First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you think today's military gets the honor and attention it deserves?
77651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17
I don't know about the US. In Canada... certainly not.
runec 
40078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/11/17

Cydoemus wrote:
I get that there is a bit of history between those who are frequently active in "The Daily Donald" but it shouldn't bleed out into threads that aren't focused on President Trump's actions/inactions.
Just my two cents in the matter, at least.


Well, as a point of fact, Trump is a pretty unavoidable issue on this topic. He is perhaps the most blatantly disrespectful politician in modern history when it comes to not just the military but everyone who serves to protect America including its intelligence agencies. While he likewise routinely uses the military as a political prop to bludgeon opponents. Also, there's that whole inviting war over Twitter problem he has.

Trump is a kind of a zenith of the sort of concerns Mystic just voiced. But those concerns were clearly not a dealbreaker for him when he voted. So yes, I think that needs to be called out. When you directly contribute to a problem then act concerned about it later it reflects pretty poorly on you. Its one of the reasons I have such an issue with Trump voters to begin with.

Voting for Trump doesn't mean you're a racist or a sexist or a liar or a sexual predator or a disrespectful arsehole or any other thing you can attach to the man. But it does mean that none of those things were dealbreakers for you. It means you looked at the lies, the pussy grabbing, the "I like people who weren't captured", the feuding with a Gold Star family, the "I always wanted a purple heart but this is easier", the draft dodging, so on and so forth and you went "Yeah, I'm fine with this.". I mean, has a Presidential candidate ( nevermind president ) ever had the utter lack of decency, respect and empathy required to pick a fight with a family who lost a son in Iraq?

So yes, this kind of thing needs to be called out. Because honestly, the most dangerous things to America right now are A ) Normalizing Trump's behaviour and political style and B ) Letting it all pass without consequences. Trump *cannot* become America's new normal or it may as well just give up being a world power right now and rescind the union.

Which has dire ramifications for us all regardless of some Americans who like to throw out "Why do you care? You're <insert foreign nationality here>".







184 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17

runec wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:
I get that there is a bit of history between those who are frequently active in "The Daily Donald" but it shouldn't bleed out into threads that aren't focused on President Trump's actions/inactions.
Just my two cents in the matter, at least.


Well, as a point of fact, Trump is a pretty unavoidable issue on this topic. He is perhaps the most blatantly disrespectful politician in modern history when it comes to not just the military but everyone who serves to protect America including its intelligence agencies. While he likewise routinely uses the military as a political prop to bludgeon opponents. Also, there's that whole inviting war over Twitter problem he has.

Trump is a kind of a zenith of the sort of concerns Mystic just voiced. But those concerns were clearly not a dealbreaker for him when he voted. So yes, I think that needs to be called out. When you directly contribute to a problem then act concerned about it later it reflects pretty poorly on you. Its one of the reasons I have such an issue with Trump voters to begin with.

Voting for Trump doesn't mean you're a racist or a sexist or a liar or a sexual predator or a disrespectful arsehole or any other thing you can attach to the man. But it does mean that none of those things were dealbreakers for you. It means you looked at the lies, the pussy grabbing, the "I like people who weren't captured", the feuding with a Gold Star family, the "I always wanted a purple heart but this is easier", the draft dodging, so on and so forth and you went "Yeah, I'm fine with this.". I mean, has a Presidential candidate ( nevermind president ) ever had the utter lack of decency, respect and empathy required to pick a fight with a family who lost a son in Iraq?

So yes, this kind of thing needs to be called out. Because honestly, the most dangerous things to America right now are A ) Normalizing Trump's behaviour and political style and B ) Letting it all pass without consequences. Trump *cannot* become America's new normal or it may as well just give up being a world power right now and rescind the union.

Which has dire ramifications for us all regardless of some Americans who like to throw out "Why do you care? You're <insert foreign nationality here>".








While that may be true it's also equally likely you are just throwing personal attacks over something mildly related and completely out of the blue due to a personal vendetta or beef you need to settle with Mr Moo over there.

Meow?
1405 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17

runec wrote:
Trump is a kind of a zenith of the sort of concerns Mystic just voiced. But those concerns were clearly not a dealbreaker for him when he voted. So yes, I think that needs to be called out. When you directly contribute to a problem then act concerned about it later it reflects pretty poorly on you. Its one of the reasons I have such an issue with Trump voters to begin with.

Voting for Trump doesn't mean you're a racist or a sexist or a liar or a sexual predator or a disrespectful arsehole or any other thing you can attach to the man. But it does mean that none of those things were dealbreakers for you. It means you looked at the lies, the pussy grabbing, the "I like people who weren't captured", the feuding with a Gold Star family, the "I always wanted a purple heart but this is easier", the draft dodging, so on and so forth and you went "Yeah, I'm fine with this.". I mean, has a Presidential candidate ( nevermind president ) ever had the utter lack of decency, respect and empathy required to pick a fight with a family who lost a son in Iraq?


I believe one aspect of the scenario is that the vast population that voted for President Trump simply were voting on the principle of "party over country".
Seeing as President Obama (Democrat) had the reigns for eight years, it was about time for someone from the Republican party to take control of the executive branch.
With that being said, I am implying that the notion that "because you voted for X then you support or overlook all of their behaviors" is not entirely accurate.
If anything this perspective focuses on the fallacy of a two-party system and how a third party attempting to interject into the "discussions" will only cause an imbalance, rather than getting a third party into the position they were in the running for.

Zenith or not, the major concern that MysticGon (OP) voiced is that the press has changed its overall perspective in how it manages its tone around the United States military and its active personnel which has changed the tone in which the country's citizens voices as a general rule.
It just comes off as being myopic when someone jumps into a thread, insults someone's decision in an election that has been over for a year now, and then tries to correlate the individual's perspective on the topic to his choice in the said election.


runec wrote:
So yes, this kind of thing needs to be called out. Because honestly, the most dangerous things to America right now are A ) Normalizing Trump's behaviour and political style and B ) Letting it all pass without consequences. Trump *cannot* become America's new normal or it may as well just give up being a world power right now and rescind the union.

Which has dire ramifications for us all regardless of some Americans who like to throw out "Why do you care? You're <insert foreign nationality here>".



I often hear things like this from people online.
"This cannot be the new normal."
"This cannot go without being answered."
It strikes me as to why those who are conservative focus so much on shitposting and half-assing their responses when people make such statements.

Nobody is "normalizing" President Trump's behavior.
Even conservatives are focusing on the oddity of President Trump's behavior as a means to troll those who have a more liberal/leftist mindset.
They know it is not normal and they flaunt that fact because it gets under the skin of others so easily.
I will agree that there are some conservatives (away from the trolling realm of the Internet) that are focused on President Trump's actions as not needing to be "reeled in".
At the same time, there are plenty of conservatives that have voiced concerns over President Trump's behavior (tweeting, brash personality, responding when not required, e.t.c..).

My overall point is that attacking someone for their vote appears dubious from the outside perspective.
The topic of discussion extended far before President Trump's win in last year's election.
Heck, it even goes beyond President Obama's two terms.
I am almost positive you can find a conservative who will call out President Obama for being disrespectful towards the military; while, on the same hand, showing a GIF/JPEG of President Trump saluting active military when boarding Air Force One.
It ends up being something that causes the entire thread to derail simply because of someone's nitpicking at someone's vote for the current President.
Humms 
13201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17
They get good respek

Still fighting that war on terror.
5018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17
based upon wars in the past, especially ww2 the vets are treated much better these days than days of old. but they deserve honor and respect not to mention assistance when they come back from the war front and just dumped off. they don't need drugs they need assistance and help, kindness, not to be forgotten because they came back. in today's world/media it seems if you die you are one of the lucky ones, if you come back you're probably going to have some sort of issue mentally and/or physically and they don't seem to care. they only care when we are at times of true war, but only vaguely then. sort of a shame really...
31315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17
Yes.

It gets just the right amount not to little not to much like in America where the military is honoured like gods sometimes.

I think how it is now is fine.
1509 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F / Texas
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17
Hmmmmmm well I'm afraid I don't know that much about this topic but I think it doesn't get as much recognition as it used to. Like was said, it feels more like an obligation to respect them than out of actual thankfulness now-a-days as well
45221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Online
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17
I think they've become politicized and associated with the republican party to a certain degree, and have suffered backlash because of that. They deserve respect, but they aren't the only thing the National anthem and flag stand for, and they shouldn't be used politically by the republicans because they damage the brand.

What I mean to say is, through no fault of their own, they have been pulled into law & order republicanism and used as a concept (wounded vets) to damage legitimate peaceful protests. Oh, and NRA loves connecting guns to stuff. There's just so many associations occurring on a psychological level that damage them.

They shouldn't be getting funding for idiotic projects that go crazy over budget either, but that's more in the uppermost echelons, and the average soldier deserves respect, just like any other human being.
runec 
40078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/10/17

Thug_Apple wrote:
While that may be true it's also equally likely you are just throwing personal attacks over something mildly related and completely out of the blue due to a personal vendetta or beef you need to settle with Mr Moo over there.

Meow?


Actually, aside from bitter disagreement over one issue, I think Mystic is one of the more reasonable voices on that side of the fence. He has resorted to trolling over Salt(tm) from time to time. But he's one of the few you can get to level with you like there's an actual human being behind the keyboard.

As for mildly related, as I said, Trump is an elephant in the room for this topic.

If I merely wanted to just personally attack Mystic I would not have just spent 4 paragraphs outlining my case to the forum's resident neutral party. I simply would have posted a dank meme and been done with it.



Cydoemus wrote:
I believe one aspect of the scenario is that the vast population that voted for President Trump simply were voting on the principle of "party over country".
Seeing as President Obama (Democrat) had the reigns for eight years, it was about time for someone from the Republican party to take control of the executive branch.
With that being said, I am implying that the notion that "because you voted for X then you support or overlook all of their behaviors" is not entirely accurate.


Oh, I missed this. For some reason you never ping my notifications when you quote me?

The principle of party over country is enough of a cancer by itself. As for the notion, I'm going to have to disagree with you. There's never been a presidential candidate for a major party that was this heinous in my lifetime. And none of his flaws were secrets. They were out there as matters of public record if not literally on tape and thus far he has panned out in doing exactly what everyone warned he would. Any one of his scandals should have ended him right there and then.

Additionally, I don't think party over country is that effective of a counterpoint. Because Trump had to go through a primary before he was a presidential candidate. Republicans chose his behaviour to represent them. The party leadership didn't like it but the people had spoken .

It would be different if Trump's scandals were secrets that had come to light like Hillary's emails. But every problem with Trump was right out there in the open the entire time if not straight from his own mouth. I mean he straight up launched his campaign with "and some I assume are good people".




Cydoemus wrote:Zenith or not, the major concern that MysticGon (OP) voiced is that the press has changed its overall perspective in how it manages its tone around the United States military and its active personnel which has changed the tone in which the country's citizens voices as a general rule. It just comes off as being myopic when someone jumps into a thread, insults someone's decision in an election that has been over for a year now, and then tries to correlate the individual's perspective on the topic to his choice in the said election.


But he did also note that the military is used as a political prop. Trump has intentionally pulled the military into the press as a prop ( See: NFL Anthem ) as well as repeatedly pulled the military into various scandals and feuds in the media. Heck, you could legitimately argue that the rate at which Trump generates press chaos and scandals keeps the media from even being able to focus on other issues for any length of time.

Also, I'm not being myopic I'm being cynical because that's where we are now in this, the Worst Timeline. >.>




Cydoemus wrote:
I often hear things like this from people online.
"This cannot be the new normal."
"This cannot go without being answered."
It strikes me as to why those who are conservative focus so much on shitposting and half-assing their responses when people make such statements.
Nobody is "normalizing" President Trump's behavior.


Now here we're going to have to disagree outright. Trump is a troll and trolls followed. The base of people he mobilized were not just minding their own business as normal conservatives then fell into shitposting/trolling because they felt they had no alternative. They already *were* doing those things. Trump just gave them a rally point and a mascot. It's not a bug, its a feature.

Normalizing his behaviour is pretty much the foremost strategy of his pundits, supporters and now the White House itself. It was also one of the biggest criticisms leveled at the media in the wake of the election.

Give this a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM



Cydoemus wrote:At the same time, there are plenty of conservatives that have voiced concerns over President Trump's behavior (tweeting, brash personality, responding when not required, e.t.c..).


But, see, that's the thing. There isn't. We're a year in and there's only a handful of prominent Conservative voices willing to go against the President. By and large the Republican party has been quite willing to complicity go along with all of this long as they get to keep their power. While those conservatives that have soured on Trump don't tend to speak up because to do so would be to admit they made a mistake and not just a mistake. But a mistake everyone warned them they were making which played out exactly as they were warned.

When it comes to American politics, Americans are absolutely loath to admit they were mistaken. That's why its hard to find anyone these days who will openly admit to voting for Bush and why there's still an alarming amount of people that believe Iraq had WMDs. Trump will go down the same way 10 years from now.




Cydoemus wrote:My overall point is that attacking someone for their vote appears dubious from the outside perspective.


And I will concede that point. I did have a "Dude, seriously? Come on." moment when I read the op and me and Mystic are kind of long past needing to write up lengthy critiques of one another. And this in particular was an extension of a very recent exchange between us.



Cydoemus wrote:
I am almost positive you can find a conservative who will call out President Obama for being disrespectful towards the military; while, on the same hand, showing a GIF/JPEG of President Trump saluting active military when boarding Air Force One.


Hell, I can name two off the top of my head that were straight up right wing media scandals under Obama: When a marine held an umbrella for him and when he saluted with a coffee cup in his hand. Those were played by Fox as the absolutely height of scandal and disrespect for the military


-OlE- 
1613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Nebraska
Online
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/10/17

Cydoemus wrote:



I believe one aspect of the scenario is that the vast population that voted for President Trump simply were voting on the principle of "party over country".
Seeing as President Obama (Democrat) had the reigns for eight years, it was about time for someone from the Republican party to take control of the executive branch.
With that being said, I am implying that the notion that "because you voted for X then you support or overlook all of their behaviors" is not entirely accurate.
If anything this perspective focuses on the fallacy of a two-party system and how a third party attempting to interject into the "discussions" will only cause an imbalance, rather than getting a third party into the position they were in the running for.



personally i am not even sure it is so much "party over country" as much as it is that certain conservative circles would rather vote for the devil himself than Hillary Clinton. (btw not implying trump is the devil here, i mean the literal devil in Christianity) admittedly i am biased because this is the impression i got from my evangelical conservative family. it didn't matter who the republicans trotted out, there was just no way in hell they were voting clinton. in a way i can understand that, i can understand not wanting to vote for clinton (hell i voted for her but it was very begrudging unenthusiastic vote lmao) what i can't understand is wanting and being excited to vote for trump. like i said, just my personal perspective of the situation
1379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/10/17
Maybe, some of them don't want our attention.
29022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/10/17

Hehaho1830 wrote:

I think they've become politicized and associated with the republican party to a certain degree, and have suffered backlash because of that. They deserve respect, but they aren't the only thing the National anthem and flag stand for, and they shouldn't be used politically by the republicans because they damage the brand.

What I mean to say is, through no fault of their own, they have been pulled into law & order republicanism and used as a concept (wounded vets) to damage legitimate peaceful protests. Oh, and NRA loves connecting guns to stuff. There's just so many associations occurring on a psychological level that damage them.

They shouldn't be getting funding for idiotic projects that go crazy over budget either, but that's more in the uppermost echelons, and the average soldier deserves respect, just like any other human being.


Now you see, the stigma that the military is attached to the Republicans is one thing I thought about with the lack of media coverage. But that's hard to prove and easily denied. But on the flip side. Aside from the last two the military has produced presidents from both parties.
790 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
99
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/10/17

MysticGon wrote:


Hehaho1830 wrote:

I think they've become politicized and associated with the republican party to a certain degree, and have suffered backlash because of that. They deserve respect, but they aren't the only thing the National anthem and flag stand for, and they shouldn't be used politically by the republicans because they damage the brand.

What I mean to say is, through no fault of their own, they have been pulled into law & order republicanism and used as a concept (wounded vets) to damage legitimate peaceful protests. Oh, and NRA loves connecting guns to stuff. There's just so many associations occurring on a psychological level that damage them.

They shouldn't be getting funding for idiotic projects that go crazy over budget either, but that's more in the uppermost echelons, and the average soldier deserves respect, just like any other human being.


Now you see, the stigma that the military is attached to the Republicans is one thing I thought about with the lack of media coverage. But that's hard to prove and easily denied. But on the flip side. Aside from the last two the military has produced presidents from both parties.


On the lack of media coverage the blame for that falls on the military. After Vietnam they took very strong steps to limit press coverage step that are still in place today You have to jump through so many hoops that most reporters just stopped trying
29022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/10/17

Cato_Sicarius wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


Hehaho1830 wrote:

I think they've become politicized and associated with the republican party to a certain degree, and have suffered backlash because of that. They deserve respect, but they aren't the only thing the National anthem and flag stand for, and they shouldn't be used politically by the republicans because they damage the brand.

What I mean to say is, through no fault of their own, they have been pulled into law & order republicanism and used as a concept (wounded vets) to damage legitimate peaceful protests. Oh, and NRA loves connecting guns to stuff. There's just so many associations occurring on a psychological level that damage them.

They shouldn't be getting funding for idiotic projects that go crazy over budget either, but that's more in the uppermost echelons, and the average soldier deserves respect, just like any other human being.


Now you see, the stigma that the military is attached to the Republicans is one thing I thought about with the lack of media coverage. But that's hard to prove and easily denied. But on the flip side. Aside from the last two the military has produced presidents from both parties.


On the lack of media coverage the blame for that falls on the military. After Vietnam they took very strong steps to limit press coverage step that are still in place today You have to jump through so many hoops that most reporters just stopped trying


This is true actually. The military has to preview and redact and sometimes requires the story cleared by the serviceman's next of kin before publishing. You have a point.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.