Trump MAGAThread IV: Twixt Scylla & Some Bad Hombres

[Lady Scylla]

I was specifically talking about the military not civilian jobs.

Not everyone can enter the military.

The FBI is looking for a few men, and the Marines are looking for all the rest.

fucking FLEES

[Uxupox]

not something I would recommend. If you are the target of a random FBI training session then you would most likely get destroyed.

I was fine physically. They were gonna sweep the fact I was on anxiety medication under the rug that was an issue. Integrity insofar as military recruitment isn't all it's cracked up to be. Recruiters lie and will bullshit you all the way. During times of peace, regulations are severely tightened, but during war, they relax them and start passing out waivers left and right like candy. Like my dad said, never believe the shit the recruiter is going to tell you. As far as phones -- you're not suppose to have them during basic, but you'll get them back after. They're a good thing for soldiers to have to keep in touch with family -- provided they pay the phone bill.

Their use is prohibited while driving, in classified areas, during briefings and debriefings, and when explosives are being prepped. And, surprise surprise, cellphones can be an additional layer of emergency communication if command needs to reach soldiers following an attack (on a base) if there's too much radio interference going on. Phone use can be limited by their CO, however, especially where concentration is needed, or where a soldier is overusing their phone. As far as combat? Not okay. Especially when your in an area with IEDs.

I will agree that recruiters bullshit all the time since they need to meet a specific yearly quota.

But a phone? In the field in Afghanistan? Highly unlikely unless their commander is looking to get an early retirement.

[Lady Scylla]

I was fine physically. They were gonna sweep the fact I was on anxiety medication under the rug that was an issue. Integrity insofar as military recruitment isn't all it's cracked up to be. Recruiters lie and will bullshit you all the way. During times of peace, regulations are severely tightened, but during war, they relax them and start passing out waivers left and right like candy. Like my dad said, never believe the shit the recruiter is going to tell you. As far as phones -- you're not suppose to have them during basic, but you'll get them back after. They're a good thing for soldiers to have to keep in touch with family -- provided they pay the phone bill.

Their use is prohibited while driving, in classified areas, during briefings and debriefings, and when explosives are being prepped. And, surprise surprise, cellphones can be an additional layer of emergency communication if command needs to reach soldiers following an attack (on a base) if there's too much radio interference going on. Phone use can be limited by their CO, however, especially where concentration is needed, or where a soldier is overusing their phone. As far as combat? Not okay. Especially when your in an area with IEDs.

I will agree that recruiters bullshit all the time since they need to meet a specific yearly quota.

But a phone? In the field in Afghanistan? Highly unlikely unless their commander is looking to get an early retirement.

You can have them. Just not in combat -- but that hasn't deterred soldiers before. Such as SPC Phillips who accidentally pocket-dialed his parents while in an engagement

[Uxupox]

I will agree that recruiters bullshit all the time since they need to meet a specific yearly quota.

But a phone? In the field in Afghanistan? Highly unlikely unless their commander is looking to get an early retirement.

You can have them. Just not in combat -- but that hasn't deterred soldiers before. Such as SPC Phillips who accidentally pocket-dialed his parents while in an engagement

Lol I bet that kid still feels the whipping that he got for pulling that stunt.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I will agree that recruiters bullshit all the time since they need to meet a specific yearly quota.

But a phone? In the field in Afghanistan? Highly unlikely unless their commander is looking to get an early retirement.

You can have them. Just not in combat -- but that hasn't deterred soldiers before. Such as SPC Phillips who accidentally pocket-dialed his parents while in an engagement

One would think that if you enter in the military, you'd purchase a pocket-dial proof phone like a flip phone or something.

[Lady Scylla]

You can have them. Just not in combat -- but that hasn't deterred soldiers before. Such as SPC Phillips who accidentally pocket-dialed his parents while in an engagement

One would think that if you enter in the military, you'd purchase a pocket-dial proof phone like a flip phone or something.

Smart-phones have become increasingly common. Soldiers use their cells while on post (Yes, even in Afghanistan). They play games, call loved ones, text each other, take pictures and so on. Needless to say, it freaked Phillips' parents out who were worried they were going to hear their son getting killed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

One would think that if you enter in the military, you'd purchase a pocket-dial proof phone like a flip phone or something.

Smart-phones have become increasingly common. Soldiers use their cells while on post (Yes, even in Afghanistan). They play games, call loved ones, text each other, take pictures and so on. Needless to say, it freaked Phillips' parents out who were worried they were going to hear their son getting killed.

Oh I don't mean they not being common.

I mean it not being wise to have a phone that can pocket dial someone else.

[Herskerstad]

So the EPA got kek's worth of leadership, and now it seems Trump's all seeing eyes is well and truly looking at rewriting the intelligence community. These leaks are largely harmless, but give him more or less exactly the justification needed to pick and choose. He's already getting a young supreme court nominee whom I suspect to be entirely anti-abortion on the scene, and with that he'll have more or less what he needs to challenge the power of the independent federal courts. And there's no chance the mainstream media with it's 6% trustworthiness is going to win this wrestling match, not when new and energetic outlets can come into being with him just giving them the right to hold the equivalent of meet the press.

And the wall from what we see is becoming a fact. I've never seen one president be this rapid at shaking the house upside down, and we are getting 4 years of this if not 8. It's going to be an amazing time.

Gorsuch is not a fan of Trump's attack on the Judiciary. Quite the contrary in fact.

While Gorsuch seems to be anti-abortion, it doesn't seem like he will roll back several court cases dealing with abortion, or would be able to, given court precedent since Roe v. Wade has changed.

I did notice that, but his words were as choice as I'd expect someone in his position to be in, but there is a distinction between appearance and reality. During Kagan's process she too seemed to be quite lukewarm in the runup, but nobody doubted that she'd rubber-stamp whatever Obama brought before her. Given that this choice seems more like a Bohener/Ryan choice than a Trump choice, which could possibly been their late october settlement, then I would be amazed if it would be any different this time around.

[Ifreann]

You can have them. Just not in combat -- but that hasn't deterred soldiers before. Such as SPC Phillips who accidentally pocket-dialed his parents while in an engagement

Lol I bet that kid still feels the whipping that he got for pulling that stunt.

Why would he get any kind of whipping?

---

You can have them. Just not in combat -- but that hasn't deterred soldiers before. Such as SPC Phillips who accidentally pocket-dialed his parents while in an engagement

One would think that if you enter in the military, you'd purchase a pocket-dial proof phone like a flip phone or something.

I would think that when one joins the military, one would keep the phone one already has.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Gorsuch is not a fan of Trump's attack on the Judiciary. Quite the contrary in fact.

While Gorsuch seems to be anti-abortion, it doesn't seem like he will roll back several court cases dealing with abortion, or would be able to, given court precedent since Roe v. Wade has changed.

I did notice that, but his words were as choice as I'd expect someone in his position to be in, but there is a distinction between appearance and reality. During Kagan's process she too seemed to be quite lukewarm in the runup, but nobody doubted that she'd rubber-stamp whatever Obama brought before her. Given that this choice seems more like a Bohener/Ryan choice than a Trump choice, which could possibly been their late october settlement, then I would be amazed if it would be any different this time around.

There's not much he can do to the lower courts even then, however. But I can see his precedent being that of a conservative judge, albeit nobody knows for sure just how conservative he is in reality with his very thin judicial record -- he hasn't ruled over many cases.

[Lady Scylla]

Smart-phones have become increasingly common. Soldiers use their cells while on post (Yes, even in Afghanistan). They play games, call loved ones, text each other, take pictures and so on. Needless to say, it freaked Phillips' parents out who were worried they were going to hear their son getting killed.

Oh I don't mean they not being common.

I mean it not being wise to have a phone that can pocket dial someone else.

True, but you also lose a lot of functionality; but for simple call and text, definitely.

[Lady Scylla]

Lol I bet that kid still feels the whipping that he got for pulling that stunt.

Why would he get any kind of whipping?

---

One would think that if you enter in the military, you'd purchase a pocket-dial proof phone like a flip phone or something.

I would think that when one joins the military, one would keep the phone one already has.

I think Uxo has it in his head that the military is all honour bound rigorsity where obedience, integrity, and structure reign supreme. The actual military is full of shenanigans almost like it's composed of a few million individuals.

As far as the phones -- you could buy an old flip from one of the markets. They sell everything from bootleg movies to hash and put up shop around US installations in places like Baghdad.

[Lady Scylla]

I did notice that, but his words were as choice as I'd expect someone in his position to be in, but there is a distinction between appearance and reality. During Kagan's process she too seemed to be quite lukewarm in the runup, but nobody doubted that she'd rubber-stamp whatever Obama brought before her. Given that this choice seems more like a Bohener/Ryan choice than a Trump choice, which could possibly been their late october settlement, then I would be amazed if it would be any different this time around.

There's not much he can do to the lower courts even then, however. But I can see his precedent being that of a conservative judge, albeit nobody knows for sure just how conservative he is in reality with his very thin judicial record -- he hasn't ruled over many cases.

I dont think he'll rubberstamp everything Trump gives him, if anything, really. The fact he seemed to take insult at Trump's comments is promising.

[Herskerstad]

I did notice that, but his words were as choice as I'd expect someone in his position to be in, but there is a distinction between appearance and reality. During Kagan's process she too seemed to be quite lukewarm in the runup, but nobody doubted that she'd rubber-stamp whatever Obama brought before her. Given that this choice seems more like a Bohener/Ryan choice than a Trump choice, which could possibly been their late october settlement, then I would be amazed if it would be any different this time around.

There's not much he can do to the lower courts even then, however. But I can see his precedent being that of a conservative judge, albeit nobody knows for sure just how conservative he is in reality with his very thin judicial record -- he hasn't ruled over many cases.

I do quite suspect the RNC and Trump got a fairly good idea who this guy is. That being said, the Trump conflict with individual federal courts is easily the biggest conflict up to this date, and I suspect Trump has some practical rationale which will not to dick-diddely for the case, but independent federal courts, some with clear political distinctions have the potential to harper if not outright stop administrations single highhandedly and not just on right, but also potentially the left in the future. Which is why I said this seemed like a Gingrich strategy. The papers delivered by the Trump people, and the denial of the appeal was equally sloppy as it attacked arguments that were not there in the paper itself. Which makes me think that he is more interested in the federal justices than just singularly the order itself.

If say after this overturn an Islamic terror action was to happen, and it came from these hotspots, then Trump probably would have the political and popular means in which to instead allow for individual federal courts to essentially stop such actions, relegate it to that federal courts can issue objections which will then call a council of federal courts, and if approved by majority there would put a stop to such federal decrees rather than any one of these 40+ individual stations.

[Uxupox]

Why would he get any kind of whipping?

---

I would think that when one joins the military, one would keep the phone one already has.

I think Uxo has it in his head that the military is all honour bound rigorsity where obedience, integrity, and structure reign supreme. The actual military is full of shenanigans almost like it's composed of a few million individuals.

As far as the phones -- you could buy an old flip from one of the markets. They sell everything from bootleg movies to hash and put up shop around US installations in places like Baghdad.

That's the experience I've had as a team member, team leader, platoon leader, staff member and recently company commander.

[Herskerstad]

There's not much he can do to the lower courts even then, however. But I can see his precedent being that of a conservative judge, albeit nobody knows for sure just how conservative he is in reality with his very thin judicial record -- he hasn't ruled over many cases.

I dont think he'll rubberstamp everything Trump gives him, if anything, really. The fact he seemed to take insult at Trump's comments is promising.

I don't think it really means anything, but given that the house, senate and presidency is in the Republican hands, it would take a monumental fuck up to pick a second Kennedy with nothing really standing in their way of picking just about anyone they'd want.

But, again, we are on the outside, so I suspect only time will tell. I would be surprised if he turned out to be a de-facto centrist though.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There's not much he can do to the lower courts even then, however. But I can see his precedent being that of a conservative judge, albeit nobody knows for sure just how conservative he is in reality with his very thin judicial record -- he hasn't ruled over many cases.

I do quite suspect the RNC and Trump got a fairly good idea who this guy is. That being said, the Trump conflict with individual federal courts is easily the biggest conflict up to this date, and I suspect Trump has some practical rationale which will not to dick-diddely for the case, but independent federal courts, some with clear political distinctions have the potential to harper if not outright stop administrations single highhandedly and not just on right, but also potentially the left in the future. Which is why I said this seemed like a Gingrich strategy. The papers delivered by the Trump people, and the denial of the appeal was equally sloppy as it attacked arguments that were not there in the paper itself. Which makes me think that he is more interested in the federal justices than just singularly the order itself.

If say after this overturn an Islamic terror action was to happen, and it came from these hotspots, then Trump probably would have the political and popular means in which to instead allow for individual federal courts to essentially stop such actions, relegate it to that federal courts can issue objections which will then call a council of federal courts, and if approved by majority there would put a stop to such federal decrees rather than any one of these 40+ individual stations.

You're thinking as if Trump has a grand overarching anti-Federalist plan just waiting to unfold and fall neatly into his lap.

He doesn't.

Not to mention, the appeal had nothing to do with the case itself, it had to do with whether or not Trump could still put in place his order while it was being argued in the lower court. You don't need to know the entire arguments for the ban in that case.

[Herskerstad]

I do quite suspect the RNC and Trump got a fairly good idea who this guy is. That being said, the Trump conflict with individual federal courts is easily the biggest conflict up to this date, and I suspect Trump has some practical rationale which will not to dick-diddely for the case, but independent federal courts, some with clear political distinctions have the potential to harper if not outright stop administrations single highhandedly and not just on right, but also potentially the left in the future. Which is why I said this seemed like a Gingrich strategy. The papers delivered by the Trump people, and the denial of the appeal was equally sloppy as it attacked arguments that were not there in the paper itself. Which makes me think that he is more interested in the federal justices than just singularly the order itself.

If say after this overturn an Islamic terror action was to happen, and it came from these hotspots, then Trump probably would have the political and popular means in which to instead allow for individual federal courts to essentially stop such actions, relegate it to that federal courts can issue objections which will then call a council of federal courts, and if approved by majority there would put a stop to such federal decrees rather than any one of these 40+ individual stations.

You're thinking as if Trump has a grand overarching anti-Federalist plan just waiting to unfold and fall neatly into his lap.

He doesn't.

Gingrich himself has been after this since the 2012 elections, but if the idea is that Trump is some buffoon which just stumbled from millionaire to billionaire, and then just tripped into the white house. Then no, I'd not by that either. Not with the advisers he is picking.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Gingrich himself has been after this since the 2012 elections, but if the idea is that Trump is some buffoon which just stumbled from millionaire to billionaire, and then just tripped into the white house. Then no, I'd not by that either. Not with the divisors he is picking.

No, the idea is simply that he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, which he has shown as much.

If he had chosen better advisors? Maybe. But right now he doesn't seem to have much of a plan and is just signing EOs dealing with his campaign promises and recanting on some of them when he sees it's impractical to do so. His advisors have shown they don't understand the roles they are being assigned to, or just simply don't understand how to de-federalize the positions they are being tasked with. A cleaner anti-federalist agenda from these advisors and Trump would be disagreeable, but I wouldn't think of it as incompetent.

In other words, he's doing exactly what I was expecting he'd be doing: he's crossing a huge river with nothing but a paddle. Which is why he's fucking up so much. The man is not some cunning business genius who somehow knows how to run the government. He's an average businessman who doesn't understand the role of the president and just how limited his actions are.

He'll learn during his first year if he wisens up that he needs to have lots of people behind him and he can't just manhandle other advisors, congressmen, and secretaries. In a government like the United States, you have to negotiate far more than in a business because the executive is rather narrow in its powers comparatively to the legislative and the judicial branches.

In short, he's not some sort of anti-federalist, economic messiah for the country, and I'd expect for people not to treat him as such. He's not a miracle worker, he's just an average businessman who doesn't understand the office for which he ran.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be entirely fair here, I also said the same thing about Obama's presidency when he was claimed to be the advocate for civil rights, that he'd end racism in this country, and that somehow he was going to be the economic messiah this country needed. I very clearly said Obama wasn't going to be enough to fix this mess and that it'd take more than Obama to fix it.

Trump doesn't strike me as the person I'd trust to fix this mess, so I am keeping the same outlook I did with Obama, that while good for him that he got the job, it's going to take more than Trump to fix this mess. Neither of them were geniuses who'd transform the country. Obama was too legalistic, and Trump is too blustering. They're two different types of people, but they're not the people who will fix it regardless.

[Herskerstad]

Gingrich himself has been after this since the 2012 elections, but if the idea is that Trump is some buffoon which just stumbled from millionaire to billionaire, and then just tripped into the white house. Then no, I'd not by that either. Not with the divisors he is picking.

No, the idea is simply that he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, which he has shown as much.

If he had chosen better advisors? Maybe. But right now he doesn't seem to have much of a plan and is just signing EOs dealing with his campaign promises and recanting on some of them when he sees it's impractical to do so. His advisors have shown they don't understand the roles they are being assigned to, or just simply don't understand how to de-federalize the positions they are being tasked with. A cleaner anti-federalist agenda from these advisors and Trump would be disagreeable, but I wouldn't think of it as incompetent.

In other words, he's doing exactly what I was expecting he'd be doing: he's crossing a huge river with nothing but a paddle. Which is why he's fucking up so much. The man is not some cunning business genius who somehow knows how to run the government. He's an average businessman who doesn't understand the role of the president and just how limited his actions are.

He'll learn during his first year if he wisens up that he needs to have lots of people behind him and he can't just manhandle other advisors, congressmen, and secretaries. In a government like the United States, you have to negotiate far more than in a business because the executive is rather narrow in its powers comparatively to the legislative and the judicial branches.

I think this is the point at which we simply disagree on the core principle. Which is the concept of a competent vs an incomeptent administration rather than just the judicial conflict itself, and based on the campaign. Where he on a shoe-string budget managed to, despite all predictions, defeat Hillary Clinton with some margin to spare whom had national and international interests backing her from start to finish. His campaign selection were both effective and ergonomic, in fact, if I had to ascribe a singular quality to Trump, it would be that he is good at picking the right people for the job he wants done. Given the sheer scale of the reforms he is planning he would have to go about it in a far more proactive manner than Obama, and so far, he is doing exactly what he said he'd do.

But if lightning has indeed struck the same spot 40 times now and Trump just was born under the luckiest of stars, then sure, he'd be picked apart with time, but for the present moment, things seem to be going on at quite some speed.

[Herskerstad]

To be entirely fair here, I also said the same thing about Obama's presidency when he was claimed to be the advocate for civil rights, that he'd end racism in this country, and that somehow he was going to be the economic messiah this country needed. I very clearly said Obama wasn't going to be enough to fix this mess and that it'd take more than Obama to fix it.

Trump doesn't strike me as the person I'd trust to fix this mess, so I am keeping the same outlook I did with Obama, that while good for him that he got the job, it's going to take more than Trump to fix this mess. Neither of them were geniuses who'd transform the country. Obama was too legalistic, and Trump is too blustering. They're two different types of people, but they're not the people who will fix it regardless.

Again, I am not clairvoyant so I cannot ascribe how Trump's presidency is going to look, and while it is the first time Trump deals with on the national basis he is starting with a fairly good hand, being that of the RNC controlling the house, senate and office. He has already proven that he has quite the ambitions. And so far he has won with a crap hand against some quite powerful people.

I'll gladly admit that his plans are often overshadowed by his result, and I'd not ascribe him as some sort of genius, but he certainly has so far been the kind of man that is willing to invest every energy to see his visions come to fruition and therein lies the key distinction. Obama was more intent on playing the long and silent game, and probably got lost in the quietness at some point. Trump got no problem bringing out the big guns early, and I think it will be interesting to see how much he gets done, rather than necessarily how successful it ultimately will be.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think this is the point at which we simply disagree on the core principle. Which is the concept of a competent vs an incomeptent administration rather than just the judicial conflict itself, and based on the campaign. Where he on a shoe-string budget managed to, despite all predictions, defeat Hillary Clinton with some margin to spare whom had national and international interests backing her from start to finish. His campaign selection were both effective and ergonomic, in fact, if I had to ascribe a singular quality to Trump, it would be that he is good at picking the right people for the job he wants done. Given the sheer scale of the reforms he is planning he would have to go about it in a far more proactive manner than Obama, and so far, he is doing exactly what he said he'd do.

But if lightning has indeed struck the same spot 40 times now and Trump just was born under the luckiest of stars, then sure, he'd be picked apart with time, but for the present moment, things seem to be going on at quite some speed.

As I said, he's no miracle worker. Sure, he managed to win the election on a shoestring, but shoestrings wear out and snap eventually. You're just going to have to hope his shoestring doesn't snap before the fourth year of his presidency. Whereas I am not putting any such hopes on him whatsoever.

While his reforms might be good, or bad, for the country, I don't see any reason to think he'll go about them in a competent manner. That just doesn't seem to be Trump's style of operation. Sure he's doing what he said he'd do, but his way is a messy way of doing it and he's encountering issues with it is the point.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be entirely fair here, I also said the same thing about Obama's presidency when he was claimed to be the advocate for civil rights, that he'd end racism in this country, and that somehow he was going to be the economic messiah this country needed. I very clearly said Obama wasn't going to be enough to fix this mess and that it'd take more than Obama to fix it.

Trump doesn't strike me as the person I'd trust to fix this mess, so I am keeping the same outlook I did with Obama, that while good for him that he got the job, it's going to take more than Trump to fix this mess. Neither of them were geniuses who'd transform the country. Obama was too legalistic, and Trump is too blustering. They're two different types of people, but they're not the people who will fix it regardless.

Again, I am not clairvoyant so I cannot ascribe how Trump's presidency is going to look, and while it is the first time Trump deals with on the national basis he is starting with a fairly good hand, being that of the RNC controlling the house, senate and office. He has already proven that he has quite the ambitions. And so far he has won with a crap hand against some quite powerful people.

I'll gladly admit that his plans are often overshadowed by his result, and I'd not ascribe him as some sort of genius, but he certainly has so far been the kind of man that is willing to invest every energy to see his visions come to fruition and therein lies the key distinction. Obama was more intent on playing the long and silent game, and probably got lost in the quietness at some point. Trump got no problem bringing out the big guns early, and I think it will be interesting to see how much he gets done, rather than necessarily how successful it ultimately will be.

He's starting with more or less the same hand Obama was dealt with. Right now it looks like things are starting out to be so bad that Trump might lose congress by 2018 if he doesn't wise up, same as Obama.

Yes, I'll admit that of him, that he's energetic. That he's competent in the office? As you said, time will tell.

[Herskerstad]

I think this is the point at which we simply disagree on the core principle. Which is the concept of a competent vs an incomeptent administration rather than just the judicial conflict itself, and based on the campaign. Where he on a shoe-string budget managed to, despite all predictions, defeat Hillary Clinton with some margin to spare whom had national and international interests backing her from start to finish. His campaign selection were both effective and ergonomic, in fact, if I had to ascribe a singular quality to Trump, it would be that he is good at picking the right people for the job he wants done. Given the sheer scale of the reforms he is planning he would have to go about it in a far more proactive manner than Obama, and so far, he is doing exactly what he said he'd do.

But if lightning has indeed struck the same spot 40 times now and Trump just was born under the luckiest of stars, then sure, he'd be picked apart with time, but for the present moment, things seem to be going on at quite some speed.

As I said, he's no miracle worker. Sure, he managed to win the election on a shoestring, but shoestrings wear out and snap eventually. You're just going to have to hope his shoestring doesn't snap before the fourth year of his presidency. Whereas I am not putting any such hopes on him whatsoever.

While his reforms might be good, or bad, for the country, I don't see any reason to think he'll go about them in a competent manner. That just doesn't seem to be Trump's style of operation. Sure he's doing what he said he'd do, but his way is a messy way of doing it and he's encountering issues with it is the point.

I think the distinction between competent and orderly is an important one to make, for if the objection was with the latter then yes, I would agree entirely. Trump's buisness MO is practically sweeping into disorganised situations, make the right allies, bid low, and be the one standing with all the profits at the end.

I do agree that Trump will be disorderly in his approach, I do think even if his twitter shitposting dies down that it will not die out so to speak, but I do think they will be remarkably competent in a mission basis, that is, to work towards their intended changes even if said changes will not bring about the intended effects he'd want. In short, I suspect the high gear of change we are seeing to be at a lot swifter tempo than Obama ever had.