• 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!

Gen. Kelly : Hope for Trump?

<alt>doxygen

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So it seems the concern among sane people Trump has in high places caused this guy to accept a job he'd refused multiple times. Will Trump and his "satellites" listen to Kelly?

The deep bonds and know-how of that team may have already done the nation a great service. This summer, as the threats from North Korea increased while confusion dominated in the White House, the generals quietly launched a mission of their own. Mattis, McMaster and Dunford (as well as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) were concerned enough about the conduct of foreign policy to work together to convince a skeptical Kelly to become chief of staff. Their argument: unless someone else takes over, this White House cannot handle a real crisis. Which means that when Trump asked Kelly for the third time to be his chief of staff, it wasn't just a job offer. It was a call of duty.
Click to expand...

If Trump does indeed respect advice from generals, there are enough around him now positioned to make a difference. I'm usually suspicious and uneasy with a lot of ex-military in what's supposed to be a civilian run branch of government. I know it's not illegal, and I have nothing against one or 2 good ones. My pro-McMaster and Mattis posts attest to this. Considering the POTUS we have, maybe it's a cure rather than a problem.

Donald Trump: Why John Kelly Agreed to Be Chief of Staff | Time.com
 
<alt>doxygen said:
So it seems the concern among sane people Trump has in high places caused this guy to accept a job he'd refused multiple times. Will Trump and his "satellites" listen to Kelly?



If Trump does indeed respect advice from generals, there are enough around him now positioned to make a difference. I'm usually suspicious and uneasy with a lot of ex-military in what's supposed to be a civilian run branch of government. I know it's not illegal, and I have nothing against one or 2 good ones. My pro-McMaster and Mattis posts attest to this. Considering the POTUS we have, maybe it's a cure rather than a problem.

Donald Trump: Why John Kelly Agreed to Be Chief of Staff | Time.com
Click to expand...

Well since Kelly doesn't seem to care about Trump tweeting. I don't think he can control the rest of the man. Trump tweeting can be more dangerous than leaks, and often is.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
So it seems the concern among sane people Trump has in high places caused this guy to accept a job he'd refused multiple times. Will Trump and his "satellites" listen to Kelly?



If Trump does indeed respect advice from generals, there are enough around him now positioned to make a difference. I'm usually suspicious and uneasy with a lot of ex-military in what's supposed to be a civilian run branch of government. I know it's not illegal, and I have nothing against one or 2 good ones. My pro-McMaster and Mattis posts attest to this. Considering the POTUS we have, maybe it's a cure rather than a problem.

Donald Trump: Why John Kelly Agreed to Be Chief of Staff | Time.com
Click to expand...

It is at least a stopgap measure. We can and should be temporarily relieved. It is not, however, the answer to Trump's severe mental and emotional issues. In essence Trump is tantamount to a monkey with a machine gun. He can only be pointed away from damaging and destroying people and things for so long.

Trump is not going to become a functional president because of Kelly. Kelly cannot make Donald Trump sane. He cannot imbue Trump with good character, personal integrity or a commitment to sacrifice in service to the nation. Kelly cannot make Trump read. He cannot force Trump to comprehend basic governance. Kelly may well exhibit the principals of exemplary leadership but he will not be able to transfer those skills to a malignant narcissist who has very little understanding of the real world around him.

General Kelly will put lipstick on the pig. He may well keep the nation out of a war or two. Other than that the lipstick will do nothing about the pig.

The GOP has elected to continue to allow an inept and delusional president to remain in office. It's on them.
 
Only time in my memory a pseudo military junta is a preferable mechanism to the POTUS.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
So it seems the concern among sane people Trump has in high places caused this guy to accept a job he'd refused multiple times. Will Trump and his "satellites" listen to Kelly?



If Trump does indeed respect advice from generals, there are enough around him now positioned to make a difference. I'm usually suspicious and uneasy with a lot of ex-military in what's supposed to be a civilian run branch of government. I know it's not illegal, and I have nothing against one or 2 good ones. My pro-McMaster and Mattis posts attest to this. Considering the POTUS we have, maybe it's a cure rather than a problem.

Donald Trump: Why John Kelly Agreed to Be Chief of Staff | Time.com
Click to expand...

From what I've seen generals who've actually seen combat are not nearly as hawkish as civilians who haven't. Witness Mattis' comments yesterday about North Korea. So yeah I'm actually hopeful that the generals will reign in the worst impulses of the idiot in chief.
 
Risky Thicket said:
It is at least a stopgap measure. We can and should be temporarily relieved. It is not, however, the answer to Trump's severe mental and emotional issues. In essence Trump is tantamount to a monkey with a machine gun. He can only be pointed away from damaging and destroying people and things for so long.

Trump is not going to become a functional president because of Kelly. Kelly cannot make Donald Trump sane. He cannot imbue Trump with good character, personal integrity or a commitment to sacrifice in service to the nation. Kelly cannot make Trump read. He cannot force Trump to comprehend basic governance. Kelly may well exhibit the principals of exemplary leadership but he will not be able to transfer those skills to a malignant narcissist who has very little understanding of the real world around him.

General Kelly will put lipstick on the pig. He may well keep the nation out of a war or two. Other than that the lipstick will do nothing about the pig.

The GOP has elected to continue to allow an inept and delusional president to remain in office. It's on them.
Click to expand...

At this point I'd count keeping us out of a war as a major victory.
 
Gaius46 said:
At this point I'd count keeping us out of a war as a major victory.
Click to expand...

Yes. We now have 2 mental cases with nukes and large standing armies at their command staring each other down. When Putin/Russia and the Chinese are the relatively sane ones, you KNOW there's a problem.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Only time in my memory a pseudo military junta is a preferable mechanism to the POTUS.
Click to expand...

It's not a junta yet. But that's the fear that causes me to generally dislike so much brass in what is supposed to be a civilian part of the power structure. As you note, these ain't normal times. Not by a long shot.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Well since Kelly doesn't seem to care about Trump tweeting. I don't think he can control the rest of the man. Trump tweeting can be more dangerous than leaks, and often is.
Click to expand...

Valid point. His tweets have already forced Pence, Mattis and Tillerson to have to go to foreign leaders and assure them that "he didn't really mean THAT".
 
<alt>doxygen said:
So it seems the concern among sane people Trump has in high places caused this guy to accept a job he'd refused multiple times. Will Trump and his "satellites" listen to Kelly?



If Trump does indeed respect advice from generals, there are enough around him now positioned to make a difference. I'm usually suspicious and uneasy with a lot of ex-military in what's supposed to be a civilian run branch of government. I know it's not illegal, and I have nothing against one or 2 good ones. My pro-McMaster and Mattis posts attest to this. Considering the POTUS we have, maybe it's a cure rather than a problem.

Donald Trump: Why John Kelly Agreed to Be Chief of Staff | Time.com
Click to expand...

Trump will fire Kelly once it becomes a loud enough meme that Kelly is "controlling" trump in any way.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
So it seems the concern among sane people Trump has in high places caused this guy to accept a job he'd refused multiple times. Will Trump and his "satellites" listen to Kelly?



If Trump does indeed respect advice from generals, there are enough around him now positioned to make a difference. I'm usually suspicious and uneasy with a lot of ex-military in what's supposed to be a civilian run branch of government. I know it's not illegal, and I have nothing against one or 2 good ones. My pro-McMaster and Mattis posts attest to this. Considering the POTUS we have, maybe it's a cure rather than a problem.

Donald Trump: Why John Kelly Agreed to Be Chief of Staff | Time.com
Click to expand...

Can you clarify the bolded part above...??
 
ModerateGOP said:
Well since Kelly doesn't seem to care about Trump tweeting. I don't think he can control the rest of the man. Trump tweeting can be more dangerous than leaks, and often is.
Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:
It is at least a stopgap measure. We can and should be temporarily relieved. It is not, however, the answer to Trump's severe mental and emotional issues. In essence Trump is tantamount to a monkey with a machine gun. He can only be pointed away from damaging and destroying people and things for so long.

Trump is not going to become a functional president because of Kelly. Kelly cannot make Donald Trump sane. He cannot imbue Trump with good character, personal integrity or a commitment to sacrifice in service to the nation. Kelly cannot make Trump read. He cannot force Trump to comprehend basic governance. Kelly may well exhibit the principals of exemplary leadership but he will not be able to transfer those skills to a malignant narcissist who has very little understanding of the real world around him.

General Kelly will put lipstick on the pig. He may well keep the nation out of a war or two. Other than that the lipstick will do nothing about the pig.

The GOP has elected to continue to allow an inept and delusional president to remain in office. It's on them.
Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:
Only time in my memory a pseudo military junta is a preferable mechanism to the POTUS.
Click to expand...

<alt>doxygen said:
Yes. We now have 2 mental cases with nukes and large standing armies at their command staring each other down. When Putin/Russia and the Chinese are the relatively sane ones, you KNOW there's a problem.
Click to expand...

<alt>doxygen said:
It's not a junta yet. But that's the fear that causes me to generally dislike so much brass in what is supposed to be a civilian part of the power structure. As you note, these ain't normal times. Not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

<alt>doxygen said:
Valid point. His tweets have already forced Pence, Mattis and Tillerson to have to go to foreign leaders and assure them that "he didn't really mean THAT".
Click to expand...

poweRob said:
Trump will fire Kelly once it becomes a loud enough meme that Kelly is "controlling" trump in any way.
Click to expand...

What massive wave of TDS based hyperbole... :roll:
 
What if...? said:
Every time I see "TDS" I think, "Yeah, trump is deranged".

So maybe you should think about using that term.
Click to expand...

Denial of reality is not a mental state that is healthy. You know full well what I'm saying and trying to use this kind of tactic (redefining a term to stop it's use as it's intended) is dishonest.
 
faithful_servant said:
Denial of reality is not a mental state that is healthy. You know full well what I'm saying and trying to use this kind of tactic (redefining a term to stop it's use as it's intended) is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Not denial of reality.

Bush was not deranged.

IMO trump IS.

So when the term TDS is used I think of trumps derangement, not the slur you intend.

Perception of terms is an important factor in persuasive messaging.

"Negatively loaded" terms are avoided for this reason.

That is my point.

Snowflake.
 
faithful_servant said:
Can you clarify the bolded part above...??
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/civilian-control-military-tradition-began/story?id=43927430

President-elect Donald Trump's pick of retired Marine Gen. James Mattis to be the next Defense Secretary will require a congressional waiver for him to assume the post because he has not been retired from military service more than seven years.

The pick has called attention to the requirement set in the National Security Act of 1947 that the head of the Defense Department must be a civilian. Any nominee with prior military experience must have been retired from active duty for seven years. Mattis retired from the Marine Corps three years ago.

The concept of civilian control of the U.S. military required by the law is one that dates to the nation's earliest days and reflects the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution.

Here's a look at how civilian control of the military has become a trademark of American national security.

It Is in the Constitution

The concept of civilian control of the military was written by the Founding Fathers into the Constitution emerging from the colonial reality of citizen-soldiers.

Reflecting the balance of power established by the Constitution, the president was made commander in chief of the military and Congress was given the authority to declare war and fund the military.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."

The roles of Congress outlined in Article I, Section 8 include, "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy."
Click to expand...

When the executive branch becomes loaded with generals, the lines become blurred. This would be obvious to you if Trump was a Democrat.
 
Gaius46 said:
From what I've seen generals who've actually seen combat are not nearly as hawkish as civilians who haven't. Witness Mattis' comments yesterday about North Korea. So yeah I'm actually hopeful that the generals will reign in the worst impulses of the idiot in chief.
Click to expand...

They have yet to take away his phone and Twitter account.
 
faithful_servant said:
What massive wave of TDS based hyperbole... :roll:
Click to expand...

These guys have TDS, so we're in good company. At least Trump agrees. He hasn't fired them.
Mattis, McMaster and Dunford (as well as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) were concerned enough about the conduct of foreign policy to work together to convince a skeptical Kelly to become chief of staff.
Click to expand...
:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom