Grand Strategy for a Divided America

[mariomike]

Curious, I wonder if Milley is having the same conversation with adversaries of the US about dementia Joe.

It would not be the first time others have suggested GEN Milley served a president with dementia.

trump dementia - Google Search

www.google.ca

 

[Brad Sallows]

The suggestion Trump suffers, or suffered, from dementia is ridiculous. Try not to troll.

 

[OldSolduer]

The suggestion Trump suffers, or suffered, from dementia is ridiculous. Try not to troll.

Here's my legit question though:

Is the current POTUS suffering from dementia or some kind of debilitating cognitive function?

No one has officially said so - but a lot of "experts" think so.

 

[mariomike]

The suggestion Trump suffers, or suffered, from dementia is ridiculous. Try not to troll.

I did not suggest anyone has dementia. I knew it would be stepping on a political landmine to do so.

My reply was in response to QV ( Reply #718 ) "dementia Joe" post.

I was careful to reply "others have suggested".

I'm not a brain spesicialist. I don't think you are either.

All I know is what "others have suggested" about the two presidents GEN Milley has served under.

"Trump dementia" About 54,200,000 results

"Biden dementia" About 10,600,000 results

 

[Brad Sallows]

Could be dementia. Could be something else. Could be normal age-related decline (tires easily, a little bit forgetful, irritable - all common without being part of some exceptional underlying problem).

The charitable and most likely explanation, absent the opinion of someone knowledgeable who directly examines him, is just old age.

It's absurd how quickly people reach for the zebras whenever a president gets a little tongue-tied (particularly a Republican). At least in Biden's case there are a few more signs (keeping in mind he has an inveterate reputation for gaffes, irritability, and humbuggery).

 

[Brad Sallows]

I did not suggest anyone has dementia.

No, you just did your usual shtick of "I only know what I read in the news and here's another Google search" to stir the pot.

 

[QV]

Here's my legit question though:

Is the current POTUS suffering from dementia or some kind of debilitating cognitive function?

No one has officially said so - but a lot of "experts" think so.

Surely Milley, out of his ongoing concern for the cognitive function of the incumbent POTUS, has again taken it upon himself to reach out to all US adversaries and assure they will be warned in advance of any attack ordered by the democratically elected POTUS. Curious, does this include terrorist organizations or just China?

If not, than as Brad S put it: "Odd how situationally malleable the principle of military-subordinate-to-civilian has become lately."

 

[Remius]

No, you just did your usual shtick of "I only know what I read in the news and here's another Google search" to stir the pot.
So QVs dementia comment was fair game? But you chose to single out Mariomike’s response?

 

[mariomike]

No, you just did your usual shtick of "I only know what I read in the news and here's another Google search" to stir the pot.

My reply was to QV calling President Biden "dementia Joe".

From what I have read in this thread, GEN Milley questioned the former guy's state of mind.

The General knows the former guy and the present guy better than you, me, or QV.

So QVs dementia comment was fair game?

Apparently so.

OldSolduer said:

Is the current POTUS suffering from dementia or some kind of debilitating cognitive function?

More Americans say former Vice President Joe Biden has the mental clarity to be president versus Donald Trump, according to the latest Fox News poll released Sunday.

FOX News put it this way,

Fox News Poll Shows Americans Saying Biden More Mentally Sound Than Trump

A larger percentage of U.S. adults say they believe the Democratic presidential candidate has the traits best suited for the job.

www.newsweek.com

Apparently, if a POTUS can say, "Person, woman, man, camera, TV", he is good to go.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So QVs dementia comment was fair game?

No. As I do with many tendentious comments here, I would have let it slide.

But you chose to single out Mariomike’s response?

Yes, because I don't know what got up his nose so far about Trump, but he's having a hard time letting go of it and it's getting tiresome. It'd be OK to just let criticisms of a Democrat stand once in a while.

 

[Remius]

No. As I do with many tendentious comments here, I would have let it slide.



Yes, because I don't know what got up his nose so far about Trump, but he's having a hard time letting go of it and it's getting tiresome. It'd be OK to just let criticisms of a Democrat stand once in a while.

Sounds more like you ignore one troll that fits your side over another that doesn’t. The way I read it is that attributing dementia to Trump is ridiculous but it’s ok to do the same to Biden. I have no issues with either. They are both old men who say crazy and rambling things. But it’s disengenous to call one a troll over another especially when the one you called a troll didn’t even bring up dementia in the first place.

For me, I’m just glad that Milley kept a toddler from playing with power tools. I hope he’s doing the same for the current one as well if warranted.

 

[TheHead]

Speaking of toddlers.

 

[Weinie]

Sounds more like you ignore one troll that fits your side over another that doesn’t. The way I read it is that attributing dementia to Trump is ridiculous but it’s ok to do the same to Biden. I have no issues with either. They are both old men who say crazy and rambling things. But it’s disengenous to call one a troll over another especially when the one you called a troll didn’t even bring up dementia in the first place.

For me, I’m just glad that Milley kept a toddler from playing with power tools. I hope he’s doing the same for the current one as well if warranted.

Except that Mark Milley doesn't control the power tools. And to suggest that his actions somehow prevented WWIII because of the state of mind of the Orange man, veers well away from the prudent to the moronic. If, what is stated in the book is true, he should be replaced.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sounds more like you ignore one troll that fits your side over another that doesn’t.

Not at all. For example, if someone were to state that Michael Flynn pled guilty and was convicted, it would be strictly true but ignores a lot of context with respect to how the investigation was conducted and where pressure was applied in ways that not only disregarded customary practices and good sense but were sometimes unethical. And I would probably let that pass, having already made my point repeatedly (and now, again). And that would be ignoring a troll that doesn't "fit my side".

The way I read it is that attributing dementia to Trump is ridiculous but it’s ok to do the same to Biden.

Assuredly yes in Trump's case, because there is scant evidence - a trillion trillion search results because people write about it online because they wish it to be true doesn't mean a damn thing. Biden is less easily defended because the deterioration is so marked - the perpetual "calling a lid", the inattentiveness, the infrequent public appearances, the highly scripted press exposures, the easily-provoked outbursts of temper. I go with "age", but when people "on his side" talk and write about dementia, it becomes more credible than if it's just the "Don't Tread On Me" fringe.

Trump is the least warlike president in my lifetime. If Milley does know the man well, Milley knows this. There's no excuse for coming over all Chicken Little on his part, and no reason except playing to an audience and sending virtue signals.

 

[QV]

Not at all. For example, if someone were to state that Michael Flynn pled guilty and was convicted, it would be strictly true but ignores a lot of context with respect to how the investigation was conducted and where pressure was applied in ways that not only disregarded customary practices and good sense but were sometimes unethical. And I would probably let that pass, having already made my point repeatedly (and now, again). And that would be ignoring a troll that doesn't "fit my side".



Assuredly yes in Trump's case, because there is scant evidence - a trillion trillion search results because people write about it online because they wish it to be true doesn't mean a damn thing. Biden is less easily defended because the deterioration is so marked - the perpetual "calling a lid", the inattentiveness, the infrequent public appearances, the highly scripted press exposures, the easily-provoked outbursts of temper. I go with "age", but when people "on his side" talk and write about dementia, it becomes more credible than if it's just the "Don't Tread On Me" fringe.

Trump is the least warlike president in my lifetime. If Milley does know the man well, Milley knows this. There's no excuse for coming over all Chicken Little on his part, and no reason except playing to an audience and sending virtue signals.

This is a very sensible analysis and post. I learn a lot from posts like this. Unfortunately I ate too many crayons as a child to measure up to this.

 

[brihard]

Not at all. For example, if someone were to state that Michael Flynn pled guilty and was convicted, it would be strictly true but ignores a lot of context with respect to how the investigation was conducted and where pressure was applied in ways that not only disregarded customary practices and good sense but were sometimes unethical. And I would probably let that pass, having already made my point repeatedly (and now, again). And that would be ignoring a troll that doesn't "fit my side".

Yeah, no. Another poster asked explicitly “what was Flynn’s crime?” I answered that accurately and precisely. That’s not a troll. It was correct, relevant, and replying to a direct question. You as a third party not liking it does not make me, or my reply , “a troll”. “I dislike” =/= “the other guy is trolling”.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I answered that accurately and precisely.

Not really. You often omit the details of the Flynn investigation and prosecution, leaving out entirely the nature of the crime(s) being investigated in the first place and how a combination of incompetence, undue influence, and partisanship led to a conviction on a process crime that wasn't even considered such by the first-hand interrogation team. Any tendentious statement is a kind of troll, and your statement - in view of all that is public knowledge about the matter - was tendentious.

 

[brihard]

Not really. You often omit the details of the Flynn investigation and prosecution, leaving out entirely the nature of the crime(s) being investigated in the first place and how a combination of incompetence, undue influence, and partisanship led to a conviction on a process crime that wasn't even considered such by the first-hand interrogation team. Any tendentious statement is a kind of troll, and your statement - in view of all that is public knowledge about the matter - was tendentious.

It was accurate, and the question asked wasn’t about those details. He was charged with a felony. He pled guilty and a conviction was entered, remaining until it was pardoned by the president he demonstrated very partisan loyalty to. A pardon doesn’t mean no crime was committed nor that a person wasn’t guilty of it. It’s simply the President, under the powers he has, deciding it’s all good and it can go away.

In America the courts are the arbiters of whether a crime has been committed, and through those processes he was found to have. His conviction was not vacated by appeal. He didn’t have to plead guilty, he chose to, despite being a favoured member of the president’s circle.

As I said: a question was directly asked by someone, and I answered it. You don’t like the answer but that makes it neither false nor trolling.

 

[Brad Sallows]

the question asked wasn’t about those details.

Why are you certain of that? The question: "What was General Flynn's crime?" leaves unstated whether the questioner is interested in the crime for which he was investigated, or the crime for which he was convicted. More information is useful. Obviously you're not opposed to more information, since you've volunteered some about pardons.

 

[Kirkhill]

At risk of being defined as a troll

My Flynn question, poorly qualified, was to suggest that Flynn was originally taken to task for, and investigated for, the action of, before his boss took over executive authority, contacting a foreign power, to wit Russia, and informing Russia of the incoming government's position. Personally I think that was sensible. Equally I have no trouble with Milley openly declaring himself a partisan agent of the incoming administration to tell other nations of the incoming administration's intent.

But I don't believe that Milley so identified himself. Nor did he act as an agent. When he acted he was purportedly acting as an advisor to the executive authority he was disavowing to a potential enemy. Equally he acted, in communication with the potential incoming Speaker Pelosi, in such a manner as, again, to disavow his Commander in Chief. The man set as his executive authority by the US constitution.

The General owes the man nothing. However he is still required to salute the rank.