• blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    I know hes doing it for shitty republican reasons, but are dems really gonna rally around more military spending?

    • WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      He’ll just hold all the spots open in case Trump is reelected. That means this time the insurrection will have military backing. Kind of like the Supreme Court seat.

      • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is a terrifying scenario, but unlikely and I don’t think his scheme.

        He isn’t holding out for alternate candidates. He just wants the Pentagon to reverse its abortion policy. If he were doing this to get alternative candidates approved, it would require alternate recommendations coming from elsewhere in the military, which isn’t occurring, and the Senate democrats wouldn’t approve them anyway.

        • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The President is the Commander in Chief - he could override all those decisions on who to promote, theoretically. At least that’s how I understand it.

          If they have a smart group that is actually planning this, that group could then vet a bunch of other people that their data suggests would be more amenable to their agenda and present a list of alternate promotions to the Republican president, which he could then order the military to make happen.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Its the department of defense, its in the executive branch, the president can, and trump did many times, make spots open when they want. So this has no bearing on any future presidencies. Its just military spending now for the already most expensive military in the world with a tendency to bomb other countries. What a shame that they cant do that as efficiently right now.

        • MagicShel@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          8 months ago

          He’s only holding up military leadership. Whatever he’s saving is a tiny drop in the ocean of military spending. What he’s really doing is killing readiness. He’s also making sure that these spots can’t be filled by anyone who would owe allegiance to the Democrat party (despite the fact that none of them should owe allegiance to either party).

          This is laying the groundwork for a coup and hurting our ability to prepare for and participate in conflicts.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              How about “our” ability to put down any protests against the Trump administration? Because that’s what this is going to lead to. You don’t want us to be able to kill people in other countries? Fine. But this is going to get people in this country killed if they have their way.

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              We don’t always get to choose when a conflict is thrust upon us. If an ally or ourselves got attacked and we were unable to respond effectively, that would go very badly for us. It wouldn’t keep us out of the conflict, but a lot of people would die without effective leadership.

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not about military spending. It’s about having leadership in place if we ever go to war. This ass-hat is destabilizing our military when we really need to be ready.