said:

Military officers are human. It did not surprise me that some top military officers thought Obama was unqualified to be commander in chief and strongly objected to his policies.

Click to expand...

The few of 'em took some Pepto Bismol and got on with it. They never took Trump's birther garbage as anything but the nutcase ravings that they still are.

Trump is an aggressive cancer that needs radical removal.

So you guys over there shouldn't be surprised. Shocked of course, yet surprised not. Because it is written, in the Constitution.

MTAtech said:

I didn't know if this belongs in MSM or non-MSM, so I'm playing it safe.

[h=1]Top Military Officers Unload on Trump[/h]Military officers are sworn to serve whomever voters send to the White House. Cognizant of the special authority they hold, high-level officers epitomize respect for the chain of command, and are extremely reticent about criticizing their civilian overseers. That those I spoke with made an exception in Trump’s case is telling, and much of what they told me is deeply disturbing. In 20 years of writing about the military, I have never heard officers in high positions express such alarm about a president. Trump’s pronouncements and orders have already risked catastrophic and unnecessary wars in the Middle East and Asia, and have created severe problems for field commanders engaged in combat operations. Frequently caught unawares by Trump’s statements, senior military officers have scrambled, in their aftermath, to steer the country away from tragedy. How many times can they successfully do that before faltering?
...

---

Our modern officer corps are trained to have sophistication and intelligence. In case you're wondering, they despise Trump, who has neither.

The article is a good read.

Click to expand...

None of those officer have the ability to declare war on another country. that is the sole responsibility of congress.
Trump really had no choice but to do what he did. we were there to fight ISIS not the turkish military who is an ally by
the way. To keep troops there would have put them in harms way as turkey was going to bomb the place with them there or not.

So there was no need to put troops lives in danger. We do not have a declared war against turkey and congress would never issue one.
so why would you keep troops in an area that is going to get bombed. which is what i am sure the phone call was.

it was a warning of hey we are going to bomb this area if you have people there you better move them or they are going to get killed.
it helps to use a little logic and critical thinking skills than appeal to emotion outbursts.

Superfly said:

Yet they, for the most part, helped to vote him in office. The military generally votes Republican.

Just another instance of people voting against their best interests.

Click to expand...

trump keeping troops alive and out of bombing area's is voting against their best interest?
how is that possible?

ludin said:

None of those officer have the ability to declare war on another country. that is the sole responsibility of congress.
Trump really had no choice but to do what he did. we were there to fight ISIS not the turkish military who is an ally by
the way. To keep troops there would have put them in harms way as turkey was going to bomb the place with them there or not.

So there was no need to put troops lives in danger. We do not have a declared war against turkey and congress would never issue one.
so why would you keep troops in an area that is going to get bombed. which is what i am sure the phone call was.

it was a warning of hey we are going to bomb this area if you have people there you better move them or they are going to get killed.
it helps to use a little logic and critical thinking skills than appeal to emotion outbursts.

Click to expand...

Of course your knee-jerk response is to try to justify Trump's actions.

The reality is that Trump made this decision without consultation or internal debate within his team. It was reckless and not thought out. His decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northern Syria is having sickening and predictable consequences and the catastrophic impact of this decision was predictable. It is interesting that his decisions always seem to boost Russian interests and interests of dictators.

From a foreign policy standpoint, we are viewed as selling out an ally that has helped control ISIS. It will hinder our ability to acquire allies when we need them in the future and it is getting Kurds killed now. How you can defend this is unthinkable.

MTAtech said:

I didn't know if this belongs in MSM or non-MSM, so I'm playing it safe.

[h=1]Top Military Officers Unload on Trump[/h]Military officers are sworn to serve whomever voters send to the White House. Cognizant of the special authority they hold, high-level officers epitomize respect for the chain of command, and are extremely reticent about criticizing their civilian overseers. That those I spoke with made an exception in Trump’s case is telling, and much of what they told me is deeply disturbing. In 20 years of writing about the military, I have never heard officers in high positions express such alarm about a president. Trump’s pronouncements and orders have already risked catastrophic and unnecessary wars in the Middle East and Asia, and have created severe problems for field commanders engaged in combat operations. Frequently caught unawares by Trump’s statements, senior military officers have scrambled, in their aftermath, to steer the country away from tragedy. How many times can they successfully do that before faltering?
...

---

Our modern officer corps are trained to have sophistication and intelligence. In case you're wondering, they despise Trump, who has neither.

The article is a good read.

Click to expand...

This article is weird given that Trump has been stating that we would be leaving Syria for three years now. How much advanced notice does a General need to withdraw 50 to 100 troops? :roll:

Also, who is the enemy hear? If the generals assume that a NATO ally is an enemy, or the Free Syrian Army, who we armed and trained, is the enemy... then I think they need to think a while longer of what they expect to accomplish with more time and a handful of troops...

Tangmo said:

The few of 'em took some Pepto Bismol and got on with it. They never took Trump's birther garbage as anything but the nutcase ravings that they still are.

Trump is an aggressive cancer that needs radical removal.

So you guys over there shouldn't be surprised. Shocked of course, yet surprised not. Because it is written, in the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The unhappy Hillary-supporting losers of the 2016 election will never get over their blind rage and hatred of Trump for crushing her in that election. The sore losers hope to slander and falsely accuse Trump into defeat in 2020 but their strategy does not seem to be working with the majority of the American people.

marke said:

The unhappy Hillary-supporting losers of the 2016 election will never get over their blind rage and hatred of Trump for crushing her in that election. The sore losers hope to slander and falsely accuse Trump into defeat in 2020 but their strategy does not seem to be working with the majority of the American people.

Click to expand...

There's just no defending Trump is there, as we know well over here.

The Putin-Trump Rowers are suddenly springing leaks throughout their boat.

Reading the link in the OP we see it's the Russians that will have to save you guys. You gotta make it past the 12 mile limit first however and that doesn't look good for Trump either. A sailor long ago was asked how he got shipwrecked and he said slowly then suddenly.

Tangmo said:

There's just no defending Trump is there, as we know well over here.

The Putin-Trump Rowers are suddenly springing leaks throughout their boat.

Reading the link in the OP we see it's the Russians that will have to save you guys. You gotta make it past the 12 mile limit first however and that doesn't look good for Trump either. A sailor long ago was asked how he got shipwrecked and he said slowly then suddenly.

Click to expand...

Putin-Trump Rowers.... Everybody drink!

Tangmo said:

I don't hear ordinary Marines active duty and on their own time or as veterans criticizing Trump's caveman demeanor. This is despite the Corps having a strict code of order, demeanor, discipline, dignity, honor. Indeed, Marines seem to have no problem with a caveman dwelling in the White House and thumping his club from coast to coast. They rather like it in fact.

Neither do Marines active duty but on their own time or as veterans criticize Trump's decisions as potus or c'n c. It seems too that ordinary Marines and the veterans of The Crotch seem never to have heard of Russia or Putin and Nato.

Marines are Marines first and forever which means to look out for the Corps as if it were its own sovereign entity and superior to everything else. It's the same attitude as Trump has about Him Self.

Click to expand...

Hey, look.

A post full of hyperbole and lies.

Who is James Mattis? In which branch did he serve?

And how would you, a civilian, in China, know about what the rank and file Marines understand vis a vis Trump and Putin?

Fledermaus said:

Hey, look.

A post full of hyperbole and lies.

Who is James Mattis? In which branch did he serve?

And how would you, a civilian, in China, know about what the rank and file Marines understand vis a vis Trump and Putin?

Click to expand...

Fire and forget indeed :lamo

marke said:

The unhappy Hillary-supporting losers of the 2016 election will never get over their blind rage and hatred of Trump for crushing her in that election. The sore losers hope to slander and falsely accuse Trump into defeat in 2020 but their strategy does not seem to be working with the majority of the American people.

Click to expand...

The one thing about a sore winner is that he never gets past it. I mean, here we are three years later and you guys who won are still sore you lost the popular vote -- again.

The Right spent decades as sore about everything from immigration to defense cuts. You guys even got ticked off against Reagan for his "amnesty" for undocumented aliens.

Now that you guys got one in your favor via Putin-Trump you're still sore you won. Sore because the win wasn't with 120% of the vote. The Right won't be happy until they get that. You guys can't wait for the day in fact.

jmotivator said:

This article is weird given that Trump has been stating that we would be leaving Syria for three years now. How much advanced notice does a General need to withdraw 50 to 100 troops? :roll:.

Click to expand...

Thought we weren’t supposed to let our enemies know our plans? Funny how you cons do a complete 180 depending on who is president.

Geoist said:

Thought we weren’t supposed to let our enemies know our plans? Funny how you cons do a complete 180 depending on who is president.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Saying that the plan is to leave Syria is not the same as telegraphing the day on which you plan to leave. Had no problem with Obama saying that he had a goal to leave Iraq, I did have a problem with him giving the insurgents months to plan. It also didn't help that he followed up that telegraphed extraction by creating an Islamic militant army on Iraq's Syrian border soon after.

Obama was a monumental **** up.

Also, pulling 50 to 100 special forces is a bit different than giving the date that tens of thousands of soldiers will leave.

Tangmo said:

There's just no defending Trump is there, as we know well over here.

The Putin-Trump Rowers are suddenly springing leaks throughout their boat.

Reading the link in the OP we see it's the Russians that will have to save you guys. You gotta make it past the 12 mile limit first however and that doesn't look good for Trump either. A sailor long ago was asked how he got shipwrecked and he said slowly then suddenly.

Click to expand...

Every other democrat false accusation based upon democrat lies has turned to dust. This latest fake whistleblower complaint and silly partisan military clic will also, likely in record time.

MTAtech said:

I didn't know if this belongs in MSM or non-MSM, so I'm playing it safe.

[h=1]Top Military Officers Unload on Trump[/h]Military officers are sworn to serve whomever voters send to the White House. Cognizant of the special authority they hold, high-level officers epitomize respect for the chain of command, and are extremely reticent about criticizing their civilian overseers. That those I spoke with made an exception in Trump’s case is telling, and much of what they told me is deeply disturbing. In 20 years of writing about the military, I have never heard officers in high positions express such alarm about a president. Trump’s pronouncements and orders have already risked catastrophic and unnecessary wars in the Middle East and Asia, and have created severe problems for field commanders engaged in combat operations. Frequently caught unawares by Trump’s statements, senior military officers have scrambled, in their aftermath, to steer the country away from tragedy. How many times can they successfully do that before faltering?
...

---

Our modern officer corps are trained to have sophistication and intelligence. In case you're wondering, they despise Trump, who has neither.

The article is a good read.

Click to expand...

I scanned the article quickly so I may have missed it, but does the article identify any of those "top military officers" by name or position? Or identify whether they're active duty or just retired "call me for a ****-storm on Trump quote" types?

marke said:

Every other democrat false accusation based upon democrat lies has turned to dust. This latest fake whistleblower complaint and silly partisan military clic will also, likely in record time.

Click to expand...

Methinks you mean clique but never mind.

The military oath is to the Constitution which is to "We the People" and not to "I the tyrant." The military oath is not to any one person or individual in the government, least of all to the tyrant leader Washington spoke about as president of the Constitutional Convention.

In respect of Washington, who said the military is the ultimate bulwark against a tyrant leader, the first law of the first session the first Congress of the United States Assembled enacted the military oath to the Constitution.

In other words sooner or later Putin-Trump and their Rowers are fvucked. It's happening presently and rather suddenly in fact. It is written, in the Constitution.