95 Military Officers Support Clinton

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let the partisanship continue!

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ninety.pdf

Now many retired (probably mostly Democrat) military officers endorse Clinton...slightly more than Trump.

However, both of their counts pale in comparison to counts from previous candidates.

And as people brought up in the other thread....should these even count in our consideration for a good President?

 

[untermensche]

The military is a necessary evil.

It has a place but that place is not to give us direction in civilian matters.

 

[Harry Bosch]

As an aside, Trump's courting of junior officers by promising to fire the generals and admirals who currently serve Obama is very dangerous.

 

[Will Wiley]

As an aside, Trump's courting of junior officers by promising to fire the generals and admirals who currently serve Obama is very dangerous.

No the generals you have had are very dangerous. Though for some reason you can't see that.

How many innocent people does your military have to kill before you find them dangerous?

 

[Elixir]

As an aside, Trump's courting of junior officers by promising to fire the generals and admirals who currently serve Obama is very dangerous.

There are some generals he really likes: the Attorney General of Florida, the Attorney General of Texas... and any other "general" that he can bribe into turning a blind eye toward his fraudulent money-grubbing schemes.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As an aside, Trump's courting of junior officers by promising to fire the generals and admirals who currently serve Obama is very dangerous.

No the generals you have had are very dangerous. Though for some reason you can't see that.

How many innocent people does your military have to kill before you find them dangerous?

"Why can't we use nuclear weapons?!" "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?!" "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?!" Torture! Torture! Torture!

Will Trump fire those generals who oppose him and promote those who do support him?

 

[J842P]

Let the partisanship continue!

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ninety.pdf

Now many retired (probably mostly Democrat) military officers endorse Clinton...slightly more than Trump.

However, both of their counts pale in comparison to counts from previous candidates.

And as people brought up in the other thread....should these even count in our consideration for a good President?

DEMOCRATIC.

 

[Will Wiley]

No the generals you have had are very dangerous. Though for some reason you can't see that.

How many innocent people does your military have to kill before you find them dangerous?

"Why can't we use nuclear weapons?!" "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?!" "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?!" Torture! Torture! Torture!

Will Trump fire those generals who oppose him and promote those who do support him?

You have been misled. There is no real evidence Trump said those things.

 

[untermensche]

As an aside, Trump's courting of junior officers by promising to fire the generals and admirals who currently serve Obama is very dangerous.

No the generals you have had are very dangerous. Though for some reason you can't see that.

How many innocent people does your military have to kill before you find them dangerous?

You don't seem to comprehend the US system.

Generals only follow orders.

 

[Will Wiley]

No the generals you have had are very dangerous. Though for some reason you can't see that.

How many innocent people does your military have to kill before you find them dangerous?

You don't seem to comprehend the US system.

Generals only follow orders.

You don't seem to understand Nuremburg. But I guess you believe those things are for other nations not for your country?

 

[whichphilosophy]

You don't seem to comprehend the US system.

Generals only follow orders.

You don't seem to understand Nuremburg. But I guess you believe those things are for other nations not for your country?

The winning country often applies these things to the enemy but not itself.

 

[untermensche]

You don't seem to comprehend the US system.

Generals only follow orders.

You don't seem to understand Nuremburg. But I guess you believe those things are for other nations not for your country?

A crime at Nuremberg was anything the Germans did that the Allies did not do. So the deliberate killing of civilians by bombing them was not a crime, because the allies did it.

Nuremberg did establish the idea that aggressive war was an international crime and that those who ordered it were guilty of crimes against humanity.

But the crimes the US carried out in Iraq were authorized by the Congress and ordered by the president.

They are the criminals and those who under Nuremberg principles deserve to be hung.

Not the generals who followed orders.

 

[ronburgundy]

Let the partisanship continue!

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ninety.pdf

Now many retired (probably mostly Democrat) military officers endorse Clinton...slightly more than Trump.

However, both of their counts pale in comparison to counts from previous candidates.

The link claims that 95 is more generals than have previously endorse a non-incumbent Dem, whereas Trump's 88 is about 1/6 the number Romney got.

And as people brought up in the other thread....should these even count in our consideration for a good President?

Yes and no. General's care most about how many trillions of dollars will be in the defense budget, and giving the military more $ does not make for a good president. However, they know that the GOP are military whores and always push for more defense $ than the Dems. Thus, it is in the rational self-interest of the Generals to overwhelmingly support whoever the GOP candidate is, which is what they have done in all recent elections.

So, the fact that Hillary is getting a bit more support than prior Dems is not that important. But the fact that Trump is losing 85% of the generals that supported Romney is extremely telling. It says that despite their self interest in a bigger military budget that Trump would give them, they view him so ignorant and belligerent that he is too dangerous to allowed to be in charge of the military.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The link claims that 95 is more generals than have previously endorse a non-incumbent Dem, whereas Trump's 88 is about 1/6 the number Romney got.

That's too specific, like so-and-so is up to bat who has an average of .600 on Tuesdays between 4pm and 5pm.