The Republicans don’t care at all bout the law, the Constitution, freedom, security, or the people of the United States.
One way we ensure civilian control of the military is by restricting military associated individuals from being secretary of defense. It is not like it can’t happen, but there has to be a waiting period.
Trump’s current pick for this position is too fresh out of the military to legally take this roll.
So, the Republicans are changing the rules. Just for their own guy, though. Just for Trump’s appointment.
Roll over, Republicans. Sit. Heel.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
I am of mixed feelings on this.
First, because of exactly what you point out above.
Second, because Mattis has openly stated that he opposes torture, does not hate the Iran-Nuclear Deal, and has some potential for choosing diplomacy before violence.
He is not the worst choice Twump could have picked.
On this ONE appointment, I am on the fence.
“Trump’s current pick for this position is too fresh out of the military to legally take this roll.”
So he has to take the bagel?
(role)
What scares me is the possibility of a complete military takeover. Trump is known as a sore loser. His reputation is of someone who hates to lose. If he becomes unpopular (e.g., if the economy goes South) and it appears that he has little chance at a second term, there is the possibility that he will use his military connections to take over the government illegally.
My big problem is that this Mattis far too often says the old “we need to keep fighting the war so the deaths weren’t in vain.” Same nonsense that has led to more Americans dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam among others.
I haven’t been this afraid for the survival of humanity since I was a 13 year old teenager during the Cuban Missile Crises and hearing jets flying over (in Canada near a commercial airfield) and wondering if those were actually ICBMs. And that’s not even taking into account today global climate change and DTJ’s attitudes towards that.
Doug:
Maybe the scientists will move the doomsday clock towards midnight?
Personally, I am no more worried than I was at the prospect of a Clinton presidency.
“Personally, I am no more worried than I was at the prospect of a Clinton presidency.”
So you don’t mind the actions we’re going to have to take to combat AGW, then? Funny, you keep whining on about how they’ll be bad like you’re REALLY worried about it.
Maybe you’re just a moron. In my opinion, calling you this is not an insult, except possibly to another moron.
(*snort*) Because Dems care about “the law, the Constitution, freedom, security, or the people of the United States. ” ?(*Chortle*)
Dems never change the rules to favor themselves, yeah?
http://tinyurl.com/he6t9az
Ornithological clicks are few. Let’s get back to political hypocrisy!
Tu quoque merely starts of my admitting the charge against yourself. Not a good place to start off complaining about some shibboleth “other” group.
For example, you don’t get to cry off about what you’ve done.
Yet you have.
Continuously.
You also really REALLY need to work out what thread you’re posting to before typing away.
@8. Ron : I think the Democratic Party does care about the law, the Constitution, freedom, security, and the people of the United States – especially that last one seeing as they are also in that category of people themselves. As such they’ll want to be free and secure and follow the laws because it is them who are directly affected.
But, okay, even if this wasn’t the case, even if I grant you your premise; how would that make what the Republicans are doing here as noted in the Opening Post (OP) okay and acceptable?
Looks to me like you are making a blatant “two wrongs make a right argument” here – was that really your intention?
Also your linked cite that notes the US Democratic party’s strategic / tactical political mistake in “curtailing the power of the filibuster” also notes the author criticised Republicans for advocating the same course of action previously and notes that the consequences of this mistake are being inflicted by Republicans. So again, seems like the Repubs are as bad at least and arguably worse than the Dems in this situation and appears a little odd for you to use it solely to single out the US Democratic party.
^ Dóh! Italics fail. Presume you can all see where – the word “them”” in the last line of the first paragraph. Sorry y’all & would really appreciate having that fixed and edited accordingly if possible Greg Laden.
Really wish we could at least preview and better yet edit comments here (with say a 5 minute window to fix such simple things.)