89% of Military Said “To Hell” With Chumph’s Silly Parade

The Military is just not in to marching in the Chumph’s puppet parade..

Your Military

We asked, you voted: 89 percent said no to Trump’s military parade

As the Pentagon continues to work on parade options to present to President Donald Trump, an overwhelming number of Military Times readers have weighed in: Don’t have one.

The informal poll was launched Wednesday after news reports that Trump had requested a military parade and that the Pentagon was working on parade options for him.

As of Thursday afternoon, more than 51,000 readers had responded. The majority, 89 percent, responded “No, It’s a waste of money and troops are too busy.”

The other 11 percent responded “Yes, it’s a great opportunity to show off U.S. military might.”

On Thursday, Pentagon press secretary Dana White said any parade plans were in the very beginning stages, and that the Pentagon had tapped the Army to lead the effort.

“We are looking at several different options right now,” White said. “The Army is the executive agent. But we don’t have those options yet. Its still in nascent stages and when we have those options we’ll provide that to the White House and the president will decide.”

 

General Lambastes Chump – “We do not have a Commander in Chief right now…”

Used to be the Military reliably supported Republicans… Lokks like the Chumph has toasted that relationship!

Ret. major general pens jaw-dropping damnation of Trump parade: ‘We do not have a commander in chief right now’

 

 

Retired Major General Paul Eaton on Wednesday responded to the news that President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to begin preparing for a military parade to celebrate the country’s service members and fighting hardware.

The group Vote Vets released Eaton’s statement on Wednesday.

“Donald Trump has continually shown himself to have authoritarian tendencies, and this is just another example,” the statement from Eaton said. “For someone who just declared it was ‘treasonous’ to not applaud him, and for someone who has, in the past, admired the tactics of everyone from Saddam Hussein to Vladimir Putin, it is clear that a military parade isn’t about saluting the military — it’s about making a display of the military saluting him.”

“The military is not Donald Trump’s to use and abuse in this way,” the retired major general continued, insisting that the U.S. military would not be “reduced to stagecraft to prop up Donald Trump’s image.”

“Unfortunately, we do not have a commander in chief, right now, as much as we have a banana republic strong man,” Eaton concluded.

 

Mugabe Going Down?

The end of all dictators…

Zimbabwe’s Military Seizes Power And Holds President Mugabe Amid Rumors Of A Coup

The military said the 93-year-old president was “safe and sound.”

 Zimbabwe’s military seized powerearly on Wednesday targeting “criminals” around President Robert Mugabe but gave assurances on national television that the 93-year-old leader and his family were “safe and sound”.

Soldiers and armored vehicles blocked roads to the main government offices, parliament and the courts in central Harare, while taxis ferried commuters to work nearby, a Reuters witness said.

Mugabe, the self-styled ‘Grand Old Man’ of African politics, has led Zimbabwe for the last 37 years. In contrast to his elevated status on the continent, Mugabe is reviled in the West as a despot whose disastrous handling of the economy and willingness to resort to violence to maintain power destroyed one of Africa’s most promising states.

“We are only targeting criminals around him (Mugabe) who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country in order to bring them to justice,” Major General SB Moyo, Chief of Staff Logistics, said on television.

Neither Mugabe nor his wife Grace, who has been vying to succeed her husband as president, have been seen or heard from.

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma spoke to Mugabe on Wednesday, and Mugabe told Zuma that he was confined to his home but that he was fine, the South African presidency said in a statement.

He said in a televised statement that he will be sending an envoy to meet with Mugabe and assess the situation, and will send a second envoy to Angola “so that there is a closer interaction between us and the Zimbabweans.” The South African Defense Force will not get involved, he added.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change called for a peaceful return to constitutional democracy, adding it hoped the military intervention would lead to the “establishment of a stable, democratic and progressive nation state”.

Zuma – speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) – expressed hope there would be no unconstitutional changes of government in Zimbabwe as that would be contrary to both SADC and African Union positions.

Zuma urged Zimbabwe’s government and the military “to resolve the political impasse amicably.”

“As soon as we have accomplished our mission, we expect that the situation will return to normalcy.”…

 

Yet Another Chumph Loss – Transgender in Military

Adding to that long Chumph losing streak…

US court bars Trump from reversing transgender troops policy

A federal judge in Washington on Monday barred President Donald Trump’s administration from excluding transgender people from military service.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that transgender service members who had sued over Trump’s policy were likely to win their lawsuit. She directed a return to the situation that existed before Trump announced his new policy this summer.

Trump had ordered a return to the policy in place before June 2016, under which transgender individuals were barred from joining the military and service members could be discharged for being transgender. Under President Barack Obama, that policy was changed to allow transgender service members.

The Trump administration may appeal Kollar-Kotelly’s decision, but for now, the proposed ban remains unenforceable.

“We are enormously relieved for our plaintiffs and other transgender service members,” said Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, an attorney handling the lawsuit.

“Their lives have been devastated since Trump first tweeted he was reinstating the ban,” Minter said. “They are now able to serve on equal terms with everyone else.”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, asked about the ruling at the White House briefing, said it was something that had just been announced and said the Justice Department was reviewing it.

Trump announced on Twitter in July that the “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” He followed with an August memo directing the Pentagon to extend indefinitely a ban on transgender individuals joining the military, and gave Defense Secretary Jim Mattis six months to come up with a policy on “how to address” those who are currently serving.

Under the Obama administration, the Department of Defense had announced in 2016 that service members could not be discharged solely based on their gender identity. Transgender individuals were to be allowed to enlist in the military effective Jan. 1, 2018.

Minter said the new court ruling means they will be able to do that.

 

John Kelly Lied in Comments About Frederica Wilson

And here’s the tape –

Frederica Wilson not only did not credit herself for the funding of the FBI Building in Florida as Kelly stated, she claimed to have fast tracked the naming of the Building, thanked then Republican Speaker Boehner, and Marco Rubio for getting the building named for two FBI Agents killed in action, in record time at the behest of the FBI.

Worse  – when spent the second half of her speech, prising the fallen FBI Agents and the FBI and Law Enforcement for protecting the community.

The General’s “barrel” isn’t empty…

It’s full of shit.

Here is her whole speech –

 

Chumph to Black Soldier’s Widow – “He Knew What He Signed Up For”

The Chumph’s racism oozes every single time he talks to a person of color…

Have tried working with this Congresswoman before on issues in Haiti, and can’t really say a lot positive about her. However I don’t believe she is lying as the CNN interviewer here implies.

Trump Told Army Widow Her Husband Knew ‘What He Signed Up For,’ Congresswoman Says

“I said this man has no feelings for anyone. This is a young woman with child who is grieved to her soul,” Rep. Frederica Wilson says.

 Florida congresswoman described President Donald Trump’s phone call to the widow of a soldier killed during an ambush in Niger as “insensitive” after the president reportedly said the man “must’ve known what he signed up for.”

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) was in a car with Myeshia Johnson, the pregnant widow of Army Sgt. La David Johnson, when Trump called her Tuesday and spoke for about five minutes, according to South Florida’s NBC affiliate. Wilson said she heard the conversation on speakerphone.

“Sarcastically he said: ‘But you know he must have known what he signed up for,’” Wilson recounted to NBC6. “How could you say that to a grieving widow? I couldn’t believe… and he said it more than once. I said this man has no feelings for anyone. This is a young woman with child who is grieved to her soul.”

 Follow

Rep Frederica Wilson ✔@RepWilson

Sgt. La David Johnson is a hero. @realDonaldTrump does not possess the character, empathy or grace to be president of the United States.

10:25 PM – Oct 17, 2017 · North Miami Beach, FL

Wilson, speaking to CNN, said her community was angry about the comments and described Johnson as a local hero.

“We don’t have many heroes in our young men in Miami-Dade County, but he was a hero for us,” the congresswoman told host Don Lemon. When asked what her immediate reaction was, she said: “I asked them to give me the phone, because I wanted to speak with him. And I was going to curse him out. That was my reaction… I was livid.”

The White House declined to comment on the account in statements given to The Washington Post and an ABC affiliate.

“The president’s conversations with the families of American heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice are private,” an unnamed official said in the statement.

Four Green Berets were killed in an ambush in Niger earlier this month, and two others were wounded. Following a question about why he hadn’t spoken about their deaths publicly or called troops’ families, Trump said Monday that he had written personal letters and that he planned to call later. He then used the opportunity to falsely assert that his predecessors “didn’t make calls” themselves.

Former President Barack Obama frequently called the families of soldiers killed in action and visited those wounded during his administration. President George W. Bush visited troops at the Walter Reed medical center 16 times before he left office.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed on Twitter late Tuesday that Trump had called all four families of those killed, saying he offered “condolences on behalf of the country.”

Trump returned to the subject Tuesday, using the death of Chief of Staff John Kelly’s sonin 2010 to illustrate Obama’s record on calling bereaved families, saying his predecessor did not call in that instance. Obama invited Kelly and his wife, Karen, to a breakfast in 2011 for Gold Star families who have lost children in combat. They were seated at a table with first lady Michelle Obama.

Wilson on Tuesday described Trump’s call as “insensitive” in an interview to a local ABC affiliate. She was with Myeshia Johnson and her two children, ages 2 and 6, as she watched the casket carrying her husband arrive at Miami International Airport.

“He should have not have said that,” Wilson told ABC 10, before repeating, “He shouldn’t have said it.”

 

Another Chumph Lie About Obama Implodes At John Kelly’s Family Expense

Another of the POS Chumph lies, this one embarassing his Chief of Staff John Kelly

The Chumph’s lie – that no other President had called the parents or spouses of our servicemen who had died in the line of duty.

This is not only criminally embarrassing to John Kelly and his family but shows a complete lack of empathy for this honorable man and his family’s feelings to be used as props for the POS’s lies.

The Plastic Patriots waiving their little flags in their false support of our Military who don’t have a problem with this or support the Chumph need to outed for the hypocritical POS’s they are.

John Kelly and his wife sat with Michelle Obama at Gold Star family gathering after son’s death: report

 

President Donald Trump politicized the death of his chief of staff’s son to slur his predecessor — and it appears he may not be telling the whole truth.

Trump claimed Monday that President Barack Obama did not call the families of slain service members, and he suggested Tuesday that the former president had disrespected retired Gen. John Kelly by neglecting to call when his Marine son was killed.

“You could ask General Kelly if he got a call from Obama,” Trump said.

It’s not clear that Obama offered condolences to Kelly by phone, but CNN’s Jeff Zeleny said the retired general and his wife joined first lady Michelle Obama at her table during a White House breakfast for Gold Star families in 2011.

 Follow

Jeff Zeleny 

✔@jeffzeleny

Gen. Kelly and wife attended Gold Star families breakfast at WH in 2011 and sat at Mrs. Obama’s table, person familiar with breakfast says.

12:20 PM – Oct 17, 2017

The Associated Press confirmed that White House visitor logs showed that the Kelly family attended the event.

“President Obama engaged families of the fallen and wounded warriors throughout his presidency through calls, letters, visits to [Arlington Cemetery], visits to Walter Reed, visits to Dover, and regular meetings with Gold Star families at the White House and across the country,” a former White House official told Politico.

Second Lt. Robert Kelly was killed at age 29 while leading a platoon in Afghanistan in November 2010, and his father delivered a speech four days later about military sacrifices and the troops’ growing isolation from society.

His father has largely avoided speaking publicly about his family’s loss since then, and asked the Marine Corps officer who introduced him ahead of that impassioned speech not to mention his son.

“We are only one of 5,500 American families who have suffered the loss of a child in this war,” Kelly told the Washington Post six years ago. “The death of my boy simply cannot be made to seem any more tragic than the others.”

 

Gonna Have a War

Kim Jung Il comes along just in time to possibly save a rapidly failing Chump Presidency.

About the only way to save the Chumph at this point is to start a war.

It would seem that the US Military has been ordered to rapidly shift assets to the Pacific. Don’t be real surprised if our Atlantic fleets suddenly are found in the Pacific.

Two insane jackass dictators will have their war.

On the other front the Chumph may be planning to hit Iran. Starting a war where there isn’t one.

 

Lighting a Short Fuse – the Chumph Goes After the LGBQT Community

In a tweet more likely aimed at diverting the public’s attention away from Chumph crimes and failure to pass legislation, the punk-in-charge decides to take on the most powerful minority in America – the LGBQT community.

Bad move.

Out trots whipping boy Sessions to defend the Chumph’s attack on Transgender Military personnel and to try and overturn Civil Rights Law banning discrimination against the LGBQT community.

Trump Administration Argues Federal Civil Rights Law Does Not Protect Gay Employees

 

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in the 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination against gay and bisexual employees. The DOJ’s brief was not solicited by the court or any party to the case. Rather, in an unusual move, the Trump administration elected to weigh in with an aggressively anti-gay stance, arguing that gay Americans have no protection against workplace discrimination under federal law. Its decision is unsurprising in light of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ vigorous opposition to LGBTQ rights.

Title VII does not explicitly outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in employment. However, it does forbid “discrimination … because of sex.” which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets to encompass anti-gay discrimination. For at least 15 years, many federal courts have agreed, and in April, the 7^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Title VII does, indeed, protect gay employees. Both the 7^thCircuit and the EEOC relied on three theories of sex discrimination:

1. “But-for” sex discrimination

This theory holds that anti-gay discrimination qualifies as sex discrimination because, but for the gay person’s sex, she would not be discriminated against. Imagine, for example, that a homophobic employer fires a female worker because she marries a woman. But for that worker’s sex, she wouldn’t have been fired: Her boss has no issue with men marrying women, only women marrying women. The employee’s sex was fundamental to the discrimination she suffered—so it can therefore aptly be described as sex discrimination.

2. Sex stereotyping

The Supreme Court held in 1989’s Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that sex stereotyping is a form of sex discrimination. Thus, when an employer mistreats a worker because she fails to conform to certain gender norms, it has engaged in discrimination “because of sex.” Initially, sex stereotyping was applied to masculine women and feminine men. But as the 7^th Circuit pointed out, gay people are “the ultimate case of failure to conform” to sex stereotypes, which, in America, have historically held that men should date only women and women should date only men. By intimately associating with people of the same sex, gay individuals violate this stereotype. And so, when they are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, they have suffered sex stereotyping.

3. Associational sex discrimination

Under this theory, anti-gay bias constitutes sex discrimination in much the same way that anti-miscegenation laws constitute racial discrimination. The Supreme Court has held that when a state prohibits a white person from marrying a black person, it has engaged in discrimination because of race. Similarly, the 7^th Circuit ruled that when an employer mistreats a gay person for associating with a partner of the same sex, it has engaged in discrimination “because of sex.” Consider, for instance, a gay man who places a photo of his husband on his desk at work, and is fired for it. In effect, his employer is punishing him for being a man and intimately associating with another man. Change the sex of one partner and the discrimination disappears. This reveals, as the 7^th Circuit wrote, that “the discrimination rests on distinctions drawn according to sex.”

This fall, the full 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will evaluate these theories after the circuit’s chief judge essentially urged the court to adopt them. It is this litigation that spurred the Justice Department to declare that Title VII does not, in fact, protect gay employees. (Under President Barack Obama, the agency took no position on the matter, although it did determine that Title VII protects transgender workers.) By filing this brief, the DOJ has created an odd situation in which one federal agency (the EEOC) disagrees with another (the Justice Department) in federal court.

The DOJ’s primary argument is that Congress’ failure to add “sexual orientation” to Title VII—either in 1964 or in the years since—proves that the law does not currently cover gay employees. This theory is rather strange because the absence of legislative action is not typically considered to be a useful tool of statutory interpretation. Congress’ failure to act could mean that it does not wish for Title VII to encompass sexual orientation. But it could also mean that Congress believes the law already protects gay employees. More than 125 members of Congress recently signed a brief asserting their belief that Title VII currently bars sexual orientation discrimination. At the very least, the absence of clear legislative guidance on the matter is obviously ambiguous.

 

To repudiate the three theories of sex discrimination listed above, the DOJ deploys some extremely questionable logic:

• In response to the “but-for” theory, it argues that homophobic employers discriminate against gay men and women equally, taking sex out of the equation. But sex cannot be removed from the equation. When an employer discriminates against a white woman for dating a black man or vice versa, it is still guilty of race discrimination: Race was obviously the key factor in its discrimination. Similarly, when an employer discriminates against a man for dating a man, it is guilty of sex discrimination, because sex was the foundational element of its bias.

• In response to the sex stereotyping theory, the DOJ argues that gay men and lesbians may only raise a claim of sex stereotyping if they face discrimination because of their mannerisms—not because of their sexual orientation. So, according to the DOJ, a lesbian who “has masculine manners or clothing” may raise a sex stereotyping claim, but a traditionally feminine lesbian may not. Likewise, an effeminate gay man may suffer sex stereotyping, but a traditionally masculine gay man does not. To reach this conclusion, the DOJ asserts that employers may hold “moral beliefs” about sexuality that “need not be based on views about gender at all.” This argument simply defies logic. Homophobic employers may well hold “moral beliefs” about gay men and women. But those beliefs are always rooted in a stereotype about how men and women should behave.

• In response to the associational discrimination theory, the DOJ argues that discrimination against gay people based on their intimate associations is unlike discrimination against interracial couples. The brief insists that discrimination against interracial couples is rooted in a belief that one race is superior to the other—and that true sex discrimination is similarly rooted in beliefs that one sex is “inferior.” But this presumption is utterly incoherent. Everyone knows that interracial marriage bans constitute race discrimination because they take the race of each partner into account. It’s no different with anti-gay discrimination: When an employer discriminates against a gay person, it is objecting to his intimate association with someone of the same sex. You simply cannot escape this fundamental sex-based consideration, which Title VII proscribes.

The left-leaning 2^nd Circuit is almost certain to side with the EEOC and against the DOJ. But this fight is ultimately heading to the Supreme Court—and the Trump administration has now signaled loudly that it will encourage the justices to rule against gay employees. That may be disappointing to civil rights advocates, but it is not devastating to the cause. With arguments this unintelligible, the Justice Department seems unlikely to change anybody’s mind.

 

Vets Begin to Go After the Chumph – Navy SEAL Shreds Chumph Lies

Vets are pissed to hear about how the “Chumph reformed the VA’. And are beginning to call him out on his lies.

 

Military Did Not Appreciate the Chumph Using Military Widow as a Political Freak Show

 

One look at this picture tells you exactly how the Military felt how Military Leaders thought about the Chump psychologically raping a dead soldier’s widow for political points.

That freak-show turned my stomach last night. Especially because it was the Chumph’s attempt at gaining points for “fighting terrorist” which led to him ordering the ill conceived raid which resulted in deaths in the first place.

I am massively and utterly amazed the MSM commentators were stupid and venal enough to let him get away with that shit.

Ex-NSA analyst rips Trump for exploiting ‘trapped’ widow: ‘She didn’t want to stand up — we know why’

Former NSA analyst and columnist John Schindler reacted in horror on Tuesday after seeing Trump “exploit” Carryn Owens, the wife of slain Chief Petty Officer William (Ryan) Owens.

According to Schindler, the president crossed the line during his address to a joint session of Congress when he used Carryn Owens as a political prop.

Schindler immediately expressed his disgust on Twitter.

Follow

John Schindler

✔@20committee

Snr Chief Owens’ widow…for God’s sake leave this poor woman alone.

Trump gloating, of course…talking the Bible.

10:01 PM – 28 Feb 2017

• 440440 Retweets

• 1,2991,299 likes

Follow

John Schindler

✔@20committee

Anybody who saw the faces of the Joint Chiefs tonight when the cam hit them knows exactly what the US military thinks of Trump.

10:16 PM – 28 Feb 2017

• 2,1852,185 Retweets

• 4,4054,405 likes

16h

John Schindler

✔ @20committee

Anybody who saw the faces of the Joint Chiefs tonight when the cam hit them knows exactly what the US military thinks of Trump.

Follow

Jason Bainbridge @WhileInTheWild

@20committee I like to call it resting military coup face pic.twitter.com/z92PQ0yVxC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvu1d3BasDU

 

One More Thing For the CBC

If the CBC is serious about opposing the Chumph – then I have one more suggestion – Play the Lee Atwater Republican game against them.

Pass a Law which allows anyone convicted of a minor drug or other crime to have the choice of joining the military for 4 years, or going to prison to serve their sentence. Make it applicable at the State and Federal Court level, which I think you can do because of a tweak in the law concerning the Military. Should such such prisoner serve their Military term and receive an Honorable Discharge then the should receive all the benefits accrued by their service, as well as a full restoral of any Voting Rights they may have lost, both while doing their service, and after. Their criminal record should be expunged.

Should the commit a crime while serving, then they are subject to any Military Justice that applies and penalties, as well as after serving those penalties, the will have to serve whatever time they were original sentenced to minus time thy have served in the active Military.

Politically this should be easy to defend. And very difficult for Republicans to defeat.

What it accomplishes is a couple of things which are important.

1. It short circuits the school to jail pipeline.
2. It kneecaps the private prison system
3. It opens up training a job opportunities for youth
4. The Military experience will definitely install some discipline
5. It provides a pipeline for education where none existed before

And even better from my view in fighting the Chump Reich

1. It increases the number of minorities in the Military, which…Prevents the Chumph from using the Military against Minorities
2. Trains young folks in self-defense methods and how to use guns to defend their neighborhoods from Trump racist thugs
3. It gets some of the hardheads off the street an into something productive

Now – the Rethugs are going to use every dirty trick in the book to fuck over minorities, You – the CBC, need to be their Achilles heel.

 

Military Supports Clinton 3-1 in Donations

In a reversal of a long standing difference, the active Military are donating near 3 – 1 in favor of Clinton.

Members of the military giving three times as much to Clinton as to Trump

Active and retired members of the military have been showing far more support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton than for her Republican rival, at least as measured by the checks they’ve written to her campaign.

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

All major branches of the armed forces – including the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have favored Clinton to a much greater degree than GOP nominee Donald Trump. Members of the Army have contributed more than other branches of the service this cycle, giving a total of $191,712 to the two presidential hopefuls, 72 percent of which went to Clinton.

Meanwhile, it’s the Air Force that has given the largest portion of its contributions to Trump, though it still favors Clinton by a lot. Trump received 39 percent of the $110,711 given to the two candidates by people connected to the Air Force.

(Our analysis includes donors giving more than $200; candidates don’t have to provide identifying information about smaller donors to the public.)

If this seems surprising, consider this: Up until the primaries were over, the military favorite was Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), who received $374,600. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) came in a close third after Clinton.

“People assume the military leans Republican, but I think that has fundamentally changed in the 21st century,” retired Rear Adm. Jamie Barnett said.

Barnett, who has contributed $600 to Clinton campaign so far this cycle, also said that since a single person in the Oval Office can commit the country to war, those in uniform are certainly willing to put some money on the line to help elect a leader they believe has the right skill set. “The last thing we want to see is our men and women in uniform going into a war we don’t need” due to ego, lack of judgment or some other personal flaw, Barnett added.

The donation numbers are in stark contrast to the Military Times poll of preferences.

Retired members of the military seem particularly aghast at the thought of a Trump presidency, based on their contributions this cycle. Of the $135,392 that came from former service members so far, only 2 percent has gone to the brash businessman’s campaign.

Of course, history has shown that campaign contributions don’t necessarily reflect the results at the polls. Despite Obama’s victory in contributions from the military, 2012 Gallup data showed that veterans preferred Romney by 24 points over Obama.

Ramapo College Professor Jeremy Teigen, who studies military and politics, warned that while Clinton — and before her Obama — may be more popular with members of the military who donate to candidates, “that does not mirror the partisan voting tendencies of the military overall. We know, for instance, that the officer ranks trend substantially toward the GOP while the enlisted ranks trend less so but still toward Republicans.”

That Republican leaning has become more pronounced since the draft ended in the 1970s, Teigen said. “Now that the military is entirely self-selected, mostly male, and somewhat more likely to come from conservative social contexts, the men in the armed forces vote for Republican candidates and identify with the Republican Party more than not,” he said. (Teigen noted that less is known about the political leanings of women in the military.)

The New York Times reported on Thursday that veterans are turning to Trump, feeling abandoned by establishment politicians. Veterans featured in the story have called the nominee, “genuine,” and “a breath of fresh air.”

But University of Maryland Professor Emeritus David Segal said he’s seen more veterans against Trump than for him.

“Honestly, there’s not much enthusiasm for Clinton either, but veterans around me seem to have far less distaste for [Clinton] than Trump,” Segal said. “Trump does not value veterans, and in fact, insults families of veterans who have died in combat,” a reference to Trump’s tirades against the Khan family, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in July.

Segal, who directs the Center for Research on Military Organization, said there are also concerns among military members that Trump is likely to get the U.S. into another war. He said Clinton, though somewhat hawkish herself, has a good understanding of working diplomacy, having served as secretary of state,

Earlier this year, Trump showed strong support for the use of nuclear weapons during a television interview, saying, “Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?” He continued, “Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?”

 

A Powerful Political Ad By Clinton

My late Father in Law was on the beach on D-Day in Normandy. One of my late Uncles was hit driving landing craft onto the beach at Anzio, and would later be part of the infantry which freed several of the Nazi death camps. Another Uncle served in the Philippines…So Trump’s line about McCain “Being a hero only because he was captured” is particularly insulting.

 

Roland Martin Takes Bill O’Reilly to School on Black Patriotism

This is fun!