• 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!

Senator McConnell Objects to Military Pay Protection.

She is a hack who used the Veterans Administration job as a ticket.

And veterans could care less what Manc Skipper thinks.

Yeah, a disabled combat vet should NEVER be considered for a job at the VA trying to make things better for other disabled vets...unless, of course, that disabled combat vet strictly obeys your personal version of conservative dogma, I guess....
 
Uh-uh. The reason why the military used to vote Democratic before but not now is because before Nixon, both parties had strong contingents of liberals and conservatives - indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have passed without Republican liberals. Before Nixon, the always-conservative Deep South (which is always overrepresented in our military) was called the Democratic "Solid South". Then when Nixon used his "Southern Strategy" to attract the "negrophobes", the Deep South began to shift from the Democratic party to the GOP. The Deep South - like the military - shifted from the Democratic party to the GOP because the nature of the parties themselves changed.

The military - which by its very nature is always more conservative than the general population (I believe this goes for all military through all history) - tends to vote for whichever party is the most conservative.

Oh, and one more thing - this retired Navy man wants you to read the following lines from a speech made by what y'all would today call a raving left-wing liberal: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Who was the stark-raving mad left-wing liberal who said that? Dwight D. Eisenhower. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was the commander of SHAEF in WWII. He knew something of war, of what our military needs...and he realized that a strong military is fragile indeed if supporting that military comes at the cost of unnecessarily depriving the basic infrastructure of the nation it serves.

I grew up when IKE was president and to this day, rank him as the best president in my lifetime that I have personally experienced. I do think folks today forget that back in the 50's and early 60's both parties had their liberal and conservative wings. For the Republicans, it was the Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast that were liberal. For the democrats, it was the conservative south. I grew up in a household that was known as yeller dog democrats. They would sooner vote for an old yeller dog than a Republican.

Not the case today. The south is still very much pro-defense. More people from the south volunteer and go into our military than from any other region of the country. The problem with congress today and military spending in general is that congress uses the military as a civilian jobs creator and maintainer back in their home districts and states. There has been many time the JCS has said they, the military, doesn't need, want or can't use this system or that equipment, but to keep civilian jobs back home, congress authorizes the spending on that unwanted and unneeded equipment and systems. what happens is all that unneeded and unused equipment goes into a warehouse someplace and ten or fifteen years later gets auctioned off at a tenth or less of the cost to produce and store.

I've seen this time and time again. I always said of congress would just authorize what the military needs to defend and protect this country, the military could easily get by on a 100 billion dollars a year less than what it does now. But congress must use the military to protect the civilian jobs back home.
 
One of these days those military people will wake up and stop voting Republican.

Many of us already have. To hear Veterans talk, Trump is doing badly with Veterans, its the integrity thing, the CIC has none.
 
Yeah, a disabled combat vet should NEVER be considered for a job at the VA trying to make things better for other disabled vets...unless, of course, that disabled combat vet strictly obeys your personal version of conservative dogma, I guess....

She got the VA sued.........because she didn't give a ****. Read once in a while for Christ sakes.

You are so dishonest about her.
 
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4710181/senator-mcconnell-objects-military-pay-protection

Senator Majority leader Mitch McConnell rejected protecting the pay of Active Duty Service Members to assure they can still get paid to blow off their payment on their 40% APR interest rate Mustangs and Strippers. For perspective, in 2013 during the shutdown, the Obama administration continued pay for Military Service Members during the shutdown. For an administration and political party that makes a lot of bluster for their love of the military, why did the Senate Majority leader for the Republican party just give us the middle finger?

What else was in the legislation? And FYI, the majority leader often votes against legislation that he actually supports because if he votes for legislation that passes it cannot then be revisited. The way I understood the issue on the military is that the Democrats just wanted paychecks to continue uninterrupted which essentially allows the government to proceed illegally without a C.R. passed by the House and Senate.

And the Democrats haven't yet explained how they are consistently voting against an extension of CHIP providing healthcare for poor American children for the benefit, they say, for people here in the country illegally. The DACA issue is a separate issue that is on the table with a separate deal that will pass if the Democrats give just a little.

The hypocritical politicking going on is nauseating.
 
Many of us already have. To hear Veterans talk, Trump is doing badly with Veterans, its the integrity thing, the CIC has none.

How many veterans commited suicide under Obama's watch?

How many homeless Vet's under Obama's watch?

How many Veterans Hospitals were under investigation under Obama's watch?
 
Any Veteran who continues to support the Trump is a GOP hack. I like my CIC to have just a smidgen of honesty, and that is not Trump. He is not fit to be CIC of my Air Force. I heard a Vet say the other day Trump was not fit to lead HIS Navy. Why did the Navy Vet say it, same reason, Trump is dishonest.
 
Any Veteran who continues to support the Trump is a GOP hack. I like my CIC to have just a smidgen of honesty, and that is not Trump. He is not fit to be CIC of my Air Force. I heard a Vet say the other day Trump was not fit to lead HIS Navy.

I live in the largest Navy town in the world, and they all say the very same thing about Obama. The Navy hated Obama.

Don't point fingers unless you want 6 more pointing back at you.
 
I grew up when IKE was president and to this day, rank him as the best president in my lifetime that I have personally experienced. I do think folks today forget that back in the 50's and early 60's both parties had their liberal and conservative wings. For the Republicans, it was the Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast that were liberal. For the democrats, it was the conservative south. I grew up in a household that was known as yeller dog democrats. They would sooner vote for an old yeller dog than a Republican.

Not the case today. The south is still very much pro-defense. More people from the south volunteer and go into our military than from any other region of the country. The problem with congress today and military spending in general is that congress uses the military as a civilian jobs creator and maintainer back in their home districts and states. There has been many time the JCS has said they, the military, doesn't need, want or can't use this system or that equipment, but to keep civilian jobs back home, congress authorizes the spending on that unwanted and unneeded equipment and systems. what happens is all that unneeded and unused equipment goes into a warehouse someplace and ten or fifteen years later gets auctioned off at a tenth or less of the cost to produce and store.

I've seen this time and time again. I always said of congress would just authorize what the military needs to defend and protect this country, the military could easily get by on a 100 billion dollars a year less than what it does now. But congress must use the military to protect the civilian jobs back home.

You do realize most of those bases which need closing are in the South, there is very little military presence up here in Boston. I can think of three AF bases in this area which have closed since 1990. But then again, the Mass economy did not rely on the pentagon for jobs.
 
There's is a lot to how the military views the different political parties which probably can be traced back to the Vietnam War. Trump won veterans 60-34 over Hillary. Veterans went for Romney 59-39 over Obama and McCain 54-44 over Obama. 2004 veterans went to Bush 57-41 and so it goes all the back to Vietnam. It's not just the presidential races, it is votes for congress also.

Prior to Vietnam most veterans were voting Democratic. The switch from a hawkish global view to a peace dove one is what drove the veterans away from the Democrats. That began in the late 60's with the Democrats siding with the protesters which many in the military took as siding against them. The nomination of George McGovern in 1972 and his peace at any cost stance about Vietnam was took as a surrender to those in the military. Then President Jimmy Carter oversaw the draw down of our military forces in what was termed the hollow military. Reagan rebuilt the military and veterans have been voting around 2-1 Republican ever since. It didn't help the Democrats nominated a draft dodger or evader as they put in 1992. That Bill Clinton also over saw more military draw downs and cut backs. There is a long history as to why veterans are basically republican.

today, a majority of us veterans still view the Democratic Party as the peace dove party. More or less anti-military, anti-defense. It is always the Democrats who want to take money away from the military for social use and welfare recipients. I really doubt what McConnell did will have any effect on the veteran's voting habits. You have Senator Schumer and Minority Leaders Pelosi front and center using this shutdown for illegal aliens instead of looking after those who defend and protect this country. It isn't going over well with veterans. They tend to look at this as they might not get paid because of some dumb illegal aliens the Democrats care much more about than those in service for this country.

For veterans to change back to voting Democratic, it will take a mind change within the Democratic Party. Vietnam brought about the mind change from Democrat to Republican back in the late 60's and early 70's. From the Great Depression until Vietnam, veterans were very much Democratic. Today it's the reverse.

It makes perfect sense that the military would favor republicans over democrats.

The GOP is far more favorable to the military industrial complex than the democrats.

Whereas, I do believe both parties do care deeply about having a more than sufficient military and share common care and respect for our troops, the GOP is the go-to party if you want to propagate wars, thus profiting the military industrial complex.

Whereas, the democrats are more than content in having a military that is second to none, and already spending far more than any nation(s) spend on their military, democrats also want to address improvements in infrastructure, education, healthcare and things like that.

The GOP just wants to make the military bigger, and bigger and bigger and bigger. Mo' $$$$$$ !!!!

It makes perfect sense that the dogs of war would prefer GOP leadership.
 
You Vets voting for trump best wake up, the man gives lip service to the military, but in reality that's all it is, lip service.
 
You do realize most of those bases which need closing are in the South, there is very little military presence up here in Boston. I can think of three AF bases in this area which have closed since 1990. But then again, the Mass economy did not rely on the pentagon for jobs.

We saw this in Illinois also, with the concerted effort of Reagan/Bush-41 to close military installations in the Midwest and Northeast and move them to their new Political Base in the South. Chanute USAF base was a big loss here. We also saw that with Bush-41 sending the Superconducting Super Collider to Texas over IL, as another example ...
 
Nice counter, but it doesn't excuse they nonsense you throw out here everyday.

Especially with all those so called personal experiences that you ramble on about that would take 10 lifetimes for anyone else. :roll:

Hey - can I help it if I've seen and done a lot of things? Am I supposed to pretend that I don't have those personal experiences just to make you feel better?

Here's a clue - there's a heck of a lot of people out there who've done far more than I have. You've done quite a bit yourself - every retired military has - so it's not my fault that you don't point out what you've done and the lessons you learned. I've seen and done things that not too many other people have - I've lived a pretty wide-ranging journey, and just as you've seen and done things that I haven't, I've seen and done things that you yourself probably haven't, even during our respective careers. I wasn't a bubblehead, but I've been on a deep dive and done angles-and-dangles and slept next to a ballistic missile tube (and inside one once). I wasn't an airedale, but I've taken a cat shot and traps. I wasn't a rated MAA or LN, but I've been a CMAA and an acting legal officer. I wasn't an IT, but I was a LAN admin and won awards for the programs I wrote and administered. I wasn't a QM, but I've steered an aircraft carrier. I didn't pass nuclear power school, but I've worked in nuclear maintenance and repair (and qualified in the non-nuclear part of the plant). I never saw combat (thank goodness!), but I very well remember when the floating gas can I was on (an AOE) went to GQ due to Iranian cruise missiles we thought were targeting our ship (and my GQ station was in a fuel transfer void). When it comes to liberty overseas, if you were on the Pacific side, then you know what I mean when I refer to Magsaysay, Green Street, Texas Street, Bugi Street, Hotel Street, and Wanchai, and the clap lines...and all those places are either gone or very different now (which is a very good thing). I've been lost on the back streets of Bangkok and Nairobi, drove the back roads of Tasmania, haggled over old coins in Shenzen...do I really need to go on? And my journey didn't stop once I retired - I didn't just settle down in one town to stay there and vegetate.

Like I said, I've done a lot of things. Again, am I supposed to pretend I haven't done them just to make you feel better? Or would it instead be more appropriate for you yourself to point out what you've seen and done, with experiences you have that I do not?
 
Hey - can I help it if I've seen and done a lot of things? Am I supposed to pretend that I don't have those personal experiences just to make you feel better?

Here's a clue - there's a heck of a lot of people out there who've done far more than I have. You've done quite a bit yourself - every retired military has - so it's not my fault that you don't point out what you've done and the lessons you learned. I've seen and done things that not too many other people have - I've lived a pretty wide-ranging journey, and just as you've seen and done things that I haven't, I've seen and done things that you yourself probably haven't, even during our respective careers. I wasn't a bubblehead, but I've been on a deep dive and done angles-and-dangles and slept next to a ballistic missile tube (and inside one once). I wasn't an airedale, but I've taken a cat shot and traps. I wasn't a rated MAA or LN, but I've been a CMAA and an acting legal officer. I wasn't an IT, but I was a LAN admin and won awards for the programs I wrote and administered. I wasn't a QM, but I've steered an aircraft carrier. I didn't pass nuclear power school, but I've worked in nuclear maintenance and repair (and qualified in the non-nuclear part of the plant). I never saw combat (thank goodness!), but I very well remember when the floating gas can I was on (an AOE) went to GQ due to Iranian cruise missiles we thought were targeting our ship (and my GQ station was in a fuel transfer void). When it comes to liberty overseas, if you were on the Pacific side, then you know what I mean when I refer to Magsaysay, Green Street, Texas Street, Bugi Street, Hotel Street, and Wanchai, and the clap lines...and all those places are either gone or very different now (which is a very good thing). I've been lost on the back streets of Bangkok and Nairobi, drove the back roads of Tasmania, haggled over old coins in Shenzen...do I really need to go on? And my journey didn't stop once I retired - I didn't just settle down in one town to stay there and vegetate.

Like I said, I've done a lot of things. Again, am I supposed to pretend I haven't done them just to make you feel better? Or would it instead be more appropriate for you yourself to point out what you've seen and done, with experiences you have that I do not?

Nice post.
 
You do realize most of those bases which need closing are in the South, there is very little military presence up here in Boston. I can think of three AF bases in this area which have closed since 1990. But then again, the Mass economy did not rely on the pentagon for jobs.

Ah, but what is manufactured up in the Northeast for the military? Made by civilians. It's not just military presents, but jobs in the home district I was talking about. Sure, you're going to have a lot of places, districts, even states that do not have anything to do with the military. But that doesn't make what I said wrong. Those who do have defense plants or whatever in their area are bound and determined to keep those civilians working if not add more to the work force.
 
It makes perfect sense that the military would favor republicans over democrats.

The GOP is far more favorable to the military industrial complex than the democrats.

Whereas, I do believe both parties do care deeply about having a more than sufficient military and share common care and respect for our troops, the GOP is the go-to party if you want to propagate wars, thus profiting the military industrial complex.

Whereas, the democrats are more than content in having a military that is second to none, and already spending far more than any nation(s) spend on their military, democrats also want to address improvements in infrastructure, education, healthcare and things like that.

The GOP just wants to make the military bigger, and bigger and bigger and bigger. Mo' $$$$$$ !!!!

It makes perfect sense that the dogs of war would prefer GOP leadership.

I suppose you could indeed call us the dogs of wars, since we fought and fight them. I said in another post that I think the military could easily get by with a 100 billion dollars less if congress just gave the military what it needed to protect and defend this country to the best of the military's ability. But congress and I use the term congress in a general sense uses the military as a civilian jobs creator and maintainer back home in their districts and states. It's better for them, those in congress to appropriate funds for equipment and system even the JCS has stated they didn't want, don't need and can't use. But defund that equipment, system would mean putting civilians out of work back home and the congressman or senator would indeed look bad to the voters. He didn't protect their jobs.
 
Um, no. Before, Trump agreed that he'd sign a bipartisan deal on DACA if it was brought to him...and that was - and remains - the major sticking point when it comes to the budget. When the Republican AND Democratic leaders of the Senate brought him a truly bipartisan deal on DACA, he refused it. He broke his word to both of them, knowing full well that the Democrats were not going to agree to the budget without a deal on DACA.

No, guy, this one's not on either the Democrats or the Republicans - they BOTH did their part by working out a bipartisan deal on DACA. Trump broke his word to both of them...and that is why we now have a government shutdown. This one is 100% Trump's fault. The buck stops there.

Donald Trump had conditions that weren't met. He was right to reject the bill. The "bipartisan bill" did not eliminate chain migration, diversity visas, or funding for the wall. Why would he accept that trash? DACA is amnesty and people like Mrs Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio tried to push through the same nonsense that they pulled on Reagan.

I promise to pay you back on Tuesday for a hamburger today!
 
I grew up when IKE was president and to this day, rank him as the best president in my lifetime that I have personally experienced. I do think folks today forget that back in the 50's and early 60's both parties had their liberal and conservative wings. For the Republicans, it was the Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast that were liberal. For the democrats, it was the conservative south. I grew up in a household that was known as yeller dog democrats. They would sooner vote for an old yeller dog than a Republican.

Not the case today. The south is still very much pro-defense. More people from the south volunteer and go into our military than from any other region of the country. The problem with congress today and military spending in general is that congress uses the military as a civilian jobs creator and maintainer back in their home districts and states. There has been many time the JCS has said they, the military, doesn't need, want or can't use this system or that equipment, but to keep civilian jobs back home, congress authorizes the spending on that unwanted and unneeded equipment and systems. what happens is all that unneeded and unused equipment goes into a warehouse someplace and ten or fifteen years later gets auctioned off at a tenth or less of the cost to produce and store.

I've seen this time and time again. I always said of congress would just authorize what the military needs to defend and protect this country, the military could easily get by on a 100 billion dollars a year less than what it does now. But congress must use the military to protect the civilian jobs back home.

See the bolded line? There's a problem with that. The problem is that no matter how much you give the military, they will always claim they need more. And there's a reason for that. You see, during my career, time and time again, when it came to the last few months of the fiscal year, we'd get together to make doggone sure we spent every single penny that those in supply had allocated us...and this was crucial. Why? Because if we had money left over at the end of the fiscal year, then the bean-counters would see that we didn't need as much as we had been allocated, and so we would be allocated less in the future. That's the exact reason why I wouldn't be surprised if EVERY unit and command in the military spends every single penny (and then some), every single year without fail - because if they don't do so, then the next year they might not get that level of funding...and that would well-and-truly suck if they happened to need it.

So as a direct result, we'd order more paint, or more furniture, or more tools, or more spare parts, et cetera...and this adds up with all the different shops and departments on every ship and sub and squadron and division out there.

And the same thing goes with war - if you'll look back in history, it will be very rare indeed to find generals even on the winning side to say "oh, we already had more than we needed to win". Instead, if you look at the battles, you'll see time and time and time again where generals were screaming bloody murder for more troops. WWI's a great example - When Joffre (and later, Foch) effectively commanded the western front, their subordinate generals would be howling for more forces, swearing up and down that they were at the verge of bitter defeat...but Joffre and Foch would give them very few (and usually no) extra troops...and everything turned out fine.

This isn't to say that we don't need to properly fund the military (or that the military sometimes speaks up and says "we don't need anymore tanks"), but we do need to remember that no matter how much funding we give the military, as far as most of the military is concerned, it will never be enough, there will always be generals and admirals claiming it's not enough, that there are traitors in Congress who hate the military.
 
She got the VA sued.........because she didn't give a ****. Read once in a while for Christ sakes.

You are so dishonest about her.

If there's something that does get under my skin, it's to be called a liar. Call me wrong, fine. Call me a stupid idiot, sure. Call me so full of s**t that my eyes are brown (and they are), and I'll give you a wide grin. But call me a liar...and you'd better be able to back it up.

So BACK IT UP, guy. By calling me dishonest, you're claiming that I said something that I knew to be wrong or misleading. PROVE YOUR ACCUSATION. Either do that, or back off and say you "misspoke" and meant to only say that I was just "full of s**t".

BTW, when it comes to the VA - or any other government agency - getting sued, I challenge you to find ANY government agency that has not been sued (usually with good cause) during any one president's administration (except maybe for during major wars, or during those few administrations that were cut short by assassination).
 
If there's something that does get under my skin, it's to be called a liar. Call me wrong, fine. Call me a stupid idiot, sure. Call me so full of s**t that my eyes are brown (and they are), and I'll give you a wide grin. But call me a liar...and you'd better be able to back it up.

So BACK IT UP, guy. By calling me dishonest, you're claiming that I said something that I knew to be wrong or misleading. PROVE YOUR ACCUSATION. Either do that, or back off and say you "misspoke" and meant to only say that I was just "full of s**t".

BTW, when it comes to the VA - or any other government agency - getting sued, I challenge you to find ANY government agency that has not been sued (usually with good cause) during any one president's administration (except maybe for during major wars, or during those few administrations that were cut short by assassination).

You can lie by omission. The skank didn't do a damn thing about helping veterans while being paid to help veterans.

I was accurate and you are butt hurt.

She was incompetent at best............and riding the position for higher office.

Yep................ Glen don't care.............. do he?
 
If there's something that does get under my skin, it's to be called a liar. Call me wrong, fine. Call me a stupid idiot, sure. Call me so full of s**t that my eyes are brown (and they are), and I'll give you a wide grin. But call me a liar...and you'd better be able to back it up.

So BACK IT UP, guy. By calling me dishonest, you're claiming that I said something that I knew to be wrong or misleading. PROVE YOUR ACCUSATION. Either do that, or back off and say you "misspoke" and meant to only say that I was just "full of s**t".

BTW, when it comes to the VA - or any other government agency - getting sued, I challenge you to find ANY government agency that has not been sued (usually with good cause) during any one president's administration (except maybe for during major wars, or during those few administrations that were cut short by assassination).

And, another thing................People see right through you Glen.
 
Back
Top Bottom