Posted on Mar 4, 2016
Trump's Horrifying Anti-Military Slur At Last Night's Debate Should Scare You
6.08K
50
33
15
15
0
Just wanted to give people another reason to pause and think about why or why not Trump for President.
Trump's Horrifying Anti-Military Slur At Last Night's Debate Should Scare You
Posted from dailywire.com
Leadership
Politics
Combat
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
4
4
0
The problem with this is that right now, somewhere, there is someone that proudly wears the uniform that will vote for him. That's the scary part.
(4)
(0)
PO2 Skip Kirkwood
Would you rather have Hillary? Who left her people to die when it was possible to protect and rescue them? Whatever extreme campaign rhetoric Trump may be guilty of (and that's ALL it is, campaign rhetoric), the alternative has a proven track record of NOT taking care of her people, and that is what leadership is all about. Whatever Trump's weaknesses, he is not nearly as despicable as the alternative.
US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith; CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty
Never forget Benghazi!
US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith; CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty
Never forget Benghazi!
(2)
(0)
SFC Justin Rooks
Whether it is rhetoric or not truly is irrelevant. No candidate should be comfortable at any point saying that they have no problem forcing military personnel to commit acts they know o be unlawful. Point Blank Period. Call Secretary Clinton's mistakes what you will. I call both instances TOXIC.
(0)
(0)
Maj Rob Drury
I proudly wore the uniform, and I'm voting for him. He is the only viable pro-military candidate in the race. Would I have preferred him over the more qualified candidates? Of course not; but there are no longer any other qualified candidates.
This was nothing more than Trump's typical blow-hard chest beating; something he does a lot when speaking to fill dead air. He doesn't do it when he sets out to accomplish something. He's consistently on point, aggressively but carefully navigating toward successful mission accomplishment.
While he's a decisive and excessively self-assured leader, he is well known for acknowledging and respecting the advisors he's carefully placed around himself. For this reason alone, he'll make an effective commander-in-chief. Nothing to be scared about.
This was nothing more than Trump's typical blow-hard chest beating; something he does a lot when speaking to fill dead air. He doesn't do it when he sets out to accomplish something. He's consistently on point, aggressively but carefully navigating toward successful mission accomplishment.
While he's a decisive and excessively self-assured leader, he is well known for acknowledging and respecting the advisors he's carefully placed around himself. For this reason alone, he'll make an effective commander-in-chief. Nothing to be scared about.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
I find nothing "horrifying" about it. You have to twist, turn, and contort what he said to even make it the slightest concern. The president is the commander in chief - he or she has the right to expect that the military will carry out his lawful orders. And the man is not an idiot - he will not issue patently unlawful orders. Some of this "interrogation" versus "torture" is very vague and rhetorical - and sorting it out will give the JAG something interesting to do. Let's not get our skivvies in a knot for no reason, or whip up hysteria. We're better and smarter than that.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
It is not a lawful order to violate the Geneva Conventions and murder innocents. He has since recanted this statement. I think it is horrifying.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO2 Skip Kirkwood
SGT (Verify To See) - Those events also did not occur because of "orders", and certainly not from POTUS. They were bad acts by individual rogue SM. Big difference.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google