MiddleOfTheRoad

Members
  • Content count

    10,943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

580,715 Excellent

About MiddleOfTheRoad

  • Rank
    Among the thinking people

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Converted

  • Biography
    57 year old, white, Catholic, male
  • Location
    Between the double yellow lines...
  • Gender
    male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,760 profile views
  1. Well, if Russia influenced the election, on Obama's watch...
  2. Kind of hard to make a snark point when one uses the wrong reference. Color me embarrassed. OTOH, Obama did swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Kind of missed it between June and November. Maybe that wa his "more flexibility ".
  3. So the President isn't responsible for defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Could swear I read that somewhere. Oh wait, that would only be someone other than St. Barry.
  4. Obama certainly didn't seem to mind, since he was responsible for defending against it, while it was occurring.
  5. Carter has less than 5 years in the military and was a junior officer when he left. I have no reason to question his capabilities in the areas of policy and frankly would enjoy getting into a conversation with him. Clearly, for a JO to have garnered a position leading a policy office, the man has some chops. That said, I spent 21 years there, led organizations of up 490 personnel and believe I have a better understanding of what constitutes than does this gentleman. I believe it was you who asked why some have posted so many arguments about this being or not being an order. I don't speak for all certainly but giving orders was, for me, a responsibility and honor I took seriously. Having folks who never had the privilege telling what constitutes an order is a little aggravating. You mention flyboy's comment about using the expression "I order you to...". That's obviously an order but it is hardly the only form of order. "Stand fast" is an order; calling someone to attention is an order. That's why context plays a role. jdsample advised that the President doesn't give orders to troops and he is correct: President's barely acknowledge enlisted folks or junior officers. Obama was fairly decent about doing so, as was Bush. The current occupant is less so. While protocol and practice suggest jd is correct, the President is not precluded from doing so. Indeed, if any President is going to order some E-4 around, it's this guy.
  6. Truer words have rarely been posted here. We have several nations with whom we share interests, in sometimes varying degrees and strengths, but no friends.
  7. So, Carter has taken or given military orders for how long...?
  8. Gee, Trump is throwing Sessions under the bus, Schumer is throwing Clinton under the bus, no wonder it's so damn hard to get around in DC.
  9. If you're talking about the Carter article, he has the same level of resume to comment about military orders that I have about the personal experience of giving birth. Saying that a comment to a mixed audience is not an order is not defending Trump; there is no defense for Trump. He is an uncouth, inexperienced boor, with virtually no reasonable policies on nearly anything and all the leadership skills of a 4th grade schoolyard bully. But even that background does not make this an order.
  10. Your first line is a good summation of the situation. The second line gets into important semantics. An unlawful order can be legally ignored. It can be ignored because executing the order would probably require an illegal action. The order itself may not be illegal, but it is unlawful if it require an illegal action to complete.
  11. I eagerly await the day when your posts start making sense again; I hope it's soon.
  12. But what has to be convinced is the House. An impeachment trial in the Senate is, IMO, a foregone conclusion. If charges get there, the Senate will convict; a dozen Senators will jump the Republican ship easily, particularly if such charges rise before the 2018 election. It is the House that needs to be moved and Ryan will not stop that flood, if it starts. Trump pardoning himself would, IMO, be the dam break that causes the flood.
  13. There is certainly nothing about creating a single party state in these comments. This sounds more like you published this week's DNC talking points than any kind of serious, thoughtful argument.
  14. Cameron asked a question and this was a detailed answer to that question. If you look at that question, the answer makes more sense not as parsing remarks, but explaining what actually constitutes an order. The remarks about calling their Congresscritters about the budget were not inappropriate; unusual, but not inappropriate. The military has allowed itself to be quiet for too long. Senior officers have an obligation to be non-political; Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Marines have every right to be heard. The health care comments were not appropriate to that event. Neither of these were orders however.
  15. You've laid out nothing but nonsense. Grow up.