2016 Postmortem

kentuck

(112,767 posts) Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:05 PM Dec 2016

Loyalty above all.

Donald Trump values loyalty above all else when he is choosing someone for a position. If he/she is the type of person that would question a position of Donald's, they will not be considered. I don't see any person that has been nominated that will say "No" to Donald.

The manner in which Trump is putting generals into different positions is rather troublesome, in my opinion. If someone were looking to take control of our military could do it no better than what Donald Trump has done up to this point.

For NSA adviser, Lt General Michael Flynn will have total access to all intelligence, and he is very loyal to Trump.

And at the Defense Department, Trump wants "Mad Dog" Mattis. He is a well-respected Marine Corps General, who led the troops at Fallujah. If Trump did not think he was loyal to him, he would not have nominated him for Defense Secretary. All the generals, of all the armed forces, would be under the Secretary of Defense. They would be hesitant to make any decisions, without approval from the very top.

At Homeland Security, Trump wants another general. He would have access to all the police forces in all our local and city governments across the country. This is a very powerful position. If this is another loyalist position for Trump, then we could see how it might make someone a little apprehensive.

Who would be the "balance"? Where would the balance come from? If the Commander in Chief wanted to use the military or police forces in a questionable way, who would stop him? Where are the checks and balances??

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Loyalty above all. (Original Post) kentuck Dec 2016 OP

It's just the same old corrupt patronage system The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #1

I hadn't thought of it this way... potone Dec 2016 #2

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #3

The Velveteen Ocelot

(120,846 posts)

1. It's just the same old corrupt patronage system

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:24 PM

Dec 2016

Last edited Thu Dec 8, 2016, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)

found in so many failing states. The King (dictator, "president," whatever) selects aides and lackeys who he knows will be loyal to him, whether or not they are actually qualified for the position. Presidents have often rewarded a big donor with an ambassadorship to a friendly, harmless country; the ambassador could thereby enjoy the perks of travel and prestige that came with the job while the career Foreign Service employees did the actual work. This practice stunk a little but seldom caused any real harm so it was tolerated and widely practiced. Ambassadors to powerful and important countries still had to have some real qualifications, though.

But Trump has decided to turn his entire Cabinet into a big, smelly stew of patronage. Kiss Trump's ass and swear absolute loyalty and you'll get a much better job than an ambassadorship to, say, Monaco. Suck his tiny dick and maybe you'll get State (although that doesn't seem to have worked for Mitt Romney).

potone

(1,701 posts)

2. I hadn't thought of it this way...

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:44 PM

Dec 2016

but you are right. This looks like an attempt to co-opt the military into supporting his policies. But he may be in for a surprise: most high-level generals are capable of independent thought, and some may even be accepting jobs in his administration in order to try to curtail his behavior.

Of course, this may just be my desperate attempt to try to see something that isn't disastrous in what we are facing for the next four years, assuming the country–and world–lasts that long. Time will tell...

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Reply to this discussion