President Trump, Commander in Chief. Thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you , Captain MJ for the historical perspective. As the parent of a young woman with an LOA to one of the service academies, I can truthfully say it has been a long week, and some difficult decisions will be made between now and May 1. I admire your service, and those of all women who were in the early classes of women at the academies. I speak only for myself, when I say, it is hard not to be a bit disheartened by the clearly stated Republican platform. Women have made such great gains so recently, including the option to join combat arms and compete for special operations teams. While I know if my daughter decides to attend and serve, she will have a difficult path, it saddens me that the hills on the path are likely to be steeper. I posted an article from foreign policy earlier in this thread that articulates one possible future. I certainly admire those who are willing to take on this challenge. She may be one of them. I also know that the joy and pride she has taken in this process is now tempered with sadness and caution. I appreciate your input, and Kinnem's. We will continue to do our best to support our daughter in her struggle to make the best possible decision in her desire to serve. We thought that her service would be military, but we recognize that there are many ways to serve. We will try to gather all the information we can as we make our decision. Sadly, the comments on this thread that demean those who question do not help. (Or they do help to make the decision). Regardless of the decision made in this house, i will not be surprised to see female enrollment down this year across the academies. I am sure some will be pleased with this outcome. I , however, see it as a step backward. Although progress does not proceed in a straight line, the swirls and tides of history can be hard to appreciate when you are in the middle of the storm.
 
I won't get involved in the politics of this thread, but if there is a candidate or parents who have questions about being a female at a SA or in service, or even what I think it will be like for a female in the military under a President Trump, feel free to PM me.
 
it is hard not to be a bit disheartened by the clearly stated Republican platform.

xyz321, As a father with a daughter in one of the academies, I am embarrassed to admit that I can't find this clearly stated platform. In all sincerity, I was hoping you or someone else could help bring me up to speed. When I googled "Trump and women in military" I saw items about a tweet Trump made in 2013 about the fact that increased sexual assault was the result of men and women serving together. Here is the exact tweet:

26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?

When pressed further if that meant we should remove women from military service, his comment was no. He went on to say that there should be more prosecutions:

NBC’s Matt Lauer asked: “So this should have been expected? And does that mean the only way to fix it is to take women out of the military?”

Trump responded: “Well, it’s happening, right? And, by the way, since then, it’s gotten worse. No, not to take them out, but something has to be happen. Right now, part of the problem is nobody gets prosecuted. … You have the report of rape and nobody gets prosecuted. There are no consequence.

I also saw something from a town hall meeting question about the military being too "politically correct." Again, I think his response was to defer to senior military officials:

"We'd get our military people to come back and make recommendations to me, and I will follow those recommendations," Trump said. "I will follow them very strongly."

I looked a little further back and found this comment he made in 2015:

Appearing on CNN with Chris Cuomo, Trump said he would support women in combat roles because “they’re really into it.”

“The answer is yes because they're really into it. And some of them are really, really good at it… I would really speak to the generals, because I would want to hear that without a political bent. To the public, they say, 'yes, yes, yes,' but I would want to hear it without the political bent."

Like I said, having a daughter who will be in the military, I probably should be better informed. Am I missing some key policy platform?

 
Milly,

Perhaps I will facilitate the closure of this discussion by asking a taboo question - what is your military background and experience? The sense I get is that the military world is something you had no interest in, but when your DD shown interest in Navy, you took interest. I also think that your source of information might not be the best, perhaps more opinion than facts. I might be a rich person if I got a nickel for every time a civilian misunderstood or misrepresented the military.
 
xyz321, As a father with a daughter in one of the academies, I am embarrassed to admit that I can't find this clearly stated platform. In all sincerity, I was hoping you or someone else could help bring me up to speed. When I googled "Trump and women in military" I saw items about a tweet Trump made in 2013 about the fact that increased sexual assault was the result of men and women serving together. Here is the exact tweet:

26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?

When pressed further if that meant we should remove women from military service, his comment was no. He went on to say that there should be more prosecutions:

NBC’s Matt Lauer asked: “So this should have been expected? And does that mean the only way to fix it is to take women out of the military?”

Trump responded: “Well, it’s happening, right? And, by the way, since then, it’s gotten worse. No, not to take them out, but something has to be happen. Right now, part of the problem is nobody gets prosecuted. … You have the report of rape and nobody gets prosecuted. There are no consequence.

I also saw something from a town hall meeting question about the military being too "politically correct." Again, I think his response was to defer to senior military officials:

"We'd get our military people to come back and make recommendations to me, and I will follow those recommendations," Trump said. "I will follow them very strongly."

I looked a little further back and found this comment he made in 2015:

Appearing on CNN with Chris Cuomo, Trump said he would support women in combat roles because “they’re really into it.”

“The answer is yes because they're really into it. And some of them are really, really good at it… I would really speak to the generals, because I would want to hear that without a political bent. To the public, they say, 'yes, yes, yes,' but I would want to hear it without the political bent."

Like I said, having a daughter who will be in the military, I probably should be better informed. Am I missing some key policy platform?
The platform statement can be found at the bottom of page 43 regarding women in combat; This should take you the Republican platform from the convention

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

Mike Pence has been more vocal than President Trump regarding his opposition to women in combat

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...vous-propaganda-us-presidential-election-film

I do also refer to your previous post regarding sexual assault, however, we should note that many military sexual assaults are perpetrated on men, so I'm not sure how relevant that is.

I am not trying to be reactionary. I just think we are burying our heads in the sand if we don't acknowledge that life in the military, and in the United States, just got more challenging for women.

Here is the link to an article in the journal foreign policy

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/01...omen-in-the-military-sexism-clinton-election/
 
My hope is that the academies will continue to stand for that which is right. I truly believe the military is made up of good people, and Tuesday didn't change that. I'm asking for insight from those who have served, not looking for a fight
 
Whew, xyz321, you had me worried there. I thought I had missed something that had been stated during the last several months of campaigning that was going to fundamentally change my DD's military life. I read the republican platform and specifically page 43. I saw a lot of good stuff in there. The VP elect stuff from 1999 seems a long way from what you had said was a "clearly stated platform." And, the opinion piece on the foreign policy website you linked was just that - an opinion based primarily on the author's disgust with the Billy Bush conversation.

Man, I feel a lot better about myself now. I am not as far out of the loop as I thought.
 
As a moderator I don't like to get involved in these types of discussions, but I've read or listened to a few things that are worth considering.

Kinnem,

I bow to no one in my respect for you. When you were a lowly poster you posted the first reply to my first question. That was followed by many good laughs as we compared our young knuckleheads, who are now 2LT's. Your post shows your sensitivity and your irrepressible optimism, which I also share.

Rush's point is well taken. But, not everyone, including myself, who voted against him took him literally. I don't think he's hateful, sexist, racist, etc. I don't think he is going to build a wall or ban Muslims. However, his repeated statements about our commanders on the ground in Iraq at this very moment, our intelligence community, Putin, and our European allies (many of whom lost people in Afghanistan and Iraq in support of the US) are not a creation of cognitive scientists. These statements weren't simply used by the Clinton folks. They were and are being repeated across the Middle East and Europe by Iran, Syria and Russian news media.

The Clinton Foundation is absolutely fair game. Fair game is, also, "He[Putin]'s not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want." This pronouncement was made months after the takeover of Crimea and the shootdown of the Malaysian Airliner from Russian held Ukrainian territory.

P E Trump created his own caricature. When outlandish statements are repeated over and over again, each time with greater adamancy, it is tough not to take them literally and have that caricature turn into character in the minds of voters. Equally so, careless, slimy and possibly illegal acts and deeds of both Clintons, repeated over and over, makes it impossible not to question HRC's character and wonder what kind of President she would make. Had she won, I would expect Trump supporters would be shaking their heads and questioning the judgment of her voters.

Still your #1 fan, signing off
 
Last edited:
Kinnem,

I bow to no one in my respect for you. When you were a lowly poster you posted the first reply to my first question. That was followed by many good laughs as we compared our young knuckleheads, who are now 2LT's. Your post shows your sensitivity and your irrepressible optimism, which I also share.

Rush's point is well taken. But, not everyone, including myself, who voted against him took him literally. I don't think he's hateful, sexist, racist, etc. I don't think he is going to build a wall or ban Muslims. However, his repeated statements about our commanders on the ground in Iraq at this very moment, our intelligence community, Putin, and our European allies (many of whom lost people in Afghanistan and Iraq in support of the US) are not a creation of cognitive scientists. These statements weren't simply used by the Clinton folks. They were and are being repeated across the Middle East and Europe by Iran, Syria and Russian new media.

The Clinton Foundation is absolutely fair game. Fair game is, also, "He[Putin]'s not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want." This pronouncement was made months after the takeover of Crimea and the shootdown of the Malaysian Airliner.

P E Trump created his own caricature. When outlandish statements are repeated over and over again, each time with greater adamancy, it is tough not to take them literally and have that caricature turn into character in the minds of voters. Equally so, careless, slimy and possibly illegal repeated acts and deeds of both Clintons, repeated over and over, makes it impossible not to question HRC's character and wonder what kind of President she would make. Had she won, I would expect Trump supporters would be shaking their heads and questioning the judgment of her voters.

Still your #1 fan, signing off
Appreciate your comments. Didn't do a good job but as someone said earlier.... then answer lies somewhere in the middle of what various supporters and detractors think - on both sides of the fence.
 
Well, Vice President Elect Pence will only be the VP... and we all know how much say the VP really has. (Virtually none)

The vice presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss” and “the worst damn fool mistake I ever made.”

— John Nance Garner, the 32nd vice president
 
I just think we are burying our heads in the sand if we don't acknowledge that life in the military, and in the United States, just got more challenging for women.
How has life in the military become more challenging for women due to Mr. Trump's election?
 
"Donald Trump has promised to ban Muslims from entering the country and deport millions of people. He has threatened to loosen protections for freedom of speech and punish the press for criticism. He has boasted of committing sexual assault and said women who obtain abortions must be punished. He wishes to revive torture as an acceptable tactic, force the military to commit war crimes, and imprison his political opponents. The Trump we have seen so far is a vicious, vindictive, unhinged autocrat with no respect for the rule of law. He is a Putin-esque strongman whose party controls Congress and, soon, the judiciary."
 
"Donald Trump has promised to ban Muslims from entering the country and deport millions of people. He has threatened to loosen protections for freedom of speech and punish the press for criticism. He has boasted of committing sexual assault and said women who obtain abortions must be punished. He wishes to revive torture as an acceptable tactic, force the military to commit war crimes, and imprison his political opponents. The Trump we have seen so far is a vicious, vindictive, unhinged autocrat with no respect for the rule of law. He is a Putin-esque strongman whose party controls Congress and, soon, the judiciary."

Oh my gosh, Milly! You are repeating yourself.

Let the man first get sworn in. If and when he does commit a criminal act as POTUS, you can then have him impeached, okay?
 
That's it I have hit rock bottom! Forum Junkie is going to find a-rehab program for Forum addiction. Do you know how much time I have squandered on this forum today! Love Ya All...I have got to get a life.

PS- Lets see how long that lasts :benny monkeysmilies: :lock: as in I wish I could block myself out of this site
 
The Trump we have seen so far is a vicious, vindictive, unhinged autocrat with no respect for the rule of law.

Milly,

Folks here have given you respect. I said your question concerning serving under a commander-in-chief whom you consider detestable is legitimate. There have been a number of responses that have been thoughtful and even sympathetic to your feelings about P E Trump, but most have rounded back to this: The SA's, xROTC and the military at large are a microcosm of society at large. That is as difficult for your vision of a Trump loving cadet as it is for your Trump hating DD and her DM (dear mother). All these kids show up at an SA or any other university knowing nothing about the world. They've been sheltered in their own little world. If they're at an SA they've probably been told how great they are since birth. All that gets ground to dust.

My DS thought he was the cock of the walk and it took about three seconds for him to be disabused of that notion. He is a dyed-in-the-wool Bernie guy. His running mates were a cross section of America. He had a teetotaling Mormon wingman. He has a married gay suite mate in a Muslim country. None of these folks give a rat's ass about Trump v. Clinton v. Obama. Maybe they talk about it over tea in the souk, but they are more apt to ***** about having to drink tea instead of a cold Bud with their kebab and humus. I'll give no more detail about my DS, but he has infinitely more to consider vis a vis P E Trump than you or your DD. Then again, he has other things and people to be concerned about.

For now, we get you it. Your not the only one who if miffed by Trump's election. Most of us are actually thinking about how an 18-24 Cadet/Junior Officer sorts out the politics with his/her duty, not who is right or wrong. There are plenty of forums for you to vent your frustration. Here you will simply beat your head against the wall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top