• 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!

Could/should Trump order the military to discipline Vindman

independentusa said:
Could/should this president or any preident order the military to dicipline someone for what is obviously political reasons. Vindman was subpoenaed to come to the House and testify. As a military officer he had no right to refuse and even the president could not stop him from doing so. He testified to what he heard on the phone call to the best of his ability and seemed to have no axe to grind. Now he has been removed from his position, which in itself violates the laww, but neither the president or the GOP care about the law. Now trump is suggesting that the military should bring charges against Vindman, for what, no one really knows. But Could or should this president go ahead and force by order the military to discipline Vindman or anyone?
Click to expand...

Obama fired Petraeus and threatened him to keep quiet about Benghazi. Petraeus was no dummy. He knew if he crossed Obama he could be recalled to face court martial and lose his pension. Obama had him over a barrel.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The Newts advise was bad. You hit fast, you hit hard, and you pursue with ferocity. The tools the swamp has are dependent on their control of the state, and their fiefdoms within. Trump should have taken his catch phase to heart, "You're fired", and gutted the upper echelon and creating power vacuums. Creating the power vacuum does several things. One it takes the heads off of the various fiefdoms. 2 like vacuums in nature, they tend to be filled, thereby identifying your next targets. 3. The process of filling the previous vacuum creates causes chaos and disunity amongst your targets thereby weakening the overall response to you. 4. The chaos is a smokescreen with which one can maneuver operationally to isolate and neutralize the various competing factions, and to build your powerbase while simultaneously weakening the overall response.

Despite not knowing the extent of the DS he should have set the tone and been far more aggressive.
Click to expand...

Interesting argument.

Keep in mind that we are comparing him to Obama, who capitulated immediately in spite of his constant campaign promises...I say Trump has done pretty good with what he had. He needed more voters, that fact that he has not had the support of the people that he should have had is not his fault, it's ours.
 
trouble13 said:
Not only that but his management style is to surround himself with contray viewpoints. He probably viewed it as advantage to have people that disagree with him advising him.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

His style is to have the best people with the best arguments that they can come up with, and he likes the most diversity in those opinions he can get so long as they are quality.....they have a process and then come to him and lay it all out. At that point he decides, and it is over.

Having so many people around actively trying to sabotage the Executive branch function has however been a huge problem.

I view those who think if themselves as "The Resistance in the White House" as traitors.

They might as well be Russian agents, but of course they are not that self aware.
 
Craig234 said:
So, for example, if a president decided 'no black people' or 'no women', no problem for you? If he sold off positions (remember Gordon Sondland, who gave him $1 million, for example), no problem? You don't seem to understand the president not being supposed to abuse that power.
Click to expand...

I am not interested in such superficial makes no difference except to the feelings of the twats things.

I want the best people for the job.

THE END
 
Craig234 said:
So, for example, if a president decided 'no black people' or 'no women', no problem for you? If he sold off positions (remember Gordon Sondland, who gave him $1 million, for example), no problem? You don't seem to understand the president not being supposed to abuse that power.
Click to expand...

Why is it progressives have such a hard time understanding at the pleasure of? Now it somehow means abuse of power? If a president wants an all white or black staff, he can do what he wants. It has nothing to do with it being a problem for you or anyone else.

The real problem is, you think anything you don't like is an abuse of power. It isn't.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
His style is to have the best people with the best arguments that they can come up with, and he likes the most diversity in those opinions he can get so long as they are quality.....they have a process and then come to him and lay it all out. At that point he decides, and it is over.

Having so many people around actively trying to sabotage the Executive branch function has however been a huge problem.

I view those who think if themselves as "The Resistance in the White House" as traitors.

They might as well be Russian agents, but of course they are not that self aware.
Click to expand...
I dont think he expected or anticiated the level of animosity these people have toward him.
I have to be honest that some of things we learned was surprising to me too. I dont think any rational person would not be surprised at how far of an extent they went to take out their anger.
I dont agree with everything Trump does but I am impressed by how he stands up to them.
I remember when Obama took a swipe at him at a WH correspondence dinner. I watched him just sort of wilt like a hothouse flower. I thought to myself "if this guy cant take that he does not have the chops needed to be the potus"
Boy was I wrong about that. I misjudged him in a big way.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I dont think he expected or anticiated the level of animosity these people have toward him.
I have to be honest that some of things we learned was surprising to me too. I dont think any rational person would not be surprised at how far of an extent they went to take out their anger.
I dont agree with everything Trump does but I am impressed by how he stands up to them.
I remember when Obama took a swipe at him at a WH correspondence dinner. I watched him just sort of wilt like a hothouse flower. I thought to myself "if this guy cant take that he does not have the chops needed to be the potus"
Boy was I wrong about that. I misjudged him in a big way.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Stand up and try, Damn it at least try....Thats Trump.

If he is not dead he is trying.

AN OLD WAR HORSE
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
I am not interested in such superficial makes no difference except to the feelings of the twats things.

I want the best people for the job.

THE END
Click to expand...

No, you don't. You want incompetent, corrupt trump henchmen, because that's what trump wants.
 
independentusa said:
Could/should this president or any preident order the military to dicipline someone for what is obviously political reasons. Vindman was subpoenaed to come to the House and testify. As a military officer he had no right to refuse and even the president could not stop him from doing so. He testified to what he heard on the phone call to the best of his ability and seemed to have no axe to grind. Now he has been removed from his position, which in itself violates the laww, but neither the president or the GOP care about the law. Now trump is suggesting that the military should bring charges against Vindman, for what, no one really knows. But Could or should this president go ahead and force by order the military to discipline Vindman or anyone?
Click to expand...

No, he should not. Whether he has the power to do so remains to be seen. This is yet another example of Trump's petty and infantile vindictiveness directed at anyone who displeases The Master.
It also demonstrates Trump's jealousy of anyone who served America honourably and was recognised for it. It goes some way (in Trump's squirrel brain), to offsetting the quite obvious inferiority complex he has.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...there are plenty of charges his superiors could bring Vindman up on...and probably make stick. But they won't. It's not worth the effort. Besides, they have other ways of punishing him. Zero further advancement in rank, rescinding his attendance at the War College, reassignment to some choice duty station that resembles hell.

Now Trump? He won't do anything. He'll be content to trolling the haters by saying things he knows will trigger them.

btw, your simplified notion of what Vindman has done requires you to pretend not to know things...as usual. A bit of real investigation would show that Vindman, Ciaramella, a Schiffty staffer or two, an ICIG and a group of Lawfare people concocted the entire Ukraine nonsense. THAT could send Vindman to Leavenworth for a long time.

But...as I said...it just isn't worth it.
Click to expand...

Name some of these plentiful charges you imagine could be brought.
 
Mycroft said:
Will Vindman face courts martial?
Click to expand...

What a steaming pile. Try harder and see if there are any more absurd charges you can dream up. Sedition, espionage, treason, maybe? Vindman did his job and Trump didn't like it. It really is as simple as that-or didn't you notice how the idiot child lashes out at anyone who displeases him?
 
snakestretcher said:
What a steaming pile. Try harder and see if there are any more absurd charges you can dream up. Sedition, espionage, treason, maybe? Vindman did his job and Trump didn't like it. It really is as simple as that-or didn't you notice how the idiot child lashes out at anyone who displeases him?
Click to expand...

yawn...

Typical Trump hater...and a foreign one, to boot.

Do you seriously think the DOD gives a **** what YOU think is a "steaming pile"?

Anyway, as I've said many times, Vindman won't face any charges. You can relax.
 
Mycroft said:
yawn...

Typical Trump hater...and a foreign one, to boot.

Do you seriously think the DOD gives a **** what YOU think is a "steaming pile"?

Anyway, as I've said many times, Vindman won't face any charges. You can relax.
Click to expand...

Yes, I hate thieves, fraudsters and pathological liars. Is that ok, or does Trump get a pass for some reason? If you support Trump, you support all the above. End of.
 
snakestretcher said:
Yes, I hate thieves, fraudsters and pathological liars. Is that ok, or does Trump get a pass for some reason? If you support Trump, you support all the above. End of.
Click to expand...

blah, blah, blah...get back to me when you have a serious discussion in mind.

You are dismissed. (see my sig)
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Interesting argument.

Keep in mind that we are comparing him to Obama, who capitulated immediately in spite of his constant campaign promises...I say Trump has done pretty good with what he had. He needed more voters, that fact that he has not had the support of the people that he should have had is not his fault, it's ours.
Click to expand...

I agree with that assessment, to a point. Unfortunately Trump has a somewhat mercurial personality and that hinders him a bit. Under the circumstances he has done fine. He had just an opportunity to do much better.
 
trouble13 said:
What law prevents Trump from retaliating against Vindman? Trump is the CiC of our armed forces and can request anything he wants within the limitations of the law. If Vindman violated the UCMJ, Yrump has every right to demand he is prosecuted. He also has every right to remove him from the WH staff.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And just how did Vindman violate the UCMJ, he didn't. that would not matter to Trump who sees anyone who is not totally loyal to him as the enemy. And yes there is a law against what trump iis doing, but no one, the GOP, will stop him.
 
PirateMk1 said:
No. He should have been purged along with a lot of others the first day.
Click to expand...

Ah no wonder you support Trump and his buddy Putin from Russia, you sound just like a Russian dictator, with the use of the word purge. That is something that Putin would do at one time in Russia while trump has to take more time to do so in this country. I guess next you will want Trump to take out those who do not agree with his dictatorship of the USA like Putin gets to do in Russia. Yes, "purge" is exactly the word you should use. Like in Russia Trump wants people to be loyal too him rather than the country, and so do you apparently
 
independentusa said:
And just how did Vindman violate the UCMJ, he didn't. that would not matter to Trump who sees anyone who is not totally loyal to him as the enemy. And yes there is a law against what trump iis doing, but no one, the GOP, will stop him.
Click to expand...
I never said he did violate it, lnly that if Trump believes he did, he would be well within his right to request Vindman be prosecuted. Vindman however has not been charged, just reassigned outside of the WH which is also within the oresidents prerogative.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
independentusa said:
Could/should this president or any preident order the military to dicipline someone for what is obviously political reasons. Vindman was subpoenaed to come to the House and testify. As a military officer he had no right to refuse and even the president could not stop him from doing so. He testified to what he heard on the phone call to the best of his ability and seemed to have no axe to grind. Now he has been removed from his position, which in itself violates the laww, but neither the president or the GOP care about the law. Now trump is suggesting that the military should bring charges against Vindman, for what, no one really knows. But Could or should this president go ahead and force by order the military to discipline Vindman or anyone?
Click to expand...

Another reason for another impeachment inquiry.

Is the right wing still claiming this is ok for our chief magistrate of the Union?
 
Vindman should be court martialed, or tried in a civilian court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom